A VERY TRUMPY CHRISTMAS:  PERVERTING ASYLUM REGS; USING VULNERABLE KIDS AS BAIT; ORBITING REFUGEES TO DEADLY ASYLUM-FREE ZONES; SCREWING WITH LEGAL IMMIGRANTS; DEATH CAMPS; STAR CHAMBERS; MORE PROSECUTORS AS JUDGES; & OTHER “GIFTS” FROM THE REGIME & ITS ARTICLE III JUDICIAL ENABLERS — Get The “Holiday Horror Update” On All Of America’s Human Rights Abuses & Gratuitous Cruelty From The Gibson Report 12-23-19 

Elizabeth Gibson
Elizabeth Gibson
Attorney, NY Legal Assistance Group
Publisher of “The Gibson Report”

TOP UPDATES

 

Trump Administration Proposes Adding Minor Crimes to List of Offenses that Bar Asylum

NYT: The new rule, issued by the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security, would expand the list of crimes that bar migrants from asylum to include misdemeanor offenses, including driving under the influence, possession of fake identification and drug possession, including having more than 30 grams of of marijuana… The administration would also deny asylum to migrants caught crossing the border after receiving a deportation order and those who illegally received public benefits.

 

Under secret Stephen Miller plan, ICE to use data on migrant children to expand deportation efforts

WaPo: The White House sought this month to embed immigration enforcement agents within the U.S. refugee agency that cares for unaccompanied migrant children, part of a long-standing effort to use information from their parents and relatives to target them for deportation, according to six current and former administration officials.

 

Guatemala Is Set to Finalize Deal With U.S. to Accept Mexican Asylum Seekers

WSJ: Guatemala is set to finalize within days a deal to expand its asylum agreement with the U.S. to begin accepting Mexican migrants sent from the southern U.S. border, U.S. and Guatemalan officials familiar with the talks said.

 

The employment green card backlog tops 800,000, most of them Indian. A solution is elusive.

WaPo: An estimated 800,000 immigrants who are working legally in the United States are waiting for a green card, an unprecedented backlog in employment-based immigration that has fueled a bitter policy debate but has been largely overshadowed by President Trump’s border wall fight and the administration’s focus on migrant crossings from Mexico.

 

The radical immigration changes under Trump that went unnoticed

Quartz: Social media tracking, Increased denaturalization efforts, Expansion of “public charge” definition, Domestic violence no longer grounds for asylum, Limits to Temporary Protected Status (TPS), Secret policies.

 

International Students Worry As A Popular Work Program Is Questioned

WGBH: Concerns are growing as the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia considers a legal motion filed by a private group to cancel the federal program.

 

Deaths in custody. Sexual violence. Hunger strikes. What we uncovered inside ICE facilities across the US

USA Today: A USA TODAY Network investigation revealed sex assaults, routine use of physical force, poor medical care and deaths at facilities overseen by ICE.

 

Contrasting Experiences: MPP vs. Non-MPP Immigration Court Cases

TRAC: MPP Results in Slightly Longer Wait Times for First Hearing…Asylum Seekers in the US are 7 Times More Likely to Have an Attorney…Most Asylum Seekers Attend Their Hearings Unless Forced to Remain in Mexico.

 

Former Immigration Judges Send Letter Expressing Concern Over Lack of Public Access to MPP Hearings

On 12/10/19, former immigration judges sent a letter to EOIR requesting that it investigate violations of due process rights during MPP hearings and ensure that the public has appropriate access to all immigration courts. AILA Doc. No. 19121700

 

Executive Office for Immigration Review to Swear in 28 Immigration Judges, Bringing Judge Corps to Highest Level in History

Includes:

Susan F. Aikman, Immigration Judge, Batavia Immigration Court

Jennifer Chung, Immigration Judge, New York, Federal Plaza Immigration Court

Diane L. Dodd, Immigration Judge, New York, Federal Plaza Immigration Court

David A. Norkin, Immigration Judge, New York, Varick Immigration Court (yes, former court administrator)

John J. Siemietkowski, Immigration Judge, New York, Federal Plaza Immigration Court

Rantideva Singh, Immigration Judge, New York, Federal Plaza Immigration Court

 

New Permanent ACIJ at New York – Federal Plaza Immigration Court

EOIR: Effective January 20, ACIJ Carrie Johnson will be the permanent ACIJ for the New York – Federal Plaza Immigration Court. ACIJ Johnson is currently the ACIJ for the Newark and Elizabeth Immigration Courts and will remain in those positions. ACIJ Sheila McNulty will continue to serve as the Acting ACIJ for the New York – Broadway, New York – Varick, Fishkill, and Ulster Immigration Courts.

 

New York sees surge in new driver’s licenses thanks to undocumented immigrants

NY Post: New York State saw a 133 percent surge in new learner permits issued Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday as undocumented immigrants were able to apply for licenses for the first time. See also As Historic ‘Green Light’ Law Goes Into Effect, Immigrants Warned of Driver’s License Scams and New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signs bill allowing undocumented immigrants to get licenses.

 

How ICE Uses Social Media To Surveil And Arrest Immigrants

Intercept: In this case, ICE used Thomson Reuters’s controversial CLEAR database, part of a growing industry of commercial data brokers that contract with government agencies, essentially circumventing barriers that might prevent the government from collecting certain types of information. See also California DOJ Cuts Off ICE Deportation Officers from State Law Enforcement Database.

 

U.S. citizenship path for thousands of Liberians tucked in spending bill

Reuters: The pathway to citizenship – even for a relatively small cohort of immigrants – is a victory for pro-migrant activists and lawmakers who pushed for citizenship for Liberians covered by temporary deportation relief programs.

 

LITIGATION/CASELAW/RULES/MEMOS

 

Immigrants’ Appeal of Removal Order Subject to Equitable Tolling

Bloomberg: The 30-day limitations period for an immigrant to appeal an order requiring him to be removed from the U.S. isn’t jurisdictional, and thus may be equitably tolled, the Second Circuit said Dec. 19.

 

USCIS Releases Policy Alert on the Effect of Travel Abroad by TPS Beneficiaries with Final Orders of Removal

USCIS updated its policy manual to clarify the effect of travel abroad by TPS beneficiaries with final removal orders. Per USCIS, TPS beneficiaries who depart and return to the U.S. based on authorization to travel remain in the exact same immigration status and circumstances as when they left. AILA Doc. No. 19122036

 

Rakoff Refuses to Dismiss Lawsuit to Halt Immigration Arrests at State Courthouses

NYLJ: U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff of the Southern District of New York said the lawsuit from New York Attorney General Letitia James and Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzalez raised valid claims that the practice could have deleterious effects on the criminal justice system.

 

Cert granted in Pereida v. Barr

SCOTUSblog: The justices will decide whether a noncitizen who is convicted of a state crime can apply for relief from deportation – such as asylum or cancellation of removal – when the state-court record is ambiguous about whether his conviction corresponds to an offense listed in the Immigration and Nationality Act.

 

Lawsuit says Trump’s green-card rules show preference for ‘the wealthy and the white’

WaPo: Organizations critical of President Trump’s immigration policies filed a broad lawsuit Thursday challenging new restrictions for green-card seekers who may need government help to pay for food and health care…It seeks to block the State Department from moving forward with its public-charge rules, and specifically singles out Trump’s October decree — titled “Presidential Proclamation on the Suspension of Entry of Immigrants Who Will Financially Burden the United States Healthcare System” — requiring green-card applicants to have “approved” medical coverage or sufficient resources to pay for their medical costs out of pocket.

 

Lawsuit Says Immigration Courts Are Now Deportation Machines

AP: The lawsuit filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center in Washington, D.C., and Innovation Law Lab of Portland, Oregon, said that instead of being fair and impartial, judges in immigration courts answer to Attorney General Robert Barr and are pushed to deny applications for asylum.

 

DOJ and DHS Propose Rule to Bar Asylum Eligibility for Individuals Convicted of Certain Criminal Offenses

DOJ and DHS issued a joint notice of proposed rulemaking to provide seven additional mandatory bars to eligibility for asylum for individuals who commit certain criminal offenses in the U.S. The proposed rule would also remove provisions regarding reconsideration of discretionary denials of asylum. AILA Doc. No. 19121835

 

Featured Issue: Denaturalization Efforts by USCIS

The Trump administration announced the opening of an office to focus on identifying immigrants who are suspected of cheating to get their green cards or citizenship and will seek to denaturalize these individuals. Watch this page for updates and resources from AILA. AILA Doc. No. 18072705

 

USCIS Provides Q&As from Special Immigrant Juvenile Policy Clarifications Engagement

USCIS provided Q&As from its December 10, 2019, engagement on the recent Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) adopted AAO decisions and the corresponding policy manual update. AILA Doc. No. 19122002

 

The U.S. Resumes Returning Mexican Nationals to the Interior of Mexico

ICE and the Mexican Ministry of the Interior announced the continuation of the Interior Repatriation Initiative. The first 2019 repatriation flight of approximately 150 Mexican nationals departed Tucson International Airport on December 19, 2019. AILA Doc. No. 19122000

 

ACTIONS

 

 

RESOURCES

 

 

EVENTS

   

 

ImmProf

 

Monday, December 23, 2019

Sunday, December 22, 2019

Saturday, December 21, 2019

Friday, December 20, 2019

Thursday, December 19, 2019

Wednesday, December 18, 2019

Tuesday, December 17, 2019

Monday, December 16, 2019

 

************************

Note that DOJ/EOIR rally outdid themselves on Immigration Judge appointments with 27 “Government insiders,” most from DHS or other enforcement backgrounds, and only one “outside” appointment from private practice. As one of my Round Table colleagues quipped: “I guess they must have run out of ICE Assistant Chief Counsel.”

Time to be happy and thankful if you’re not a migrant seeking justice and mercy in Trump’s America.  

Behind every tyrannical regime are complicit judges who fail to stand up for justice for the most vulnerable and deserving of protection!

Thanks again, Elizabeth for all you do for the New Due Process Army and  the cause of American justice!

 

PWS

12-24-19

HON. JEFFREY S. CHASE: CRIME & REFUGEE PROTECTION: “The implication that refugees should either stay or return ‘home’ ignores the impossibility of such request, as refugees by definition lack a home or country.”

Jeffrey S. Chase
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase
Jeffrey S. Chase Blog

 

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2019/12/21/crime-and-refugee-protection

 

JEFFREY S. CHASE | OPINIONS/ANALYSIS ON IMMIGRATION LAW

Blog

 

Archive

 

Press and Interviews

Calendar

 

Contact

Crime and Refugee Protection

I authored a letter that was published in the New York Times on January 15, 1993, under the heading “A Vital Distinction.”  My letter pointed to “a public failure to differentiate between immigrants and refugees.”  Immigrants, who come by choice, may be subjected to whatever limitations and restrictions our government chooses to set.  However, I noted that “unlike immigrants, refugees have no country to return to.” For that reason, I wrote that the U.S. “is not free to exclude or deport refugees arbitrarily.  As a signatory to the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, the United States is bound by international law to afford protections to this most vulnerable group, including the right to apply for asylum.”  My concluding sentence was that “United States lawmakers must keep immigration and refugee policies distinct, and abide by our legal and moral obligations in excluding refugees from any restrictionist debate.”

Nearly 27 years (and two impeachments) later, the policies of the Trump Administration are precisely designed to blur this important distinction.  The implication that refugees should either stay or return “home” ignores the impossibility of such request, as refugees by definition lack a home or country.

On December 18, the Department of Justice published a proposed regulation  that would render ineligible for asylum refugees convicted of seven categories of criminal offenses.  Included are convictions under 8 U.S.C. § 1324 for encouraging a noncitizen to enter or reside in the U.S., knowing that such entry or residence would be in violation of law.  It also includes convictions under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 for entering or attempting to reenter the U.S. after having previously been denied entry or deported. Of course, in the case of refugees, both of these crimes might be necessitated by the need to save their own lives or those of their loved ones.

The list of prohibited crimes also includes misdemeanors involving false identification (i.e. documents refugees might use to flee harm; think of the movie Casablanca) or unlawfully receiving public benefits.

I am going to agree with my 32-year-old self that these proposed rules violate our obligations under international law.  In support of such argument, I look to the UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria For Determining Refugee Status Under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.  The Handbook is the leading reference tool for interpreting the international treaties forming the basis for U.S. asylum law.1

The Handbook notes three categories of ineligibility under the 1951 Convention for those otherwise meeting the definition of refugee: those not in need of international protection (because the have already obtained protection from another state); those not deserving of protection (such as those guilty of war crimes or crimes against humanity), and lastly, those convicted of less egregious offenses that nevertheless constitute “serious non-political crimes” that would make the individual a danger to the accepting community.

Para. 155 of the Handbook clarifies the type of crime necessary to exclude an individual from refugee protection under the Convention, noting that “ a ‘serious’ crime must be a capital crime or a very grave punishable act.  Minor offences punishable by moderate sentences are not grounds for exclusion…even if technically referred to as ‘crimes’ in the penal law of the country concerned.”

Para. 156 of the Handbook adds an additional consideration: the severity of the harm feared by the asylum-seeker if deported.  The Handbook affirms that the Convention requires a sliding scale under which a person fearing a threat to life or freedom must be convicted of a “very grave” crime in order to be denied refugee protection.

The above-mentioned offenses covered by the new regulations fall far short of the type of serious crimes denoted by the Convention.  One who has established a well-founded fear of persecution may never be legally excluded under the Convention because they reentered the U.S. after previously being denied entry, or because they used a false social security card to work.

But even as to more serious offenses, the new regulations lack the required balancing of crime vs. feared harm to determine, as the Handbook aptly puts it, “whether [the asylum-seeker’s] criminal character does not outweigh his character as a bona fide refugee.”

While I’m certain such arguments will fall on deaf ears in the present administration, perhaps the inevitable implementation of the rule  will be blocked through litigation or legislation. And as a difficult year draws to an end, let us hope that the need to acknowledge and honor our international law obligations towards refugees will not need repeating 27 years from now.

Note:

  1. See Grace v. Whitaker, 344 F. Supp. 3d 96 (D.D.C. 2018) (holding that the legislative history of the Refugee Act of 1980 “does make clear that Congress intended ‘to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the [Protocol], 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.’ Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37” and that “[i]n interpreting the Refugee Act in accordance with the meaning intended by the Protocol, the language in the Act should be read consistently with the United Nations’ interpretation of the refugee standards.”

Copyright 2019 Jeffrey S. Chase.  All rights reserved.

DECEMBER 21, 2019

NEXT

When Does Fear Become “Well-Founded?”

 

ARCHIVE

<hr< main=””>size=0 width=”100%” noshade style=’color:#BBBBBB’ align=center></hr<>

Blog | Archive | Press and Interviews | Calendar | Contact

Sign up with your email address to receive news and updates.

We respect your privacy.

Jeffrey S. Chase is an immigration lawyer in New York City.  Jeffrey is a former Immigration Judge and Senior Legal Advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals. He is the founder of the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, which was awarded AILA’s 2019 Advocacy Award. Jeffrey is also a past recipient of AILA’s Pro Bono Award. He sits on the Board of Directors of the Association of Deportation Defense Attorneys.

 

 

  

Audio by websitevoice.com

 

 

***********************************

Thanks, Jeffrey, my friend and colleague, for your lifetime dedication to Due Process and humanitarian justice!

 

The regime’s illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional program of White Nationalist fascism goes far beyond this! They have intentionally and cynically conflated immigrants, migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers into a single vile and degrading term: “illegals.”

 

Then, through a process of intentionally misinterpreting law, ignoring the statutes, false narratives, bogus statistics, and trampling due process, they have artificially constricted legal immigration, refugee admissions, and asylum grants to the point where far, far, far too many of those who actually could and should be legally admitted or otherwise given legal permission to remain are now “outside the system” as improperly redefined by the regime. That then leads to the further fiction that we are “being overrun” which is used to “whip up” a racist, White Nationalist “base.”

 

This, in turn, buries the “Truth That Trump Doesn’t Want You to Know:” Decades of artificially created, market driven, “extralegal migration” has resulted in huge overall benefits to the U.S., particularly our economy. Far from “taking American jobs,” migrants, both documented and undocumented, actually drive our economic success! Doubt this? The Trump family doesn’t! They have consistently relied on both undocumented and documented migrants to keep the money flowing.

 

Obviously, a rational national response would to use the existing legal system to properly include more qualified individuals while legislating to expand the legal immigration opportunities to more realistic and appropriate levels while simplifying the application process and facilitating the integration and naturalization of those with permanent resident status. Much of the money now spent on needless detention and arbitrary, capricious, politically and racially motivated immigration “enforcement” that fails to serve any legitimate national interest could be reprogrammed to other activities or to real law enforcement against human and drug traffickers and others whose entry might actually be bad for our country. A more generous system would sharply decrease the incentives for extralegal migration and employment, putting many smugglers out of business, thereby allowing law enforcement to focus on a smaller group of those still seeking to evade the system. An expanded and more rational legal immigration system would also make “being sent to the end off the line” a more realistic “sanction” rather than the “nativist legal fiction” it has become under current law.

 

The whole disgraceful process has been “facilitated” by a Legislative Branch intentionally disempowered by “Moscow Mitch” and his GOP toadies and complicit Article III Courts that ignore the “big picture” and the legal fraud unfolding around them.

 

Unfortunately, given Trump’s “transformation” of the Federal Courts, even ”regime change” in 2020 might not be enough to save our republic and American democracy!

 

That’s why the work of the New Due Process Army in confronting Article III Courts with the true ugliness of the results and the full legal and moral implications of their complicity and task avoidance is so important!

 

Constantly Confront Complicit Courts 4 Change!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-23-19

 

 

WE KNOW THAT SESSIONS, WHITAKER, & BARR HAVE TURNED THE DOJ INTO A LEGAL, MORAL, PROFESSIONAL, & ETHICAL CESSPOOL — Some Federal Judges Are Beginning To Take Notice: “To say the least, it is disappointing that [DOJ] counsel, after consulting with other counsel including ‘prosecutors and appellate attorneys’ in this District’s United States Attorney’s office, submitted a legal memorandum to the Court that failed to acknowledge contrary case law that did not support its position.”

Dan Kowalski
Dan Kowalski
Online Editor of the LexisNexis Immigration Law Community (ILC)
Hon. Elizabeth A. Wolford
Hon. Elizabeth A. Wolford
U.S. District Judge
WDNY

Dan Kowalski over @ LexisNexis Immigration Community reports:

FW:  due process victory: Hassoun v. Searls

“[T]he Court finds that 8 C.F.R. § 241.14(d) is not a permissible reading of § 1231(a)(6), and that it is accordingly a legal nullity that cannot authorize the ongoing, potentially indefinite detention of Petitioner. … The Court further finds that an evidentiary hearing is necessary before it can determine the lawfulness of Petitioner’s continued detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226a.”

Note also the roasting, on page 11, of DOJ lawyers for failure to do basic 1L legal research: “To say the least, it is disappointing that Respondent’s counsel, after consulting with other counsel including “prosecutors and appellate attorneys” in this District’s United States Attorney’s office, submitted a legal memorandum to the Court that failed to acknowledge contrary case law that did not support its position.”

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/hassoun_op.pdf 

*************************

I hear and appreciate U.S District Judge (WDNY) Elizabeth A. Wolford’s outrage and frustration. 

But, for hard working members of the New Due Process Army this is “just another day at the office” in dealing with the Trump Regime’s unethical, scofflaw, fact free White Nationalist nativist agenda: lies and pretexts presented to the Supremes to hide an intentional census undercount directed at reducing Hispanic voting and political power; false narratives about migrants and crime; a bogus largely self-created “border emergency;” fraudulent “national security” justifications; EOIR “administrative changes” intended to undermine the right to representation and eliminate due process; twisted unethical “precedents” entered by the chief prosecutor that always come out against the individuals; misogynist racist misinterpretations of asylum law intended to kill, maim, and torture vulnerable women of color; child abuse cloaked in disingenuous “law enforcement” rationales; bogus “civil detention” to punish lawful asylum seekers; a grotesquely dishonest “Migrant Protection Protocol” intended to subject migrants to deadly conditions in Mexico; “Safe” Third Countries that are among the most dangerous in the world without functioning asylum systems; irrational “public charge” regulations intended to reduce legal immigration without legislation; EOIR’s distorted statistics intentionally manipulated to minimize asylum grants and cover up the anti-asylum bias improperly infused into the system; vicious unsupported attacks on the private bar by the Attorney General and other regime politicos. The list goes on forever.

Unfortunately, this scofflaw and unethical behavior will continue until Federal Judges back up their words with actions: declarations of unconstitutionality; sanctions against the Government for frivolous litigation; removing political control over EOIR; referring Barr and other DOJ attorneys who are abusing the justice system to bar authorities for possible discipline.

“This ain’t your Momma’s or Papa’s DOJ!” (Or for that matter one that those of us who served in the recent past would recognize.) Its antecedents and “role models” are America’s vile, deadly, discredited Jim Crow era and 20th & 21st Century fascist regimes.

Time for Article III Judges to get out of their ivory towers, stop tiptoeing around Government corruption, dishonesty and misconduct, and start looking at things from the human perspective of the individuals and their courageous attorneys caught up in this legal, moral, and ethical quagmire and fighting not only for their own lives but for the future of our nation! There is and will be “only one right side of history” in this existential struggle!

Due Process Forever; The Corrupt White Nationalist Immigration Agenda Never!

PWS

12-21-19

REGIME’S NEWEST SCHEME TO SCREW ASYLUM SEEKERS: BOGUS REGS THAT WOULD ILLEGALLY & UNNECESSARILY EXTEND THE GROUNDS OF “MANDATORY DENIAL,” DECREASE ADJUDICATOR DISCRETION, & SHAFT REFUGEE FAMILIES — Regime’s Outlandish “Efficiency Rationale” Fails to Mask Their Cruelty, Racism, Fraud, Waste, & Abuse – Julia Edwards Ainsley (NBC News) & Dean Kevin R. Johnson (ImmigrationProf Blog) Report

Julia Edwards Ainsley
Julia Edwards Ainsley
NBC News Correspondent

https://apple.news/AXSXjJIOxRUSM4ZOgQm9plQ

 

Trump admin announces rule further limiting immigrants’ eligibility for asylum

DUIs, drug paraphernalia possession and unlawful receipt of public benefits would be among seven triggers barring migrants from even applying for asylum.

 

by Julia Ainsley | NBC NEWS

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration announced a new rule Wednesday that would further limit immigrants’ eligibility for asylum if they have been convicted of certain crimes, including driving under the influence and possession of drug paraphernalia.

The rule, if finalized, would give asylum officers seven requirements with which to deem an immigrant ineligible to apply for asylum.

Other acts that would make an immigrant ineligible for asylum under the new rule include the unlawful receipt of public benefits, illegal re-entry after being issued a deportation order and being found “by an adjudicator” to have engaged in domestic violence, even if there was no conviction for such violence.

The rules could eliminate large numbers of asylum-seekers from ever having their cases heard in court. Currently, immigration courts have a backlog of over 1 million cases, according to data kept by Syracuse University.

In a statement, the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security said the new rule would “increase immigration court efficiencies.”

Andrew Free, an immigration attorney based in Nashville, said the new regulation is “calculated to enable the denial of as many claims as possible.”

Free said the most common charges he sees for his immigrant clients are driving under the influence, domestic violence and driving without a license. Driving without a license is particularly common for immigrants who have had to use fake travel documents to enter the U.S. and live in states that do not give licenses to undocumented migrants.

“People who are fleeing persecutions and violence are not going to be able to get travel documents from the governments inflicting violence upon them. If you have to resort to other means of proving your identity, you won’t be eligible [for asylum,]” Free said.

The Trump administration has unveiled a number of new requirements meant to curb asylum applications this year. The most successful of those policies has been “Remain in Mexico” or MPP, that requires lawful asylum-seekers from Central America to wait in Mexico, often in dangerous conditions, until their court date in the United States. Over 60,000 asylum-seekers are currently waiting in Mexico for a decision to be made in their case, a process that can take over a year.

 

****************************************

Kevin R. Johnson
Kevin R. Johnson
Dean
U.C. Davis Law


The Beat Goes On! Joint Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to Restrict Certain “Criminal Aliens'” Eligibility for Asylum

By Immigration Prof

 Share

 

Consistent with the efforts to facilitate removal of “criminal aliens,” the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security released the announcement below today:

“The Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security (collectively, “the Departments”) today issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that would amend their respective regulations in order to prevent certain categories of criminal aliens from obtaining asylum in the United States. Upon finalization of the rulemaking process, the Departments will be able to devote more resources to the adjudication of asylum cases filed by non-criminal aliens.

Asylum is a discretionary immigration benefit that generally can be sought by eligible aliens who are physically present or arriving in the United States, irrespective of their status, as provided in section 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1158. However, in the INA, Congress barred certain categories of aliens from receiving asylum. In addition to the statutory bars, Congress delegated to the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to establish by regulation additional bars on asylum eligibility to the extent they are consistent with the asylum statute, as well as to establish “any other conditions or limitations on the consideration of an application for asylum” that are consistent with the INA. Today, the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security are proposing to exercise their regulatory authority to limit eligibility for asylum for aliens who have engaged in specified categories of criminal behavior. The proposed rule will also eliminate a regulation concerning the automatic reconsideration of discretionary denials of asylum applications in limited cases.

The proposed regulation would provide seven additional mandatory bars to eligibility for asylum. The proposed rule would add bars to eligibility for aliens who commit certain offenses in the United States.Those bars would apply to aliens who are convicted of:

(1) A felony under federal or state law;

(2) An offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A) or § 1324(a)(1)(2) (Alien Smuggling or Harboring);

(3) An offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (Illegal Reentry);

(4) A federal, state, tribal, or local crime involving criminal street gang activity;

(5) Certain federal, state, tribal, or local offenses concerning the operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant;

(6) A federal, state, tribal, or local domestic violence offense, or who are found by an adjudicator to have engaged in acts of battery or extreme cruelty in a domestic context, even if no conviction resulted; and

(7) Certain misdemeanors under federal or state law for offenses related to false identification; the unlawful receipt of public benefits from a federal, state, tribal, or local entity; or the possession or trafficking of a controlled substance or controlled-substance paraphernalia.

The seven proposed bars would be in addition to the existing mandatory bars in the INA and its implementing regulations, such as those relating to the persecution of others, convictions for particularly serious crimes, commission of serious nonpolitical crimes, security threats, terrorist activity, and firm resettlement in another country.

Under the current statutory and regulatory framework, asylum officers and immigration judges consider the applicability of mandatory bars to asylum in every proceeding involving an alien who has submitted an application for asylum. Although the proposed regulation would expand the mandatory bars to asylum, the proposed regulation does not change the nature or scope of the role of an immigration judge or an asylum officer during proceedings for consideration of asylum applications.

The proposed rule would also remove the provisions at 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(e) and §1208.16(e) regarding reconsideration of discretionary denials of asylum. The removal of the requirement to reconsider a discretionary denial would increase immigration court efficiencies and reduce any cost from the increased adjudication time by no longer requiring a second review of the same application by the same immigration judge.” (bold added).

KJ

December 18, 2019 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0)

********************************

What total, unadulterated BS and gratuitous cruelty!

For example, 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(e) and §1208.16(e) are humanitarian provisions that seldom come up except in highly unusual and sympathetic cases. The idea that they represent a “drain” on IJ time is preposterous! And, if they did, it would be well worth it to help to keep deserving and vulnerable refugee families together!

I had about three such cases involving those regulations in 13 years on the bench, although I cited the existing regulation for the proposition that discretionary denials are disfavored, as they should be under international humanitarian laws. Federal Courts and the BIA have held that asylum should not be denied for “discretionary reasons” except in the case of “egregious adverse factors.” Therefore, an Immigration Judge properly doing his or her job would very seldom have occasion to enter a “discretionary denial” to someone eligible for asylum. Obviously, the regime intends to ignore these legal rulings.

One of my colleagues wrote “they are going to capture a lot of people and force IJs to hear separate asylum applications for each family member. So counterproductive.”

Cruelty, and more “aimless docket reshuffling” is what these “maliciously incompetent gimmicks” are all about.

I note that this is a “joint proposal” from EOIR and DHS Enforcement, the latter supposedly a “party” to every Immigration Court proceeding, but actually de facto in charge of the EOIR “judges.” That alone makes it unethical, a sign of bias, and a clear denial of Due Process for the so-called “court” and the “Government party” to collude against the “private party.”

When will the Article IIIs do their job and put an end to this nonsense? It’s not “rocket science.” Most first year law students could tell you that this absurd charade of a “court” is a clear violation of Due Process! So, what’s the problem with the Article IIIs? Have they forgotten both their humanity and what they learned in Con Law as well as their oaths of office they took upon investiture?

Right now, as intended by the regime with the connivance and complicity of the Article IIIs, those advocating for the legal, constitutional, and human rights of asylum seekers are being forced to divert scarce resources to respond to the “regime shenanigan of the day.” It’s also abusing and disrespecting the Article III Courts. Why are they so blind to what’s REALLY going on when the rest of us see it so clearly? These aren’t “legal disputes” or “legitimate policy initiatives.” No, they are lawless outright attacks on our Constitution, our nation, our human values, and our system of justice which Article III Judges are sworn to uphold!

Join the New Due Process Army and fight to protect our democracy from the White Nationalist Regime and the complicit life-tenured judges who enable and encourage it!

Due Process Forever; “Malicious Incompetence” & Complicit Courts Never!

PWS

12-21-19

BIA GETS IT WRONG AGAIN: 2D CIR. SLAMS EOIR’S ERRONEOUS APPROACH TO “EQUITABLE TOLLING” — As the BIA Continues To Get The Fundamentals Wrong, Unethical Barr & Co. Push Already Stressed & Dysfunctional Immigration “Courts” For More & Faster Mistakes & More Unlawful Removals!

 

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/2c04f16b-a109-44a1-8677-06d7451356bd/3/doc/18-204_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/2c04f16b-a109-44a1-8677-06d7451356bd/3/hilite/

EMELI KWASI ATTIPOE v. BARR, 2d. Cir., 12-19-19, published

PANEL: POOLER, LOHIER, and CARNEY, Circuit Judges.

OPINION BY: Judge Rosemary Pooler

KEY QUOTE:

  1. Here, as in Iavorski, nothing in the text of Section 545(d)(2) itself, or in its

  2. 4  legislative history, indicates that Congress intended the appeal filing deadline to

  3. 5  be jurisdictional. To the contrary, the House Conference Report states that

  4. 6  “[u]nless the Attorney General finds reasonable evidence to the contrary, the

  5. 7  regulations must state that administrative appeals be made within 30 days, except

  6. 8  that the appellate body may, upon motion, extend such period up to 90 days, if good cause

  7. 9  is shown by the movant.” H.R. Rep. No. 101‐955 at 133 (emphasis added). The

  8. 10  legislative history thus indicates that Congress was amenable to the idea of

  9. 11  extending the time to file an appeal past the deadline upon a showing of good

  10. 12   And the BIA may, sua sponte, decide to accept late filings under the self‐

  11. 13  certification process. It could not accept any late filings—exceptional

  12. 14  circumstances or not—if the filing deadline truly was jurisdictional.

  13. 15  We therefore extend Iavorksi’s interpretation of Section 545(d)(1) to its

  14. 16  sister subsection, Section 545(d)(2), and hold that the BIA must consider the

  15. 17  principles of equitable tolling when an untimely appeal is filed and the petitioner

  16. 18  raises the issue, as Attipoe did here. We remand to the BIA to consider whether 15

  17. 1  equitable tolling allows consideration of Attipoe’s late‐filed appeal. The BIA is

  18. 2  free to develop the factors it will apply in considering equitable tolling, although

  19. 3  we note that it need not start from scratch. In Holland, the Supreme Court set out

  20. 4  standards for courts to apply in determining whether equitable tolling is

  21. 5  appropriate: (1) a showing that a petitioner “has been pursuing his rights

  22. 6  diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way.” 560

  23. 7  S. at 649 (internal quotation marks omitted). And in the context of a late

  24. 8  motion to reopen, we have held that petitioners seeking equitable tolling must

  25. 9  demonstrate (1) that their constitutional rights to due process were violated by

  26. 10  the conduct of counsel; and (2) that they exercised due diligence during the

  27. 11  putative tolling period. Iavorski, 232 F.3d at 135; see also Rashid v. Mukasey, 533

  28. 12  3d 127, 132 (2d Cir. 2008) (requiring that a petitioner prove diligence during

  29. 13  “both the period of time before the ineffective assistance of counsel was or

  30. 14  should have been discovered and the period from that point until the motion to

  31. 15  reopen is filed”); Cekic v. I.N.S., 435 F.3d 167, 170 (2d Cir. 2006) (requiring that

  32. 16  petitioner “affirmatively demonstrate that he exercised reasonable due diligence

  33. 17  during the time period sought to be tolled”). After it determines what the

16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

standards for equitable tolling under Section 1003.38 are, the BIA should determine whether Attipoe satisfies those standards.

 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons given above, the petition is granted, the BIA’s decision is vacated, and this matter remanded to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

********************************************************

An honest, competent Attorney General would make fixing the glaring legal, quality control, and Due Process problems with the BIA’s performance “job one.”

Instead, White Nationalist political hacks Sessions, Whitaker, and Barr have maliciously pushed the BIA and the Immigration Courts to rush more defective unprofessional work product out the door faster, thereby guaranteeing unconstitutional miscarriages of justice and numerous wrongful removals.

Improper, mindless, designed to fail “haste makes waste” gimmicks by the regime actually make the astounding 1.3 million case Immigration Court backlog much much worse, rather than addressing it in a rational and professional manner consistent with Due Process of law.

That’s especially true in a system where many individuals are improperly and unconstitutionally forced to appear without assistance of counsel and many others suffer from “underperformance” of counsel in a totally stressed and unfair system where the problems are overwhelmingly caused by our Government‘s “maliciously incompetent” performance, but the consequences fall almost exclusively and most heavily on the individual victims of U.S. Government malfeasance.

The idea the the BIA deserves “deference” as a fair, impartial, “expert” tribunal is beyond absurd. It’s a flat out abdication of legal duty by the Article III Courts of Appeals. When will they finally put a stop to this mockery of justice and remove the biased, unethical, and malicious DOJ prosecutor from improper and unconstitutional control over the Immigration “Courts?” How many illegal removals on their watch are too many for the complicit and privileged “life-tenured ones?”

What if it were them or their families suffering and being abused in this ongoing national disgrace that passes for a “court system?”

PWS

12-20-19

 

ROUND TABLE OF FORMER IMMIGRATION JUDGES CONTINUES TO HELP THE NEW DUE PROCESS ARMY SUCCEED: This Time It’s An Amicus Brief In Support Of Respondent’s Successful Cert. Petition In Pereida v. Barr 

Kevin R. Johnson
Kevin R. Johnson
Dean
U.C. Davis Law

 

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/breaking-news-supreme-court-grants-review-in-criminal-removal-case.html

 

Dean Kevin R. Johnson reports for ImmigrationProf Blog:

 

Wednesday, December 18, 2019

BREAKING NEWS: Supreme Court Grants Review in Criminal Removal Case

By Immigration Prof

 Share

The Supreme Court has accepted another criminal removal case for review.  Today, the Court granted cert in Pereida v. Barr.  The issue in the case is whether a criminal conviction bars a noncitizen from applying for relief from removal when the record of conviction is ambiguous as to whether it corresponds to an offense listed in the Immigration and Nationality Act.  The complaint in petitioner’s state criminal case alleged that he “use[d] a fraudulent Social Security card to obtain employment.”  Petitioner pleaded no contest to the charge.  The Board of Immigration Appeals found Pereida ineligible for cancellation for removal and the Eighth Circuit denied the petition for review.

KJ

 

 

***********************************

Many thanks to the pro bono team at Orrick for “helping us to help others.”

I’m proud to be a member of the Round Table and am deeply grateful for the efforts of Judges Jeffrey Chase, Lory Rosenberg, John Gossart, Carol King, and others who got this group organized and “up and running” and who keep track of all the (almost daily) requests for our assistance.

I can’t help wondering what would happen if we had an Administration that worked cooperatively with the available resources to solve problems, honored expertise, promoted justice, resisted evil, and made Due Process for all a reality!

Instead, we have an ugly, cruel group of racist inspired neo-fascists and their tone-deaf supporters actively working against our laws, our Constitution, and the best interests of our country. In other words, a kakistocracy that has institutionalized “malicious incompetence.”

Due Process Forever; “Malicious Incompetence Never!”

 

PWS

 

12-19-18

 

 

 

THIRD CIRCUIT FINALLY EXPOSES THE BIA AS A BIASED, UNPROFESSIONAL, UNETHICAL MESS, THREATENING INDIVIDUALS WITH TORTURE &/OR DEATH IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS:  In Sharp Contrast To Recent “Go Along To Get Along” Actions By The Supremes, 9th, 5th, 11th, and 4th Circuits, Circuit Judges McKee, Ambro and Roth Stand Up & Speak Out On BIA’s Unbelievably Horrible Performance: “I think it is as necessary as it is important to emphasize the manner in which the BIA dismissed Quinteros’ claim that he would be tortured (and perhaps killed) if sent back to El Salvador. For reasons I will explain below, it is difficult for me to read this record and conclude that the Board was acting as anything other than an agency focused on ensuring Quinteros’ removal rather than as the neutral and fair tribunal it is expected to be. That criticism is harsh and I do not make it lightly.”

NELSON QUINTEROS, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 3rdCir., 12-17-19, published

PANEL:  Circuit Judges McKee, Ambro and Roth

OPINION BY: Judge Roth

CONCURRING OPINION: Judge McKee, Joined By Judges Ambro & Roth

LINK TO FULL OPINION:  https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/183750p.pdf

READ THE FULL CONCURRING OPINION RIPPING THE BIA HERE:

McKEE, Circuit Judge, with whom Judges Ambro and Roth join, concurring.

I join my colleagues’ thoughtful opinion in its entirety. I write separately because I think it is as necessary as it is important to emphasize the manner in which the BIA dismissed Quinteros’ claim that he would be tortured (and perhaps killed) if sent back to El Salvador. For reasons I will explain below, it is difficult for me to read this record and conclude that the Board was acting as anything other than an agency focused on ensuring Quinteros’ removal rather than as the neutral and fair tribunal it is expected to be. That criticism is harsh and I do not make it lightly.

The BIA’s puzzling conclusions concerning Quinteros’ New York Yankees tattoo, although not the sole cause of my concern, illustrate the reasons I feel compelled to write separately. I will therefore begin by discussing the BIA’s decision-making process concerning this tattoo.

As Judge Roth notes, Quinteros testified that his New York Yankees tattoo would identify him as a former gang member.1 He also produced corroborating testimony to that effect from an expert witness and a study from the Harvard Law School International Rights Clinic. The first Immigration Judge to consider this evidence—which was apparently undisputed by the government—did so carefully and ultimately concluded that Quinteros “[h]as shown a clear likelihood that he would be killed or tortured by members of MS-13 and 18th Street gangs.”2 This finding was affirmed by the BIA upon its first review of Quinteros’ case,3 and affirmed again by the second IJ after we remanded for consideration in light of

1 Maj. Op. at 4-5.
2 JA125. The IJ also found the expert testimony convincing: “Dr. Boerman’s testimony persuasively illustrates how the Respondent could be mistaken for a gang member, since most gang members have tattoos, and there is a large number of MS-13 members in El Salvador . . .” Id.
3 JA130 (“We adopt and affirm the Immigration Judge’s decision.”).

1

Myrie.4 Thus, two IJs and a Board member had previously examined and accepted this finding. Yet, for reasons that are not at all apparent, the BIA suddenly reversed that conclusion upon this fourth review.

In an explanation that is both baffling and dismaying, the BIA now claims: “Apart from his own testimony and the testimony of his expert witness, the record is devoid of any objective evidence establishing that a person with a New York Yankees tattoo without any other gang identifying marks will be identified as a . . . gang member and subjected to torture.”5 I am at a loss to understand what the BIA is referring to by requiring “objective” evidence. The IJ whose order was being reviewed had held that Quinteros was credible, stating: “Based on a review of the totality of evidence, the Court finds that Respondent’s testimony was consistent with the record and he was forthright with the Court regarding his past membership in MS-13 gang. Thus, the Court finds Respondent credible.”6 Moreover, there was nothing to suggest that Quinteros’ testimony lacked credibility regarding any aspect of his fear of MS-13 or how gang members would interpret his tattoo, and neither IJ suggested anything to the contrary.7

The BIA properly states the applicable standard of review of an IJ’s credibility finding is “clear error,”8 but nowhere does it suggest any basis for finding such error in either IJs’ determination. I am therefore unable to ascertain any justification for the BIA’s sudden reversal after the three previous cycles of review all arrived at the opposite conclusion. I also remain baffled by the BIA’s usage of “objective evidence.” The firsthand testimony of the victim of any crime is probative evidence if it is credible9—the issue is

4 JA14.
5 JA5 (emphasis added).
6 JA12.
7 See JA 14 (second IJ’s conclusion that Quinteros was credible); JA118 (first IJ’s conclusion that Quinteros was credible); see also Pet. Br. 41-42.
8 See BIA Opinion at JA2 (citing C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(i)).
9 For example, in statutory rape cases, fully half of the states (including Pennsylvania, where Quinteros is being held) have abolished their rules requiring corroboration. The victim’s

2

the credibility of the witness. Once a witness’s testimony is found to be credible, it cannot arbitrarily be rejected merely to achieve a particular result. Even more salient, the BIA’s rejection of Quinteros’ credible testimony is inconsistent with controlling precedent and the regulations governing CAT relief.10 Those regulations state: “[t]he testimony of the applicant, if credible, may be sufficient to sustain the burden of proof without corroboration.”11 Thus, it is clear that corroborative evidence may not be necessary. In this case, where the testimony of the applicant is credible and is not questioned in any way, there is no reason to need corroboration.

Accordingly, Quinteros’ testimony should have been sufficient proof of any dispute about his tattoo even if he could be described as lacking objectivity. Moreover, there was nothing offered to suggest that the expert witness or the report of the Harvard Clinic was anything less than objective. It is impossible to discern from the record why the BIA refused to accept that external evidence. Moreover, given its apparent disregard for these three distinct, previously accepted pieces of evidence, I seriously doubt whether any evidence would have been capable of changing the agency’s analysis. Thus, it is the BIA’s own objectivity that concerns me here.

The agency’s discussion of the location of Quinteros’ tattoo heightens these concerns. First, the BIA expressed

account, if credible, is sufficient. See 18 PA. CONS. STAT. § 3106 (2018) (“The testimony of a complainant need not be corroborated in prosecutions under [Pennsylvania criminal law]. No instructions shall be given cautioning the jury to view the complainant’s testimony in any other way than that in which all complainants’ testimony is viewed.”); Vitauts M. Gulbis, Annotation, Modern Status of Rule Regarding Necessity for Corroboration of Victim’s Testimony in Prosecution for Sexual Offense, 31 A.L.R. 4th 120 § 4[a] (1984).

10 See, e.g., Valdiviezo-Galdamez v. Att’y Gen., 663 F.3d 582, 591 (3d Cir. 2011) (accepting as objective evidence the testimony of the petitioner alone); Auguste v. Ridge, 395 F.3d 123, 134 (3d Cir. 2005) (accepting as “objective” the “[e]vidence of past torture inflicted upon the applicant . . .”). 11 8 C.F.R. § 208.16.

3

skepticism because the record does not contain a photograph of the tattoo, “or a description of its size and design.”12 It faulted Quinteros for not establishing that the tattoo is “publicly visible,” and stated, “[t]he record simply indicates that he has a tattoo on his right arm.”13 Yet, the Government never contested the existence of the tattoo and, as I have explained, Quinteros’ testimony about it was accepted as credible by the IJ.

Then the BIA objected that Quinteros never “clearly specified the location of his New York Yankees tattoo and his expert witness did not know its location.”14 However, two sentences later, the BIA states that “[t]he Record . . . simply indicates that he [Quinteros] has a tattoo on his right arm.”15 Therefore, not only was there never a dispute about the existence of the tattoo, there was also no dispute as to its location, and the BIA’s abortive suggestions to the contrary are simply inconsistent with a fair and neutral analysis of Quinteros’ claim. Finally, even if one sets that all aside, I can find no reasonable basis for the BIA to suppose that the specific design of the tattoo or testimony about its size was even necessary. Whatever its exact appearance, it was uncontested that it was a New York Yankees tattoo. And as noted by Judge Roth, the record had established that awareness of gang use of tattoos is so prevalent in El Salvador that individuals are routinely forced by police and rival gangs to remove their clothing for inspection of any tattoos that may be present.16 It therefore pains me to conclude that the BIA simply ignored evidence in an effort to find that Quinteros’ tattoo would not place him in peril as it was underneath his clothing.17

12 JA5.
13 JA5.
14 Id.
15 Id.
16 Maj. Op. at 22; see also JA61, 90-91, 162. Overlooking so obvious an inference of danger—arising from the undisputed existence of Quinteros’ tattoo—contradicts our directive that “the BIA must provide an indication that it considered such evidence, and if the evidence is rejected, an explanation as to why . . .” Zhu v. Att’y Gen., 744 F.3d 268, 272 (3d Cir. 2014). 17 JA5.

4

As troubling as the mishandling of Quinteros’ evidence might be standing alone, the BIA’s errors here are not an isolated occurrence. There are numerous examples of its failure to apply the binding precedent of this Circuit delineating the proper procedure for evaluating CAT appeals.18 Indeed, that framework has been mishandled, or simply absent, from several BIA opinions in the two years since we explicitly emphasized its importance in Myrie.19

As Judge Roth explains, Myrie instituted a two-part inquiry for evaluating whether a claim qualifies for relief under CAT. She describes the steps required and the points which must be addressed;20 we normally accept the BIA’s well- reasoned conclusions on each of these points, however,

“[t]he BIA must substantiate its decisions. We will not accord the BIA deference where its findings and conclusions are based on inferences

18 For our particular decisions on this topic, see Myrie v. Att’y Gen., 855 F.3d 509 (3d Cir. 2017); Pieschacon-Villegas v. Att’y Gen., 671 F.3d 303 (3d Cir. 2011).
19 Myrie, 855 F.3d at 516 (requiring the BIA to follow the process we have delineated, as, “[i]n order for us to be able to give meaningful review to the BIA’s decision, we must have some insight into its reasoning.”) (quoting Awolesi v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 227, 232 (3d Cir. 2003)). Among the examples of BIA error, see Serrano Vargas v. Att’y Gen., No. 17-2424, 2019 WL 5691807, at *2 (3d Cir. Nov. 4, 2019) (finding it “unclear” whether the BIA followed our precedent); Guzman v. Att’y Gen., 765 F. App’x. 721 (3d Cir. 2019) (finding ultimately non-determinative an incorrect application of the Myrie and Pieschacon-Villegas standards which had been summarily affirmed by the BIA); Zheng v. Att’y Gen., 759 F. App’x. 127, 130 (3d Cir. 2019) (requiring the appeals court to read between the lines of the BIA opinion to understand whether the conclusion satisfied the Myrie test); Antunez v. Att’y Gen., 729 F. App’x. 216, 223 (3d Cir. 2018) (concluding the BIA applied the wrong standard of review under Myrie).

20 Maj. Op, at 21.

5

or presumptions that 21 are not reasonably grounded in the record.”

In other words, the BIA cannot act arbitrarily. We expect that it will “examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its actions, including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’”22 Here, as already seen, the BIA’s conclusions fell far short of that low bar. According deference would therefore be to compound a mistaken application of law.

The BIA’s misapplication of Myrie here is consistent with other examples. Beginning with the first prong of Myrie’s first question (what will happen if a petitioner is removed to his or her country of origin), the BIA ignored evidence in the record. I have already discussed much of its tattoo analysis.23 Similarly, the BIA simplistically concluded that because Quinteros left El Salvador when he was a boy, he would not be recognized by El Salvadorian gangs upon his return.24 That conclusion was clearly contradicted in the record by credible and undisputed evidence that Quinteros knows “at least 70” current or former gang members in the United States who were deported to El Salvador and would recognize him there.25 The BIA was required to at least review the evidence Quinteros offered and provide a non-arbitrary reason for rejecting it.26

21 Kang v. Att’y Gen., 611 F.3d 157, 167 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Sheriff v. Att’y Gen., 587 F.3d 584, 589 (3d Cir. 2009)).
22 Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (quoting Burlington Truck Lines v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)).

23 JA5.
24 JA4. The BIA strangely maintains in the face of the evidence presented that “[Quinteros] has not clearly articulated exactly how anyone in El Salvador will remember or recognize him . . .” id.
25 JA63-64.
26 Huang, 620 F.3d at 388 (“The BIA simply failed to address any evidence that, if credited, would lend support to [Petitioner’s case], and thus the decision does not reflect a consideration of the record as a whole.”).

6

And the errors do not stop there. Because it had not substantively addressed the testimony offered above, the BIA was left without substantive findings on which to determine Question II of the Myrie framework: does what will likely happen to a petitioner amount to torture? As Judge Roth makes clear, the BIA is required to conduct both steps of the Myrie analysis.27 By declining to reach clear findings of what would happen upon removal, the BIA prevented itself from then being able to determine whether those results met the legal standard for torture. The Myrie framework cannot be so easily evaded.

Lastly, to briefly reiterate Judge Roth’s important observations regarding Myrie’s second prong,28 a proper inquiry must “take[] into account our precedent that an applicant can establish governmental acquiescence even if the government opposes the [group] engaged in torturous acts.”29 This is only logical, as few countries admit to torturing and killing their citizens, even when privately condoning such conduct. Thus, if we simply took countries at their word, there would barely be anywhere on the globe where CAT could apply. We have previously made clear that this is the proper inquiry to determine acquiescence and have remanded based on the BIA’s failure to look past the stated policies of a given government.30 Other Circuit Courts of Appeals have done the same.31 The BIA is thus on notice that results, not press

27 Maj. Op, at 23 (citing Myrie, 855 F.3d at 516).
28 Maj. Op, at 24-25.
29 Pieschacon-Villegas v. Att’y Gen., 671 F.3d 303, 312 (2011).
30 See, e.g., Guerrero v. Att’y Gen., 672 F. App’x 188, 191 (3d Cir. 2016) (per curiam); Torres-Escalantes v. Att’y Gen., 632 F. App’x 66, 69 (3d Cir. 2015) (per curiam).
31 Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 363 (9th Cir. 2017); Rodriguez-Molinero v. Lynch, 808 F.3d 1134, 1140 (7th Cir. 2015) (“[I]t is success rather than effort that bears on the likelihood of the petitioner’s being killed or tortured if removed”); Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499, 510 (9th Cir. 2013) (“If public officials at the state and local level in Mexico would acquiesce in any torture [petitioner] is likely to suffer, this satisfies CAT’s requirement that a public official acquiesce in the torture, even if the federal government . . . would not similarly acquiescence.”); De La Rosa v. Holder,

7

releases or public statements, are what drive the test for

acquiescence under Myrie.
III.

In Quinteros’ case, as has happened before, “[t]he BIA’s opinion frustrates our ability to reach any conclusion . . .”32 In Cruz, we stated that “the BIA’s cursory analysis ignored the central argument in [Petitioner’s] motion to reopen that he was no longer removable for committing a crime of moral turpitude.”33 In Kang, we disapproved when “[t]he BIA ignored overwhelming probative evidence . . . its findings were not reasonably grounded in the record and thus . . . . [t]he BIA’s determination was not based on substantial evidence.”34 In Huang, we complained when “[t]he BIA’s analysis [did] little more than cherry-pick a few pieces of evidence, state why that evidence does not support a well-founded fear of persecution and conclude that [petitioner’s] asylum petition therefore lacks merit. That is selective rather than plenary review.”35 There are simply too many additional examples of such errors to feel confident in an administrative system established for the fair and just resolution of immigration disputes.36 Most disturbing,

598 F.3d 103, 110 (2d Cir. 2010) (“[I]t is not clear . . . why the preventative efforts of some government actors should foreclose the possibility of government acquiescence, as a matter of law, under the CAT.”).

32 Cruz v. Att’y Gen., 452 F.3d 240, 248 (3d Cir. 2006).
33 Id.
34 Kang, 611 F.3d at 167.
35 Huang v. Att’y Gen., 620 F.3d 372, 388 (3d Cir. 2010).
36 See, e.g., Huang Bastardo-Vale v. Att’y Gen., 934 F.3d 255, 259 n.1 (3d Cir. 2019) (en banc) (castigating the BIA for its “blatant disregard of the binding regional precedent . . .”); Mayorga v. Att’y Gen., 757 F.3d 126, 134-35 (3d Cir. 2014) (reversing a BIA decision without remand and observing that “[i]deally the BIA would have provided more analysis, explaining why it accepted the IJ’s (erroneous) reasoning . . .”) (alteration in original); Quao Lin Dong v. Att’y Gen., 638 F.3d 223, 229 (3d Cir. 2011) (finding the BIA “erred by misapplying the law regarding when corroboration is necessary . . .”); Gallimore v. Att’y Gen., 619 F.3d 216, 221 (3d Cir. 2010) (holding that “[t]he BIA’s analysis in all likelihood rests on an historically inaccurate premise . . . . the

8

these failures gravely affect the rights of petitioners, such as Quinteros, who allege that they will face torture or death if removed to their country of origin.

Although the BIA is “[n]ot a statutory body . . .”37 it has been described as “[t]he single most important decision-maker in the immigration system.”38 I doubt that any court or any other administrative tribunal so regularly addresses claims of life-changing significance, often involving consequences of life and death. It is therefore particularly important that the opinions of the BIA fairly and adequately resolve the legal arguments raised by the parties and render decisions based only upon the record and the law.

I understand and appreciate that the BIA’s task is made more difficult by the incredible caseload foisted upon it, and the fact that BIA members (and IJs for that matter) are horrendously overworked.39 But administrative shortcomings

BIA’s opinion fails adequately to explain its reasoning and, in any event, appears incorrect as a matter of law.”). Nor is this a concern of recent vintage, the BIA has been on notice for well over a decade. See, e.g., Kayembe v. Ashcroft, 334 F.3d 231, 238 (3d Cir. 2003) (“[T]he BIA in this case has failed even to provide us with clues that would indicate why or how [petitioner] failed to meet his burden of proof. As a result, ‘the BIA’s decision provides us with no way to conduct our . . . review.’”) (quoting Abdulai v. Ashcroft, 239 F.3d 542, 555 (3d Cir. 2001)); Abdulai, 239 F.3d at 555 (“[T]he availability of judicial review (which is specifically provided in the INA) necessarily contemplates something for us to review . . . . the BIA’s failure of explanation makes [this] impossible . . .”) (emphasis in original).

37 Anna O. Law, THE IMMIGRATION BATTLE IN AMERICAN COURTS 23 (2010) (citing unpublished internal history of the BIA).
38 Andrew I. Schoenholtz, Refugee Protection in the United States Post September 11, 36 COLUM. HUM. RTS. L. REV. 323, 353 (2005).

39 See Am. Bar Ass’n, Comm’n on Immigration, 2019 Update Report: Reforming the Immigration System: Proposals to Promote Independence, Fairness, Efficiency, and

9

can never justify denying the parties a fair and impartial hearing, or excuse allowing adjudications to devolve into a mere formality before removal.

I would like to be able to feel comfortable that the lopsided outcomes in immigration proceedings40 reflect the merits of the claims for relief raised there rather than the proverbial “rush to judgment.” Thus, on remand, I can only hope that Quinteros’ claims are heard by more careful and judicious ears than he was afforded in this appearance.

Professionalism in the Adjudication of Removal Cases, Vol. 1, 20-21 (2019), available at https://www.naij- usa.org/images/uploads/newsroom/ABA_2019_reforming_th e_immigration_system_volume_1.pdf (noting the continued heavy caseload of the BIA, with an increasing number of appeals likely in the near future, and a resulting tendency to dispose of cases with single-member opinions that address only a single issue in the case).

40 Jaya Ramji-Nogales, et al., Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication, 60 STAN. L. REV. 295, 359-61 (2007) (reporting that between 2001 and 2005, the BIA’s rate of granting asylum fell by up to 84%, with some categories of applicants receiving asylum only 5% of the time).

10

 

****************************************************

 

It’s about time! But, this is long, long, long, long overdue! Way overdue! It’s long past time for “harsh criticism” of the BIA’s unconstitutional and inexcusable behavior. Forget about treading on the feelings of the BIA judges. Start thinking about the lives of the individuals they are harming and potentially torturing and killing! It’s time for the “Article IIIs” to “can the legal niceties” and take some action to halt the abuses before more innocent lives are lost!

 

Refreshing as it is in some respects, this concurring opinion vastly understates the overwhelming case against the BIA being allowed to continue to operate in this unprofessional, unethical, and unconstitutional manner. In the end, the panel also makes itself complicit by sending the case back for yet another unwarranted remand for the BIA to abuse this individual once again. For God’s sake, grant the protection, which is the only possible legally correct result on this record. CAT is mandatory, not discretionary!

 

Interestingly, while the panel was hatching this remand, the BIA in Matter of O-F-A-S-, 27 I&N Dec. 709 (BIA 2019) was essentially “repealing CAT by intentional misconstruction” and running roughshod over almost every CAT precedent and principle described by the panel. How many times can the regime “poke the Article IIIs in the eyes with two sharp sticks” before the latter take some notice? You’re being treated like fools, cowards, and weaklings, and the rest of us are daily losing whatever respect we once had for the role of life-tenured Federal Judges in protecting our republic and our individual rights!

 

Clearly, the intentionally skewed outcomes in asylum and other protection cases are a result of the regime’s illegal and unconstitutional White Nationalist “war on asylum,” particularly directed against vulnerable women, children, and individuals of color.  Many of these individuals are improperly and unconstitutionally forced to “represent” themselves, if they are even fortunate enough to get into the hearing system. It’s modern day racist Jim Crow with lots of gratuitous dehumanization to boot. And, it’s being enabled by feckless Article III appellate courts.

 

Judge McKee and his colleagues need not “wonder” if the skewed results of this system are fixed. The public pronouncements by overt White Nationalists like Session, Barr, Miller, “Cooch Cooch,” and Trump himself make their disdain for the law, the Constitution, individuals of color, and the Federal Courts crystal clear. There is no “mystery” here! Just look at “Let ‘Em Die In Mexico” or the preposterously fraudulent “Safe Third Country Agreements” that have effectively eliminated Due Process and U.S. protection laws without legislation.

 

Read the truth from the National Association of Immigration Judges or one of the many other experts in the field who have exposed the unconstitutional operations of the Immigration Courts and the need for immediate action to end the abuse and restore at least a semblance of Due Process! Of course, these aren’t fair and impartial adjudications as required by the Constitution. They haven’t been for some time now. No reasonable person or jurist could think that “kangaroo courts” operating under the thumb of enforcement zealots like Sessions and Barr could be fair and impartial as required by the Constitution!

 

And the “backlogs” adding to the pressure on the BIA and Immigration Judges are overwhelmingly the result of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” by the DOJ, which went into “overdrive” during this regime. The regime then “pulls the wool” over the eyes of the Article IIIs and the public by deflecting attention from their own “malicious incompetence” while shifting the blame to the victims – the respondents and their attorneys. How cowardly and dishonest can one get? Yet, the Article IIIs fail time after time to look at the actual evidence of “malicious incompetence” by the Trump regime that has been compiled by TRAC and others!

 

Sessions and Barr have made it clear that the only purpose of their weaponized and “dumbed down” Immigration “Courts” is to churn out removal orders on the “Deportation Express.” “Reflect on the merits?” Come on, man! You have got to be kidding! There is nothing in this perverted process that encourages such care or reflection or even informed decision making. That’s why judges are on “production quotas!” It’s about volume, not quality. Sessions actually said it out loud at an Immigration Judges’ so-called “training session!” In the unlikely event that the respondent actually “wins” one, even against these odds, Sessions, Whitaker, and Barr have all shown how they can unconstitutionally and unethically simply reach down and change results to favor the DHS.

 

As the bogus denials pile up, even though country conditions are not materially improving in most “sending” countries, the Trump Regime, EOIR, DOJ, and DHS use these unfair results to build their false narrative that the artificially inflated denial rates reflect the lack of merits of the claims.

 

Would Court of Appeals Judges or Justices of the Supremes subject themselves or their families to “Immigration Court Justice” in any type of meaningful dispute? Of course not! So, why is it “Constitutionally OK” for often unrepresented individuals on trial for their lives to be subjected to this system? It clearly isn’t! So, why is it being done every day?

 

End the dangerous, unethical, and immoral “Judicial Task Avoidance.” Time for the Article IIIs to step up to the plate, stop enabling, stop remanding, stop looking the other way, and rule this entire system unconstitutional, as it most certainly is. Stop all deportations until Congress creates an independent Immigration Court system that complies with Due Process! Assign a “Special Master” to run EOIR without DOJ interference. Those few cases where the public health or safety is actually at risk should be tried before U.S. Magistrate Judges or retired U.S. District Judges until at least temporary Due Process fixes can be made to the Immigration Courts.

 

Sound radical? Not as radical as sentencing vulnerable individuals to death, torture, or other unspeakable harm without any semblance of Due Process — subjecting individuals to a “crapshoot for their lives.” And, that’s what we’re doing now because Article III Courts don’t have the guts to do their job and “just say no” – once and for all — to EOIR’s daily charade that mocks our Constitution and our humanity!

 

Due Process Forever!

A maliciously incompetent regime and complicit courts, never!

PWS

12-17-19

FARCE UNDER THE “BIG TOP” – “Clown Courts” Deliver Potential Death Sentences With Nary A Trace Of Due Process As Article III Judges Beclown Themselves By Looking The Other Way!

Michelle Hackman
Michelle Hackman
Immigration Reporter
Wall Street Journal
Alicia A. Caldwell
Alicia A. Caldwell
Immigration Reporter
Wall Street Journal

Michelle Hackman and Alicia A. Caldwell report for the Wall Street Journal:

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/immigration-tent-courts-at-border-raise-due-process-concerns-11576332002

Immigration Tent Courts at Border Raise Due-Process Concerns

By

Michelle Hackman and

Alicia A. Caldwell | Photographs by Verónica G. Cárdenas for The Wall Street Journal

Dec. 14, 2019 9:00 am ET

BROWNSVILLE, Texas—Each morning well before sunrise, dozens of immigrants line up on the international bridge here to enter a recently erected tent facility at the U.S. border.

Inside a large wedding-style tent, the government has converted shipping containers into temporary courtrooms, where flat screens show the judge and a translator, who are in front of a camera in chambers miles away.

The tents, which appeared at ports of entry here and up the Rio Grande in Laredo in late summer, are the latest manifestation of the Trump administration’s evolving response to a surge of migrants seeking asylum at the southern border.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Do you think the differences between the tent courts and other immigration courts deny some applicants due process? Join the conversation below.

Migrants are ushered to these courts dozens at a time, allowing them access to the U.S. legal system without admitting them onto U.S. soil. They are already part of yet another Trump administration experiment, the Migrant Protection Protocols, which requires migrants to live in Mexico for the duration of their court cases.

The administration says the tent courts are designed to help the immigration system move more quickly through cases, providing asylum faster for qualified applicants and turning away the rest—many of whom, the administration says, have submitted fraudulent claims.

In the past, nearly all families and children arriving at the border were allowed into the U.S. to await hearings. But now, tens of thousands of asylum seekers must wait months in Mexican border cities that have some of the highest crime rates in the Western Hemisphere.

Asylum seekers waited in line to attend their immigration hearings on the Gateway International Bridge in Matamoros.

On a recent Friday, Judge Eric Dillow connected with the Brownsville tent via videoconference from his courtroom in Harlingen, Texas, about 30 miles away. The migrants, seated at a folding table, were shown on a large screen.

Judge Dillow planned to hold hearings for 28 migrants that morning, but only 17 appeared at the bridge the requisite four hours before their 8:30 a.m. hearing. Only two brought a lawyer. The rest were read their rights as a group, and when asked if they had questions, none raised their hands.

James McHenry, head of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the Justice Department agency that oversees immigration courts, said temporary courts adhere to the same procedures and offer the same rights to people as other immigration courts. “In all cases, a well-trained and professional immigration judge considers the facts and evidence, applies the relevant law, and makes an appropriate decision consistent with due process,” he said.

But immigrant-rights advocates and the union representing immigration judges—who are Justice Department employees—say the unique conditions of the tent courts deny migrants due process by depriving them of meaningful access to lawyers or interaction with judges, making the setup essentially a rubber stamp for deportation.

“It’s a system that’s designed in its entire structure to turn people away,” said Laura Lynch, senior policy counsel with the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

The judges union has expressed concern over numerous issues: Judges can’t interact with applicants face-to-face, which the union says is important to assess credibility. Immigration court officials aren’t in the tents, which are operated by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Judges can’t hand migrants documents directly to ensure they contain no errors. Unlike most U.S. courts, the tents are closed to the public and press.

A Cuban asylum seeker waited in Matamoros to present his documents to the agent who will be escorting him to his immigration hearing.

“The space of the court is supposed to be controlled by the court,” said Judge Ashley Tabaddor, president of the National Association of Immigration Judges. “But the tents, we don’t have any control over.”

Most migrants who cross the border near Brownsville are sent to Matamoros, Mexico, just across the Rio Grande, where they live in shelters or tents near the bridge.

They are returned with little more than a sheet of paper stating their first court date and a list of lawyers to contact. But those contacts aren’t very useful because they have either U.S.-based or toll-free phone numbers that don’t function in Mexico.

Of the 47,313 people whose cases were filed between January and September, only 2.3% have legal representation and only 11 have been granted asylum or other legal status, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University, which tracks immigration court data.

Pro-bono lawyers who work with these migrants are fearful to travel far beyond the U.S. border into Mexico. Inside the tents, lawyers are typically permitted 15 minutes to meet clients before hearings. In most other U.S. courts, lawyers are free to visit clients, and detention facilities provide more opportunities for meetings.

On two recent days in the tents, migrants appearing alone spent about five minutes each before a judge, while migrants with lawyers took between 20 and 30 minutes each.

“The system is dependent on individuals not finding representation because they can be deported much easier and faster,” said Jeff O’Brien, a California-based immigration lawyer representing several Brownsville clients pro bono. “If everyone had a lawyer, it would essentially come to a halt.”

A U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent checked documents presented by asylum seekers.

Documentation errors are a common hurdle. Applicants’ addresses are often listed on forms as simply “domicilio conocido,” which roughly translates as general delivery, or sometimes a Matamoros shelter that many migrants avoid because they are scared to travel farther into the city.

Tent camp residents also had notices for hearings when courts aren’t open: one at 1 a.m. and another on a Saturday.

It isn’t known how the government notifies these migrants about changes in their cases without valid addresses. Migrants who aren’t at the bridge for hearings are assumed to have abandoned their cases. Government lawyers ask judges to deport absentees—ending asylum requests and barring them from the U.S. for a decade.

Asked about how address discrepancies are handled, a Justice Department spokesman said judges follow the Immigration Court Practice Manual. The manual requires migrants in the U.S. to notify the court of address changes, and in cases where they are detained, it requires the government to notify the court where. Neither scenario applies to migrants in Mexico.

Without lawyers, applicants routinely make paperwork errors—such as submitting documents in Spanish, or documents translated into English without a form certifying the translator is English-proficient—that advocates say they have seen judges use to order them deported.

At a recent hearing in Brownsville, a Honduran woman and her baby daughter appeared before Judge Sean D. Clancy in Harlingen. A CBP officer in Brownsville had faxed the woman’s asylum application to Harlingen, where a clerk handed it to the judge.

A Central American asylum-seeking mother hugged her child on a November morning in Matamoros.

“Are you afraid of returning to Honduras?” Judge Clancy asked the woman. A translator beside him repeated the question in Spanish. “Very much,” came the translated reply.

Judge Clancy looked at her application and noted a different response. “One question here says, ‘Do you fear harm if you return to your home country?’ And you checked ‘no.’”

The woman appeared confused. Judge Clancy told her to return to court with a properly completed application on April 15, when a date for her full asylum hearing would be set.

Write to Michelle Hackman at Michelle.Hackman@wsj.com and Alicia A. Caldwell at Alicia.Caldwell@wsj.com

*****************************************************

What a total disgrace and mockery of justice! What do Circuit Court of Appeals judges do for a living if they don’t have the legal skills and courage to stand up for our Constitution and our asylum laws against US Government fraud and abuses like this?

Nobody without a lawyer has any chance in this system! With a representation rate of an astoundingly low 2.3% due to the Trump regime’s intentional obstacles, roadblocks, and refusal to promote and facilitate pro bono representation, this system is nothing less than an unconstitutional and illegal “killing floor” (a reasonable chance to be represented by pro bono counsel is actually a statutory requirement). You don’t have to be much of an Article III Judge to recognize the the systemic fraud and abuse going on here. But, a judge would have to have the courage to stand up to the Trump regime and put a stop to this disgraceful nonsense! Sadly, courage seems to be something in very short supply at the appellate levels of the Federal Judiciary these days.

Thanks Michelle and Alicia for exposing this ongoing parody of justice!

 

PWS

12-17-19

 

 

 

HISTORY W/ HEATHER COX RICHARDSON: LAST WEEK’S BIG STORY: Today’s GOP Is Anti-American (As Well As Intellectually Corrupt) – “The big story was that it became clear that the leadership of today’s Republican Party, a party started in the 1850s by men like Abraham Lincoln to protect American democracy, is trying to undermine our government.”

Heather Cox Richardson
Heather Cox Richardson
Historian
Professor, Boston College

 

December 14, 2019 

Dec 15

This week was a big one in the history of this country.

The House Committee on the Judiciary voted to impeach the President for the fourth time in American history. But that was not, actually, the biggest story. The big story was that it became clear that the leadership of today’s Republican Party, a party started in the 1850s by men like Abraham Lincoln to protect American democracy, is trying to undermine our government.

Even as I write that, it seems crazy. But I can reach no other conclusion after watching the behavior of the Republicans over the past few weeks, from their yelling and grandstanding rather than interviewing witnesses in the Intelligence Committee hearings, to the truly bizarre statements of Trump and Attorney General Barr saying the report of the Justice Department’s Inspector General about the investigation into Russian interference in 2016 concluded the opposite of what it did, to the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee making a mockery of the hearings rather than actually participating in them, and finally culminating in Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announcing on Sean Hannity’s program last night that “There’s no chance the president will be removed from office.”

A look at the members of the House Judiciary Committee who voted for or against impeachment explains how we got here. It was a strict party vote, and of the 23 Democrats who voted to impeach Trump, 11 were women, and twelve were people of color (California’s Ted Lieu did not vote because he was recovering from surgery). Of the 17 Republicans who voted against impeachment, two were women. Zero were people of color.

That the Republican Party has turned itself into an all-white, largely male party is the result of a deliberate campaign of industrialists to destroy the national consensus after WWII. Unregulated capitalism crashed the world economy in 1929, then an activist government both provided relief during the Depression and enabled the Allies to win WWII. By 1945, Americans of all parties embraced the idea that the government should regulate business, provide a basic social safety net, and promote infrastructure. This belief was called the “liberal consensus,” and it was behind both the largest welfare program in American history—Social Security—and the largest infrastructure project in American history—the Interstate Highway System. Taxes of up to 91% under Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower helped to pay for this popular system.

But a small group of businessmen loathed the idea that government bureaucrats could tell them how to run their businesses. Rather than having to abide by government regulations, they wanted to go back to the world of the 1920s, when businessmen ran the government. They insisted that the government must do nothing but defend the nation and promote religion.

They made little headway. The economy was booming and most Americans loved their new nice homes and family cars, and recognized that it was labor legislation and government regulation that enabled them to make a good living. The liberal consensus kept wealth spread fairly in society, rather than accumulating at the top as it had done in the 1920s.

But there was a catch. The logical outcome of a war for democracy was that all Americans would have the right to have a say in their government. The idea that men of color and women should have a say equal to white men in our government gave an opening to the men who wanted to destroy the nation’s postwar active government. When a Republican Supreme Court unanimously decided that segregation was unconstitutional in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, the way was clear for these men to argue that an active government was not about protecting equality; it was simply a way to give benefits to black people, paid for by white tax dollars.

This argument drew directly from the years of Reconstruction after the Civil War, when the Republican national taxes invented during the Civil War coincided with the 1870 Fifteenth Amendment guaranteeing black men the right to vote. In 1871, white supremacist Democrats in the South began to argue (disingenuously) that they had no problem with black men voting. What they objected to was poor men voting for leaders who promised “stuff”—roads and schools and hospitals in the war-damaged South—that could only be paid for with tax levies on the only people in the South who had money: white men. This, they said, was socialism.

One hundred years later, this equation– that people of color would vote for government benefits paid for by hardworking white men– was the argument on which businessmen after WWII broke the liberal consensus. Their candidate Reagan rose to power on the image of the Welfare Queen, a black woman who, he said “has 80 names, 30 addresses, 12 Social Security cards and is collecting veteran’s benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She’s got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names She has 80 names, 30 addresses, 12 Social Security cards and is collecting veteran’s benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She’s got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names.” In his inaugural address he concluded, “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” He promised to take tax dollars from welfare queens and give them back to hardworking white men.

These new Republicans slashed government regulation and social welfare programs, as they promised, but their laws did not help middle-class white men. Instead wealth moved upward. Voters pushed back, and to stay in power, Republicans purged the party of people who still believed that the government should regulate business and provide a social safety net—people Newt Gingrich called RINOs, for Republicans In Name Only—and then began to purge opposition voters. As Republicans got more and more extreme, they lost more voters and so, to stay in power, they began to gerrymander congressional districts. Increasingly, they argued that Democrats only won elections with illegal votes, usually votes of people of color. Those voters were “takers” who wanted handouts from “makers,” as Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney put it. It was imperative to keep people of color and women from voting. Their desire for government regulation, social welfare, and infrastructure funding was “socialism.”

A generation of vilifying Democrats as “socialists” has brought us to a place where Republican leaders reject outright the idea that Democrats can govern legitimately. To keep voters from electing Democrats, Republicans have abandoned democracy. They are willing to purge voting rolls, gerrymander states, collude with a foreign power to swing elections, and protect a president who has attacked Congress, packed the courts, and attacked the media, looking everything like a dictator on the make, so long as he slashes taxes and attacks women and people of color. While Republicans used to call their opponents socialists, they now call them traitors.

We are at the moment when Americans must choose. Will we allow these Republican leaders to establish an oligarchy in which a few white men run the country in their own interests, or do we really believe that everyone has a right to a say in our government?

For my part, I will stand with Lincoln, who in the midst of a war against oligarchy, charged his fellow Americans to “highly resolve that…, this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

If you liked this post from Letters from an American, why not share it?

Share

December 15, 2019

On this mid-December Sunday, people took a deep breath before jockeying over impeachment began again tonight. There is movement against the Republican leaders’ rigging of the system, but whether or not that is going to matter remains to be seen.

Trump’s surrogates today continued their disinformation. On CNN this morning, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul tried to argue that Trump had not asked Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate a rival. Anchor Jake Tapper noted that Trump asked Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden. Paul said: “He does not call up and say investigate my rival. He says investigate a person.” Tapper had to point out that Biden was Trump’s rival. Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani also began to run his One America News Network “documentary” attacking former US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch and claiming that the Bidens were laundering money.

If that was what was on display today as the defense of the president, there were Republicans who spoke out against the lockstep. On “Meet the Press,” Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) told host Chuck Todd that ““I think it would be extremely inappropriate to put a bullet in this thing immediately when it comes over…. I think we ought to hear what the House impeachment managers have to say, give the President’s attorneys an opportunity to make their defense, and then make a decision about whether, and to what extent, it would go forward from there.”

Democrats are trying to figure out a way to emphasize that Trump’s impeachment is about country rather than party. Today a group of 30 first-term Democrats in the House asked leaders to add Justin Amash, an Independent libertarian from Michigan, who was a Republican until last July 4, to the list of impeachment managers. Amash is no Democrat; he is a conservative libertarian, and his inclusion, they argue, would help illustrate that impeachment is bipartisan. It’s not clear that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who will name the managers, will include him. He is not on either the House Intelligence or Judiciary Committees, so would be an outside pick, and as a libertarian, would be a bit of a wild card for the Democrats.

The biggest news on the impeachment front today, though, came tonight, when Charles E. (Chuck) Schumer of New York, the Senate Minority Leader (which means he is the highest ranking Democrat in the Republican-controlled Senate) made an opening bid in negotiations over the form of an impeachment trial in the Senate. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has faced a ferocious outcry over his statement to Fox News personality Sean Hannity that the outcome of a Senate impeachment trial was already decided: “There’s no chance the president will be removed from office.” McConnell has made it clear he wants a quick, quiet trial with no witnesses or documents, to avoid both further incriminating Trump and to avoid the kind of circus we saw in the House Judiciary Committee hearings. But there is pushback on such a whitewashing.

Schumer’s letter advanced quite reasonable terms for a trial, but those terms are going to chafe McConnell. Noting that he based his provisions on the ones Republicans passed during the Clinton impeachment, Schumer asked for a fairly tight schedule. But he and McConnell will part company over Schumer’s request for witnesses “with direct knowledge of Administration decisions regarding the delay in security assistance funds to the government of Ukraine and the requests for certain investigations to be announced by the government of Ukraine.”

I quoted that line in its entirety because it’s important: Schumer is threading the needle of asking for witnesses without opening up the possibility for Republicans to drag in all the people that have been identified in their circles as being part of a grand Ukrainian conspiracy, including, of course, the Bidens. Schumer has asked for only four people: acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, who withheld the funds; Robert Blair, his senior advisor; Michael Duffey, the Associate Director for National Security in the Office of Management and Budget (which withheld the funds); and John Bolton, the former National Security Advisor. The House asked or subpoenaed all four of these people to testify and all refused. Schumer said the Democrats would be happy to hear from additional witnesses, but only those who had direct knowledge of the issues identified in that line I quoted. So not Hunter Biden or Adam Schiff or Nancy Pelosi, all of whom Trump has insisted should testify.

Schumer also asked for documents, again, limited to the narrow focus on aid to Ukraine in exchange for Zelensky’s announcement of an investigation into the Bidens. That is, essentially material related to the July 25 phone call which started this whole thing.

(By the way… remember Sharpiegate, when someone altered a weather map with a Sharpie to make it look like the path of Hurricane Dorian would follow Trump’s offhand comment that it threatened Alabama and we heard about it for days? That began on September 4, right when Trump would have learned about the whistleblower complaint. Interesting timing, huh?)

Schumer suggested other rules, too, but the witnesses and documents are the big ticket items. He told McConnell that he is not open to monkeying around with these requests, and will not take the chance that the Republicans try to maneuver around them by breaking them into individual rules and then either altering them or voting them down piecemeal. “We believe all of this should be considered in one resolution,” he wrote. “The issue of witnesses and documents, which are the most important issues facing us, should be decided before we move forward with any part of the trial.”

This is going to be hard for McConnell to get around if Senators like Toomey are serious about not simply rubber stamping Trump’s behavior. Harvard Law School’s Laurence Tribe, who is one of our foremost experts in Constitutional law, liked Schumer’s proposal. If McConnell “rejects these reasonable ground rules & insists on a non-trial,” Tribe wrote, “the House should consider treating that as a breach of the Senate’s oath & withholding the Articles until the Senate reconsiders.”

I have been an agnostic about whether or not the House could refuse to send articles of impeachment to the Senate, but if Tribe says it’s constitutional, then as far as I’m concerned, it’s on the table.

Finally, just after midnight tonight, the House Judiciary Committee published its full report on impeachment. The 658-page document explains the committee’s process and argument for the two articles of impeachment it passed. I am not going to read it tonight (!) but reports say it includes this:

“President Trump has realized the Framers’ worst nightmare. He has abused his power in soliciting and pressuring a vulnerable foreign nation to corrupt the next United States Presidential election by sabotaging a political opponent and endorsing a debunked conspiracy theory promoted by our adversary, Russia.”

Indeed.

 

****************************************************

Yup.

With a White Nationalist GOP minority taking direct aim at American democracy, it’s now or never for the rest of us.

No, he won’t be removed from office by “Moscow Mitch,” “Senator Lindsey Sycophant,” and the rest of their crew. Ironically, the regime continues to send vulnerable asylum seekers, including women and children, into deadly situations without any semblance of “due process.” But, for the Supreme Leader, “due process” consists of having his lawyers work with the “jury” on how to stage his “show trial acquittal” with a predetermined script that whitewashes, largely ignores, and intentionally misconstrues the overwhelming evidence against him. Sounds very “Putinesque.” But, then, “Moscow Mitch is used to  carrying the Russian autocrat’s water for him.

The 2020 election could be the last, best chance for justice in America, in more ways than one!

Due Process Forever; Trump/GOP Kakistocracy Never!
Join the New Due Process Army!

PWS

 

12-16-19

 

 

MICHELLE GOLDBERG @ NYT: THE ANTIDOTE FOR “DEMOCRACY GRIEF”  — Don’t Get Depressed, Don’t “Tune Out” — Get Angry, Get Energized, Get Involved, Work For The Resistance, Join The New Due Process Army!

Michelle Goldberg
Michelle Goldberg
Opinion Writer
NY Times

\https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/13/opinion/sunday/trump-democracy.html

. . . .

To those who recognize the Trump administration’s official lies as such, the scale of dishonesty can be destabilizing. It’s a psychic tax on the population, who must parse an avalanche of untruths to understand current events. “What’s going on in the government is so extreme, that people who have no history of overwhelming psychological trauma still feel crazed by this,” said Stephanie Engel, a psychiatrist in Cambridge, Mass., who said Trump comes up “very frequently” in her sessions.

Like several therapists I spoke to, Engel said she’s had to rethink how she practices, because she has no clinical distance from the things that are terrifying her patients. “If we continue to present a facade — that we know how to manage this ourselves, and we’re not worried about our grandchildren, or we’re not worried about how we’re going to live our lives if he wins the next election — we’re not doing our patients a service,” she said.

This kind of political suffering is uncomfortable to write about, because liberal misery is the raison d’être of the MAGA movement. When Trumpists mock their enemies for being “triggered,” it’s just a quasi-adult version of the playground bully’s jeer: “What are you going to do, cry?” Anyone who has ever been bullied knows how important it is, at that moment, to choke back tears. In truth, there are few bigger snowflakes than the stars of MAGA world. The Trumpist pundit Dan Bongino is currently suing The Daily Beast for $15 million, saying it inflicted “emotional distress and trauma, insult, anguish,” for writing that NRATV, the National Rifle Association’s now defunct online media arm, had “dropped” him when the show he hosted ended. Still, a movement fueled by sadism will delight in admissions that it has caused pain.

But despair is worth discussing, because it’s something that organizers and Democratic candidates should be addressing head on. Left to fester, it can lead to apathy and withdrawal. Channeled properly, it can fuel an uprising. I was relieved to hear that despite her sometimes overwhelming sense of civic sadness, Landsman’s activism hasn’t let up. She’s been spending a bit less than 20 hours a week on political organizing, and expects to go back to 40 or more after the holidays. “The only other option is to quit and accept it, and I’m not ready to go there yet,” she said. Democracy grief isn’t like regular grief. Acceptance isn’t how you move on from it. Acceptance is itself a kind of death.

**************************

Read the rest of Michelle’s column at the above link.

Join the New Due Process Army and fight to defend our nation, our democracy, and our human values against the malicious incompetence of Trump’s White Nationalist kakistocracy!

PWS

12-16-19

TOM TOLES @ WASHPOST ON BILLY BARR

TOLES ON BARR
Tom Toles on Billy Barr

*******************************************

PWS

12-15-19

MICHAEL GERSON @ WASHPOST HAS SOME VERY BAD NEWS FOR AMERICA: The GOP Now Has Two Major Cohorts: Bigots & Cowards Who Won’t Stand Up To Them!

Michael Gerson
Michael Gerson
Columnist
Washington Post

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sure-not-all-republicans-hate-outsiders-but-many-defer-to-the-hater-in-chief/2019/12/12/6bb61b58-1d16-11ea-87f7-f2e91143c60d_story.html

 

By

Michael Gerson

Columnist

Dec. 12, 2019 at 3:36 p.m. EST

Certain questions haunt many of us who care about the nature and future of the Republican Party. Is the GOP as it currently appears — defined by white identity and excited by cruelty and exclusion — really the way it has always been? Does Trumpism represent a hostile takeover of Republicanism or its natural outworking?A recent study by political scientists Lilliana Mason, Julie Wronski and John V. Kane sheds some interesting light on these matters. They compare a Democracy Fund voter survey conducted in 2011 with a survey of the same voters done in 2017. And they analyze the factors in the 2011 group that predict current approval for the Democratic Party, for the Republican Party and for President Trump.

Mason, Wronski and Kane found that support for the Democratic Party is associated with warmer feelings toward African Americans, Hispanics, Muslims and LGBT people. This type of “in-group love” is what you’d expect. “Put simply,” said the authors, “when you like the people who make up the party, you like the party.”

 

The results concerning the GOP were more mixed, but similar. Warmer opinions about whites and Christians in 2011 predicted later support for the GOP — the Republican version of “in-group love.” But hostility toward African Americans and Hispanics did not drive future Republican support (though negative feelings toward Muslims and LGBT people did have limited predictive value).

Support for Trump, in contrast, was strongly associated with “out-group hatred” of African Americans, Hispanics, Muslims and LGBT people. “In every case, the people who felt hostile towards Democratic groups in 2011 are most likely to be Trump supporters today. The same cannot be said of Republican partisans.”

What to make of these distinctions? “In-group love” of whites and Christians for other whites and Christians is hardly a noble political motivation. “Love your white neighbor as yourself” doesn’t have quite the same moral ring to it. What Mason calls the “social sorting” of the parties — in which partisan identities are closely associated with ideological, racial and cultural identities — is a source of deep and damaging polarization.

 

Yet it comes as a relief to some of us that Republican partisans and Trump supporters can be distinguished from each other at all. And “in-group love” is certainly better than an “out-group hatred” of anyone who looks and thinks differently.

There is evidence, it appears, that the party of George W. Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romney was not merely the party of Trump in waiting. “Trump support,” say the authors, “is uniquely dependent upon out-group hatred.” This is not a normal sort of partisanship. It is partisanship supercharged by prejudice and contempt. This fits the experience of elected Republicans I have interviewed, many of whom no longer recognize the political party they rose within. The players and attitudes in many states and districts have shifted. Something different and disturbing is taking place.

Trump did not create this out-group animosity; he exploited it, organized it and sent it into political battle. “Even in the 2016 Republican presidential primary,” the authors note, “out-group hatred predicted support for Trump, but not for [Ted] Cruz, [Marco] Rubio or [John] Kasich.” They go on: “We tend to think of partisans as being generally intolerant of outsiders, but our findings suggest that Trump supporters are unique in terms of their out-group hatred.”

This offers the comfort of knowing that the whole GOP is not united and defined by contempt for outsiders. But the indictment of the Republican non-haters is still quite damning. In every way that matters politically, they have accepted the leadership of a president and a movement that cultivate hatred as a strategy. The GOP non-haters — say, business conservatives and social conservatives — have deferred to the hater in chief. They have (for the most part) held his coat, carried his water and licked his boots — which are not easy to do simultaneously.

All of which raises another vexing question: Which is worse, bigotry or cowardice in the face of bigotry?

Whatever the answer, we should prepare ourselves for an especially ugly and destructive 2020 presidential election. Trump seems to believe, with some justification, that the cultivation of anger against outsiders won him the Republican nomination and the presidency in 2016. We should expect more of the same, and worse. The racism, misogyny and dehumanization — the assault on migrants, Muslims and refugees — have only begun. And those who enable it are equally responsible for it.

 

********************************************************

The GOP’s toxic combination of outright bigots and sleazy dishonest bootlickers willing to cover for corruption and bigotry has never been more on display than in this week’s “fact free, value free defense” of the indefensible before the House Judiciary. And, as I mentioned previously this week, it also explains why neo-Nazi White Nationalist hate monger Stephen Miller will be in the White House as long as Trump is, unless he falls out of favor with Trump for some reason unrelated to his odious views.

It also illustrates what I’ve been saying about the recent performance of the higher level Federal Courts. Trump’s war on migrants, non-Christian religions, women, the poor, journalists, lawyers, political opponents, and individuals of color has nothing to do with “normal legal issues.” It’s an existential struggle by the majority of Americans who didn’t vote for Trump and don’t agree with his authoritarian White Nationalism to preserve our republic against a fascist-style authoritarian regime that is running roughshod over our Constitution, our laws, and ethical and moral norms that have developed over many years. Those who won’t stand up and defend our republic and our individual rights are enabling the bigoted destroyers. There really is no “middle ground” in this battle.

To put it in Michael’s terms: “The racism, misogyny and dehumanization — the assault on migrants, Muslims and refugees — have only begun. And those [sitting on the Supreme Court and the Federal Appellate Courts] who enable it are equally responsible for it.”

Innocent folks are being harmed and abused every day, while the judicial enablers are drawing their pay!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-13-19

 

KILLERS ON THE BENCH: The 9th Circuit Mindlessly “Greenlighted” The Trump Regime’s Illegal & Unconstitutional “Let ‘Em Die In Mexico Program” – Now, Their Victims Are Doing Just That – The Deadly Costs Of Complicit Courts!

Wendy Fry
Wendy Fry
Watchdog & Accountability Team
San Diego Union-Tribune

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=861153e4-7431-4885-988f-89818194bf2f

 

Wendy Fry reports for the San Diego Union Tribune:

 

 

By Wendy Fry

TIJUANA — A 35-year-old man from El Salvador returned to Mexico under a controversial Trump administration program was brutally killed in Tijuana while waiting for an outcome to his U.S. asylum case, according to his family’s attorney.

During a seven-month period, the man and his family repeatedly told U.S. officials — including a San Diego immigration court judge, officials with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and border agents with U.S. Customs and Border Protection — that they were not safe in Tijuana, the lawyer said.

Customs and Border Protection returned the man and his family to Tijuana anyway, records show. In November, he was killed in Zona Norte, one of Tijuana’s more dangerous regions near the border.

“I don’t know how there’s an argument that Mexico is a safe country,” said Richard Sterger, the family’s immigration attorney. “My clients begged not to be sent back there.”

The family fled El Salvador and presented themselves at the San Ysidro Port of Entry in May asking to be allowed into the United States to assert their legal right to seek asylum, Sterger said.

The family was placed into the Migrant Protection Protocols program, also known as MPP or “Remain in Mexico.” The man’s wife and their two children are not being identified because they fear for their lives after reporting and speaking about his slaying.

Sterger said he could not discuss details of their asylum claim, such as why they fled El Salvador, because it is part of their ongoing immigration case.

Between May and September, the family members waited in Tijuana for their first court appearance, he said.

During their Sept. 11 immigration court hearing, they pleaded with a San Diego immigration judge to not be sent back to Mexico because they feared for their safety. At the time, the family did not have legal representation, Sterger said.

“I told the judge that I was afraid for my children because we were in a horrible, horrible place, and we didn’t feel safe here,” the widow told the Spanish-language news station Telemundo 20.

The judge referred the case to ICE, a process called “red sheeting,” and the family was interviewed about its fears of returning to Tijuana without a legal representative, the attorney said.

A spokeswoman for ICE said a “red sheet” is placed at the top of a person’s immigration court case file to alert Customs and Border Protection officials that an interview needs to be done about whether or not a family can continue safely waiting in Mexico.

She said she could not comment specifically on the man’s case because of privacy and identification policies.

Under international law, countries are forbidden to return asylum seekers to any nation where they are likely to face danger of persecution because of their “race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.” The legal principle is known as “non-refoulement.”

Migrant rights advocates have been warning the public that the U.S. government is violating the “non-refoulement” principle with the MPP program, which is facing numerous challenges and lawsuits in federal court.

Sterger said his clients’ case is a perfect example.

After telling U.S. officials they were afraid to be in Tijuana, the members of the family were sent back anyway without explanation.

A Baja California death certificate says the husband and father died Nov. 20 of stab wounds to his neck. It also says he had cuts and stab wounds all over his torso that a Baja California investigator confirmed could indicate torture.

Started under the Trump administration, MPP requires that migrants trying to legally enter the United States remain in Mexico during the immigration court process.

That process usually takes several months, sometimes up to a year, and involves multiple court hearings, which requires migrants to present themselves at El Chaparral border crossing near the San Ysidro Port of Entry to travel to immigration court in San Diego.

Officials with the Baja California prosecutors’ office said that during the process of repeatedly presenting themselves at the border, U.S. asylum seekers can easily be spotted and targeted by criminal groups as potential victims.

In Tijuana, the threat of violence for migrants is so severe that Baja California state police have been going around to various migrant shelters giving presentations on how to avoid becoming a victim since the MPP program began.

Under the program, rolled out in January in Tijuana and then expanded across the U.S.-Mexico border, tens of thousands of U.S. asylum seekers have been returned to Mexico.

Immigration advocacy groups, attorneys and human rights organizations have been urgently warning the U.S. government that border cities are not safe places for asylum seekers to be forced to wait while their cases are processed.

The nonprofit group Human Rights First identified 636 publicly reported cases of “rape, torture, kidnapping and other violent assaults against asylum seekers and migrants forced to return to Mexico by the Trump administration.”

Of that, at least 138 cases involved children being kidnapped or nearly kidnapped in Mexico, according to a report by the group.

“The MPP fear screening process is a sham with interviews that have become increasingly cursory and adversarial resulting in the return of vulnerable and victimized asylum seekers to new dangers,” the report highlighted.

Sterger agreed.

“We are literally putting people’s lives at risk,” he said.

The attorney said that after the father and husband of the family was brutally slain, the mother ran to the border with her children, both younger than 10. She told border officers what happened and begged to be let into the United States.

Fry writes for the San Diego Union-Tribune.

 

*********************************************************

The Innovation Law Lab v. McAleenan travesty just keeps on killing, abusing, torturing, and dehumanizing every day. Encouraged by the 9th Circuit’s cowardly dereliction of duty and the Supremes evident lack of concern for the safety, lives, and human dignity of asylum seekers, the regime has taken it to a new level with fraudulent and illegal “Safe Third Country” agreements with the super dangerous Northern Triangle states, none of which has any semblance of a credible asylum adjudication system.

I guess the further way we can kill ’em, the more complacent the Article IIIs are going to be. “No blood on their spiffy black robes!” And, after all, it’s not them or their families being abused. and killed by the regime, so “What, me worry?”

Also, something to keep in mind the next time “Big Mac With Lies” appears on the “speaking circuit” to tout his many “accomplishments” at DHS.

I’m, glad Wendy reports on these continuing “crimes against humanity.” But, it must be tough being  on the “Watchdog & Accountability Team” in a system where complicit and complacent Federal Judges are unwilling to hold the regime accountable for their outrageously illegal and unconstitutional (not to mention unconscionable) behavior.

 

PWS

12-13-19

HAMED ALEAZIZ @ BUZZFEED: REGIME KID KILLERS ENABLED BY COMPLICIT FEDERAL COURTS THAT IGNORE THE CONSTITUTION & ACT AS IF THEY ARE IMMUNE FROM THE HUMAN MISERY THEY COUNTENANCE!

Hamed Aleaziz
Hamed Aleaziz
Immigration Reporter
BuzzFeed News

A Child’s Forehead Partially Removed, Four Deaths, The Wrong Medicine — A Secret Report Exposes Health Care For Jailed Immigrants

BuzzFeed News Reporter

Immigrants held in Immigration and Customs Enforcement jails around the US received medical care so bad it resulted in two preventable surgeries, including an 8-year-old boy who had to have part of his forehead removed, and contributed to four deaths, according to an internal complaint from an agency whistleblower.

The allegations appear in an explosive Department of Homeland Security memo, obtained by BuzzFeed News, containing reports of detainees being given incorrect medication, suffering from delays in treating withdrawal symptoms, and one who was allowed to become so mentally unstable he lacerated his own penis and required reparative surgery.

To Read the Full Whistleblower Report, click here.

The whistleblower reported that three people had died in ICE lockup after receiving inadequate medical treatment or oversight, and said official reports on a fourth person’s death were “very misleading.” One man died from meningitis following “grossly negligent” care. Another killed himself after saying he would do exactly that months earlier.

The allegations were laid out in a March 20 memorandum signed by Cameron Quinn, DHS’s officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, and sent to top ICE leadership. The memo describes the whistleblower as someone within the ICE Health Service Corps, or IHSC, which provides medical care and oversight for detainees in the agency’s custody. BuzzFeed News does not know the person’s identity.

The whistleblower’s allegations were first received by the Homeland Security’s inspector general in April 2018. In July of that year, the inspector general sent the allegations to Quinn’s office, which will investigate the medical care and oversight IHSC provides at a time when President Donald Trump demonizes immigrants, detains them in record numbers, and enacts restrictive policies to keep them out of the US.

The allegations in the DHS memo, if corroborated, are a cry from someone working for ICE echoing what advocates, lawsuits, and other media reports have been saying for years: The medical care ICE provides and oversees for immigrants in private and local jails could be very bad.

This internal memo is one of a trove of remarkable secret documents — including emails, briefing materials, and draft reports — BuzzFeed News has obtained throughout 2019 uncovering how the Trump administration’s immigration policies were formed and executed, and how those policies confused or harmed people who sought to immigrate to the US. These records have revealed how immigrants locked up at the US border had no access to showers and how children were held in closed and crowded cells; that US border officials apparently pressured the asylum office to deny immigrants entry into the US; that a Texas detention center waited more than seven hours to transfer an ailing 37-year-old Mexican man to a hospital, where he died from bleeding in his brain; and that in the final days before launching a controversial plan to deport Central American asylum-seekers to Guatemala, US officials scrambled to answer basic questions such as how people would get shelter, food, and social services.

BuzzFeed News has retyped the memo based on the whistleblower’s allegations, providing its full text, because metadata or other information in the original could compromise a source’s identity. BuzzFeed News redacted the names of most immigrants and ICE middle managers and their contact information.

[Make more work like this possible: Become a BuzzFeed News member today.]

The memo describes what happened to 17 different immigrants who were held at nine facilities across six states, from Georgia to Washington. The allegations include:

That immigrants received incorrect medications. One man was given an antidepressant instead of an antipsychotic drug, likely worsening his condition. Another was given aspirin despite having thin blood — he nearly died.

That four immigrants endured severe withdrawal symptoms while in ICE custody. One man addicted to opioids was the subject of a “medication error”; two men with a benzodiazepine addiction saw delays in treatment; and one man “went into severe alcohol withdrawal and delirium and was admitted to the hospital in the intensive care unit.”

That IHSC leadership was unresponsive or even dishonest when confronted. They “failed to take appropriate action” when told of policy violations in 10 of the cases; “did not respond” to concerns about one case in which a detainee with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma died under “deplorable” conditions; and were “erroneous” and told others to “hold off” when looking into several cases.

Overall, the memo says, the whistleblower alleged that IHSC “has systematically provided inadequate medical and mental health care and oversight to immigration detainees across the U.S.” The memo also says the inspector general will investigate the whistleblower’s allegation that they were retaliated against for raising the issues.

The memo was distributed within the agency — but a former senior ICE official who was aware of the allegations and the response told BuzzFeed News that ICE leadership appeared to not take a close look at the allegations.

“This is significant and very damning,” the former official, who requested anonymity in order to speak freely, said. “It blows up a lot of the ICE responses to allegations of poor medical care and about how it provides ‘the highest care of detainees.’ This makes that seem pretty false, which it is.”

An ICE spokesperson told BuzzFeed News in a statement it “is committed to ensuring that those in our custody reside in secure, humane environments and under appropriate conditions of confinement. The agency takes very seriously the health, safety and welfare of those in our care, including those who come into ICE custody with prior medical conditions or who have never before received appropriate medical care. It also uses a multi-layered inspections program to ensure its facilities meet a certain threshold of care as outlined in our contracts with facilities, as well as the National Detention Standards and the Performance Based National Detention Standards.”

The agency added that it maintains a detainee helpline and created an independent oversight body “to conduct independent oversight of detention conditions for ICE detainees through facility reviews and targeted site visits.” The agency also said senior officials have a council that examines serious issues, especially “critical incidents,” to make sure leadership knows about incidents and “and that all required investigation and coordination is undertaken in a timely fashion.”

[Read ICE’s full statement here.]

ICE referred BuzzFeed News to DHS for questions about investigations into the memo’s allegations. DHS didn’t return a request for comment by deadline.

A detainee receives prescribed medications from an employee at the regional detention center for immigrants in Tacoma, recently renamed the Northwest ICE Processing Center, Sept. 10.

ICE has expanded the number of people it detains to record levels under Trump. Thousands of immigrants in its custody had passed their initial asylum screenings, a practice that in the past generally led to release from custody.

The peak came this summer when around 55,000 immigrants were in custody in local jails and private prisons across the country. To pay for it all, DHS had to transfer money earmarked for disaster relief and other efforts. In recent weeks, it has dipped to around 44,000 people in custody, still above the numbers during the Obama administration.

In the 2019 fiscal year, eight people died in ICE custody. The highest number of deaths in recent years came in the 2017 fiscal year, which included the end of the Obama administration, when 12 people died in ICE custody.

ICE’s sprawling detention system relies on a variety of methods to provide medical care. In some facilities, the agency provides it directly; in others, it has a few ICE employees assist private or public contractors; and in many, it oversees care provided by a contractor.

On Dec. 5, 2017, an 8-year-old boy’s mother told officials at the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley that her son’s earache had been worsening for two weeks, the memo says. Medical personnel diagnosed him with swimmer’s ear — an external ear infection — and gave him ear drops.

More than two weeks later, on Dec. 23, the boy had seizures and was taken to the hospital. Doctors there diagnosed him with Pott’s puffy tumor, a rare infection inside the skull that spread from the child’s ear to his facial bone and formed abscesses under the skull. To treat it, they surgically removed part of the boy’s frontal bone, which makes up the forehead.

The whistleblower said that ICE’s Medical Quality Management Unit analyzed the case, and found that the “inadequate medical care provided by [the detention center] was a contributory factor resulting in harm.”

The quality control unit’s report was forwarded to IHSC leadership who, the whistleblower said, “failed to take appropriate action.”

“Allegedly, delayed medical care and misdiagnosis led to an infection that spread from the child’s ear to his facial bone, requiring a partial bone resection. According to the information provided, on December 5, 2017, the child’s mother first reported that her child had a progressively worsening earache for the past two weeks. The child was subsequently treated using nursing guidelines for Allergies/Fever/Pain, diagnosed with Swimmer’s Ear, and given ear drops. However, on December 23, 2017, the child was noted to have seizure activity and was transferred to the hospital where he was diagnosed with Pott’s Puffy Tumor with epidural and subdural abscess resulting in partial frontal bone resection. Further, the complainant alleged that MQMU performed an analysis of the case and found that the inadequate medical care provided by STFRC was a contributory factor resulting in harm. MQMU’s report was forwarded to IHSC leadership and MQMU requested findings and/or interventions from Clinical Services, yet IHSC leadership failed to take appropriate action.’

At the Stewart Detention Center in Lumpkin, Georgia, a man was “was reportedly bleeding through his skin and having vision changes,” the whistleblower said.

Instead of taking him to the hospital, a doctor continued his aspirin regimen — which thins the blood — for six days “despite [the detainee] having extremely thin blood,” the memo reads.

The result was “his coughing up large amounts of blood.” He was taken “in critical condition” to the hospital, where he was “not expected to survive.”

The quality control unit reviewed the case “and determined that that Asprin therapy may have caused harm that could have resulted in a fatality.”

“A delay in care,” the memo reads, “occurred after medical staff were notified of the detainee’s critical lab result that should have resulted in immediate medical intervention.”

The quality control unit notified IHSC of “policy and procedure violations,” the memo reads, but “leadership failed to take appropriate action.”

“Allegedly, a delay in care occurred after medical staff were notified of the detainee’s critical lab result that should have resulted in immediate medical intervention.[Name withheld by BuzzFeed News] was reportedly bleeding through his skin and having vision changes. Despite having extremely thin blood, the physician allegedly kept him on aspirin regimen for six days, resulting in his coughing up large amounts of blood. [Name withheld by BuzzFeed News] was taken to the hospital in critical condition and not expected to survive. MQMU performed an analysis of the case and determined that that Asprin therapy may have caused harm that could have resulted in a fatality. The findings were forwarded to IHSC leadership for consideration of a root cause analysis, yet IHSC leadership failed to take appropriate action.’

And at the Eloy Federal Contract Facility in Arizona, the quality control unit notified the detention center’s psychiatrist several times about an immigrant’s “worsening psychosis-related symptoms, but the psychiatrist failed to treat him,” the memo reads.

The man “became so unstable that he lacerated his penis, requiring hospitalization and surgery.”

“According to the complaint, IHSC Medical Quality Management Unit (“MQMU’) notified the facility psychiatrist several times about[Name withheld by BuzzFeed News] worsening psychosis-related symptoms, but the psychiatrist failed to treat him. [Name withheld by BuzzFeed News] allegedly became so unstable that he lacerated his penis, requiring hospitalization and surgery.’

A detainee rests at the infirmary of Port Isabel Detention Center in Texas.

The whistleblower referred to the case of Ronald Cruz, whose real name is Ronal Romero.

Romero came to the US in 2002 and lived for more than a decade in Missouri, where he found a community of friends and worked long hours at local restaurants in management positions, his family told BuzzFeed News.

In January 2016, he was convicted of driving under the influence and sentenced to two days in jail. Romero had a previous deportation order, and was picked up by ICE officials and sent back to Honduras.

Ronal Romero

Romero returned to the US because of the lack of opportunity and dangerous conditions in his home country, his family said. Romero was arrested by Customs and Border Protection officials on May 9, 2018, and was transferred to ICE’s Port Isabel Detention Center in Los Fresnos, Texas, on May 14.

By the next day, he began feeling sick and was in serious pain, according to a death review conducted by ICE’s Office of Professional Responsibility and obtained by the Project on Government Oversight.

He told the medical staff at the ICE facility that he had been receiving ear drops and antibiotics for an ear infection while he was in CBP custody. He was treated and given medication. But later that day he became confused, not knowing where he was, and had trouble waking up. He died the next day in a hospital.

His family did not hear from him while he was in ICE custody, they said, and his death came as a shock: “I cried deeply — I was like a father and an oldest brother to him,” said one of his brothers, who requested anonymity to speak freely. Their father, the brothers explained, had been murdered years ago in Honduras.

An autopsy performed by a private entity found that Cruz died of “sepsis complication with meningitis.” An internal death review conducted by ICE found the facility was compliant with its medical standards.

But the whistleblower called the medical care rendered to Cruz “grossly negligent” and challenged ICE’s review, alleging “that the mortality review committee was erroneous in concluding that the care rendered to Mr. Cruz was appropriate.”

Cruz’s two older brothers have tried to convince people that the treatment their brother received was substandard.

“I’m grateful to the whistleblower for the strength to share this information in this way — it’s very sad what happened with my brother,” one of Cruz’s siblings told BuzzFeed News. “We believe he should be here with us. He was our little brother — he was everything to us. He was treated like an animal.”

Andrew Free, an immigration attorney in Georgia who represents Cruz’s family, said the existence of the memo was illuminating: “To hear an insider who has knowledge of government records saying this was grossly negligent is at once tragic, and oddly validating.”

“You should know,” his older brother said, “he was a hard worker who treated others well. He wasn’t a bad person. He was a good brother and a good friend.”

“According to the complainant, the medical care rendered to Mr. Cruz was ‘grossly negligent.’ Mr. Cruz’s preliminary cause of death on May 16, 2018 was ruled as meningitis. The complainant alleged that the mortality review committee was erroneous in concluding that the care rendered to Mr. Cruz was appropriate.’

The whistleblower alleged other widespread issues, such as detainees with psychological problems who were allegedly left without observation or provided incorrect medication.

Officials were notified about Efrain De La Rosa’s deteriorating mental health at Stewart Detention Facility in Lumpkin, Georgia. De La Rosa said on April 26, 2018, that he’d be dead in three days — he killed himself about 11 weeks later.

“Mr. De La Rosa’s preliminary cause of death was ruled a suicide. According to the complainant, IHSC leadership was notified of Mr. De La Rosa’s deteriorating mental health condition via SEN report on several occasions between April 25, 2018 and May 6, 2018. On April 26, 2018, a SEN report indicated that while on suicide watch, Mr. De La Rosa’s had stated to staff that he would be dead in three days. The complainant noted that several months earlier, IHSC leadership directed MQMU to cease reviewing SEN and segregation reports, despite concerns raised to IHSC leadership that this restriction could negatively impact detainee safety.’

De La Rosa has been the subject of investigations by the Intercept, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and the Young Turks. The Young Turks previously obtained an internal email sent to ICE’s current acting director, Matthew Albence, that relayed issues with ICE’s medical care.

These outlets reported that De La Rosa was diagnosed with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder and was being held in solitary confinement on suicide watch. He seemed obsessed with death. When he was transferred from a mental health facility to Stewart, the staff there didn’t register his issues. ICE said it is “committed to the health and welfare of all those in its custody and is undertaking a comprehensive agency-wide review of this incident.”

One man at Eloy Federal Contract Facility in Arizona was supposed to receive antipsychotic medication — but allegedly got antidepressants instead, the memo said, “which likely worsened his psychosis.” Senior leadership allegedly told colleagues “to ‘hold off’ on notifying IHSC Clinical Services unless and until the detainee became psychotic and suicidal again.”

“Allegedly, [Name withheld by BuzzFeed News] was not treated appropriately for serious mental illness with psychotic-like symptoms. According to the complainant, MQMU warned IHSC senior leadership on two occasions about [Name withheld by BuzzFeed News] increased risk of adverse outcomes due to his auditory hallucinations and suicidal ideations. This allegedly resulted in [Name withheld by BuzzFeed News] not receiving anti-psychotic medication, despite the IHSC chief psychiatrist’s agreement with the MQMU’s findings and recommendation that [Name withheld by BuzzFeed News] receive anti-psychotic medication. Instead, [Name withheld by BuzzFeed News] received an anti-depressant which likely worsened his psychosis. The complainant further claimed that following MQMU’s second notification of inadequate mental health care and treatment, IHSC senior leadership allegedly advised MQMU to ‘hold off’ on notifying IHSC Clinical Services unless and until the detainee became psychotic and suicidal again.’

Four cases alleged forcible medication at two facilities: the El Paso Service Processing Center in Texas and the Jena/LaSalle Detention Facility in Louisiana. In these cases, the memo was concerned with “policy and procedure violations” around the injections. And each time, the memo said, “IHSC leadership failed to take appropriate action.”

Both cases in Louisiana involved forced injections of Ativan, a medication that aims to treat patients with mental illness and agitation. There, a woman was sent to the hospital for erratic behavior and convulsions. When she returned, she was found eating toilet paper and Styrofoam. She was allegedly “given forced intramuscular injection of Ativan.”

“[Name withheld by BuzzFeed News] was sent to the hospital Emergency Room due to erratic behavior and convulsions. When she returned to the facility, she was observed eating toilet paper and styrofoam in the Medical Housing Unit (MHU). According to the complainant, [Name withheld by BuzzFeed News] was placed at higher than normal risk for mental status deterioration and given forced intramuscular injection of Ativan. Further, the complainant alleged that MQMU performed an analysis of the case and the findings included policy and procedure violations, which were forwarded to IHSC leadership for review and action, yet IHSC leadership failed to take appropriate action.’ “Allegedly, [Name withheld by BuzzFeed News] was forcibly medicated with multiple Ativan injections for repeated behavioral issues. Further, MQMU performed an analysis of the case and the findings included policy and procedure violations, which were forwarded to IHSC leadership for review and action, yet IHSC leadership dialed to take appropriate action.’ “According to the information provided, [Name withheld by BuzzFeed News] was observed with a sweatshirt around his neck and four correctional officers held him down while medical staff administered ahaloperidol intramuscularly by force. According to the complainant, MQMU performed an analysis of the case and the findings included policy and procedure violations, which were forwarded to IHSC leadership for review and action, yet, IHSC leadership failed to take appropriate action.’ “Allegedly, [Name withheld by BuzzFeed News] was forcibly medicated for reported behavioral issues. MQMU performed an analysis of the case and the findings included policy and procedure violations, which were forwarded to IHSC leadership for review and action, yet IHSC leadership failed to take appropriate action.’

In at least four cases, detainees were allegedly not appropriately treated for their alcohol or opioid withdrawal.

“Allegedly, facility medical staff did not follow policies and procedures concerning withdrawal protocols for [Name withheld by BuzzFeed News] alcohol withdrawal. [Name withheld by BuzzFeed News] a stated during his intake screening that he consumed one bottle of vodka and two bottles of beer daily. [Name withheld by BuzzFeed News] subsequently went into severe alcohol withdrawal and delirium and was admitted to the hospital in the intensive care unit (ICU). Further, according to the complainant, MQMU performed an analysis of the case and the findings included policy and procedure violations, which were forwarded to IHSC leadership for review and action, yet IHSC leadership failed to take appropriate action.’ “Allegedly, facility medical staff did not follow policies and procedures concerning withdrawal protocols for [Name withheld by BuzzFeed News] opioid withdrawal. According to the complainant, the detainee was not treated until MQMU staff called the facility following a review of a significant event notification (SEN). The detainee was subsequently found to be in severe benzodiazepine withdrawal and was admitted to the hospital. Further, the complainant alleges that MQMU performed an analysis of the case and the findings included policy and procedure violations, which were forwarded to IHSC leadership for review and action, yet IHSC leadership failed to take appropriate action.’ “Allegedly, facility medical staff did not follow policies and procedures concerning withdrawal protocols for [Name withheld by BuzzFeed News] benzodiazepines withdrawal. According to the complainant, medical staff did not address his withdrawal at intake, despite his reporting high levels of daily consumption of benzodiazepines. [Name withheld by BuzzFeed News] subsequently went into drug withdrawal seizures and was admitted to the hospital. Further, the complainant alleges that MQMU performed an analysis of the case and the findings included policy and procedure violations, which were forwarded to IHSC leadership for review and action, yet IHSC leadership failed to take appropriate action.’ “Allegedly, facility medical staff did not follow policies and procedures concerning withdrawal protocols for [Name withheld by BuzzFeed News] opioid withdrawal, and a medication error occurred during the course of his treatment. Further, according to the complainant, MQMU performed an analysis of the case and the findings included policy and procedure violations, which were forwarded to the IHSC leadership for review and action, yet IHSC leadership failed to take appropriate action.’

And Roger Rayson died in ICE custody at the LaSalle Detention Facility of bleeding in the brain. The whistleblower described the care provided to him as “deplorable.”

“According to the complainant, Mr. Rayson healthcare was “deplorable.’Mr. Rayson&rsquo;s preliminary cause of death was ruled as subdural hemorrhages resulting in a traumatic brain injury. The complainant claimed that multiple requests for the Uniform Corrective Action Plan (UCAP) and Root Cause Analysis (RCA) were made to IHSC leadership, but IHSC did not respond.’

Rayson, a 47-year-old Jamaican immigrant, died approximately two months after being taken into ICE custody and a month “after being transferred to a hospital for nausea, vomiting, and pain,” according to a report by four advocacy groups. At the hospital, the report said he was diagnosed with “a fast-growing but treatable form of non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, and died nine days later.”

Medical experts interviewed by BuzzFeed News said the series of allegations required additional scrutiny, including from Congress.

“The allegations, if they are true, are serious and deserve really careful scrutiny about what went wrong, why it went wrong, and it is very possible they represent a more fundamental problem with the ICE health care system,” said Marc Stern, a public health expert and faculty member at the University of Washington.

Homer Venters, a former chief medical officer for the New York City jail system who has closely studied care in correctional facilities, told BuzzFeed News he was concerned that “IHSC is not acting in a way to not repeat the same type of preventable death over and over in different places around the country.”

Venters said that, in his experience, when health professionals such as the whistleblower take their complaints outside of their own system, “they do so because they don’t see a path to improving the system from the inside — they don’t see hope for addressing what are detention-related deaths that are preventable that flow from lack of access to quality health services.”

A box for grievances is seen in the cafeteria at the ICE South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas, Aug. 23.

ICE has been criticized for its detainee medical care for years. In 2019 alone, the family of an Iranian man who the ACLU claims failed to receive proper treatment for methadone withdrawal and later died in ICE custody in Colorado sued the private prison contractor he was held in, GEO Group. In August, immigrant advocates sued ICE on behalf of 15 individuals detained at 8 different facilities in 6 states over what they described as the federal government’s failure to provide adequate medical and mental health treatment. The groups allege that the detainees have been denied necessary surgeries or even provided medication, such as insulin, for serious medical issues.

ICE officials have long said that they are dedicated to providing timely and comprehensive medical care to immigrants in their custody, noting that they have access to a daily sick call and 24-hour emergency care. The agency has publicized that it spends more than $269 million each year on health care services.

The former senior ICE official told BuzzFeed News that some at the agency brush away allegations of substandard medical care. “‘The care is better than they got in their home countries’ — you hear that a lot,” the former official said.

The official said it was unlikely that the agency would dramatically alter or add resources to its medical care system.

“It’s not going to happen under this administration,” the former official said. “That would take away money from beds and they are high on beds. They are not going to want to use that money in a different way.” ●

***************************

From the Supremes on down, Article III Courts have had more than ample opportunities to put an end to unconstitutional, arbitrary, punitive imprisonment through the disingenuous fiction of “civil” detention. The dead bodies are piling up at their ivory tower doors.

Perhaps if their kids and grandkids foreheads were being hacked off, we’d get the judicial courage and integrity needed to stop the unlawful killing of the most vulnerable among us. 

Until we do, the slaughter of the innocents will continue!

The cruel irony:  If convicted criminals were treated this way the Article IIIs would hold it unconstitutional in an eye blink.

Constantly Confront Complicit Courts 4 Change!

PWS

12-13-19

NEW FROM CMS: Accessible Citizenship Is A Huge Win – Win For The U.S. & The Citizens — Trump Regime Works Overtime To Create A Lose – Lose!

Donald M. Kerwin
Donald M. Kerwin
Executive Director
Center for Migration Studies
Robert Warren
Robert Warren
Senior Visiting Fellow
Center For Migration Studies
View this email in your browser
pastedGraphic.png
The Center for Migration Studies Releases New Report on the Benefits of Citizenship and the Barriers to Naturalization

 

The well-being and contributions of immigrants increase as they advance toward citizenship, but new impediments to permanent residence and naturalization deny access to citizenship.

New York, NY — The Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS) today released a report finding that the well-being of immigrants and their contributions to the United States increase as they advance to more permanent and secure immigration statuses, culminating in naturalization. The report finds that naturalized citizens match or exceed the native-born by key metrics, including: college degrees (35% vs. 29%); percent employed (96% vs. 95%); and average personal income ($45,600 vs. $40,600).

The report – authored by CMS Executive Director Donald Kerwin and CMS Senior Visiting Fellow Robert Warren – argues that the administration’s “America first” ideology obscures a far-reaching set of policies that significantly impede the ability of immigrants to “move forward” on the path to naturalization, to their own detriment and the detriment of their families and communities.

“The report finds that policy makers should encourage naturalization rather than making it unnecessarily difficult,” said Warren. “Another important finding is that the US legal immigration system currently produces the same percentage of high skilled workers as the native-born population.”

The report documents the Trump administration’s policies that seek to prevent undocumented persons from gaining status, divest documented persons of status, cut legal admissions and immigration by decree, create new barriers to permanent residence and naturalization, and make citizenship a less valuable and less secure status.

It finds that at least 5.2 million current US citizens – 4.5 million children and 730,000 adults – who are living with at least one undocumented parent, obtained US citizenship by birth.  It concludes that current immigration enforcement priorities effectively deny the full rights and benefits of citizenship to the US citizen children of undocumented parents, and it warns that eliminating birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented parents would create a permanent underclass of US-born denizens.

“US citizenship represents the principle marker of full membership and equality under the law in our constitutional democracy,” said Kerwin. “Yet this administration has adopted policies to make naturalization far less accessible and to make citizenship a less secure and valuable status for some disfavored citizens.”

The report is now available at: https://cmsny.org/publications/citizenship-kerwin-warren/

MEDIA CONTACT

Emma Winters

(212) 337-3080 x. 7012

ewinters@cmsny.org

***********************

Making losers out of everyone is a specialty of the Trump Regime’s “myth-based” White Nationalist agenda. “Malicious incompetence” in action!

PWS

12-13-19