ROUND TABLE OF FORMER IMMIGRATION JUDGES SPEAKS OUT AGAINST EOIR’S LIMITS ON PUBLIC ACCESS TO IMMIGRATION COURTS

Hon. Ilyce Shugall
U.S. Immigraton Judge (Retired)
Director, Immigrant Legal Defense Program, Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Assn. of San Francisco.

VIA EMAIL AND FIRST CLASS MAIL

James McHenry, Director
Christopher Santoro, Acting Chief Immigration Judge Executive Office for Immigration Review
5107 Leesburg Pike, 18th Floor
Falls Church, VA 22041

Dear Director McHenry and Chief Immigration Judge Santoro,

Public access to the immigration courts is vital to the constitutional protections of the respond- ents who appear in court. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.27 the immigration courts are open to the public. Limited exceptions to public access exist under the regulations, for example, to protect witnesses or parties or the public interest (§ 1003.27(b)), in VAWA cases (§ 1003.27(c)), and when there is a protective order (§ 1003.27(d)). Asylum hearings are confidential and are not open to the public unless the asylum applicant consents (8 C.F.R. § 1208.6).

Migrant Protection Protocol “MPP” hearings are routinely conducted in violation of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.27. Observers have been denied access to remote hearing locations where respondents are appearing in “tent courts.” In addition, it was recently announced that some MPP hearings would be heard via video teleconference by immigration judges in the Fort Worth Adjudication Center. For such hearings, public access is entirely restricted, as observers are not allowed in the tent courts or the adjudication centers. As Judge Ashley Tabaddor stated in an interview with CNN, “MPP is rife with issues but by assigning the adjudication centers to the tent courts takes us to a new low where public access to the court are now eliminated.” She further stated, “[t]his is not the way we as judges or courts should function.”

We agree with Judge Tabaddor. On December 5, 2019, a member of our group of former immi- gration judges, Ilyce Shugall, was denied access to the immigration court while attempting to observe an MPP individual calendar hearing. Human Rights First requested permission for the observers to sit in Laredo with the respondents in the tent courts. The request was denied. Ac- cordingly, the observers, including Former Immigration Judge Shugall, who traveled across the country, were required to sit in San Antonio to observe respondents appearing from Laredo via

December 10, 2019

VTC. Although the individual hearing was an asylum merits hearing, the respondent consented to Former Judge Shugall observing the hearing.

Early in the hearing, Immigration Judge Cynthia Lafuente-Gaona confirmed that the respondent consented to Former Judge Shugall observing, as she was with a delegation from Human Rights First. Subsequently, Judge Lafuente-Gaona asked Former Judge Shugall to step out of the court- room because she was taking notes on her computer and looking at her cell phone. The assistant chief counsel for ICE was taking notes on his computer, but was never asked to cease his note taking. Former Judge Shugall advised she would put both her phone and computer away and take notes on a note pad. Judge Lafuente-Gaona told Former Judge Shugall she “should know better” because she was a former judge. Former Judge Shugall explained that attorneys and ob- servers used computers and phones in her courtroom when she was on the bench and had used her computer and phone in court all week, including in Judge Lafuente-Gaona’s courtroom the prior day. Former Judge Shugall remained in the courtroom and continued her note taking on a note pad. Some time later, a legal fellow from Human Rights First entered the courtroom. Judge Lafuente-Gaona again confirmed with the respondent that he consented to the additional observ- er. While doing so, she told the respondent that the observers were “writing about what he was saying,” which was entirely untrue. Judge Lafuente-Gaona then told the observers that their note taking on note pads was distracting and asked both to leave. After a break, the observers con- firmed with Judge Lafuente-Gaona that she was requiring they remain outside of the courtroom for the remainder of the hearing. She had two male guards escort the two female attorneys out of the courtroom. That same day the legal fellow from Human Rights First was prevented from ob- serving another pro se merits hearing.

Immigration judges preside over individual and master calendar hearings that are rife with dis- tractions. During master calendar hearings, people are constantly entering and leaving the court- room, taking notes, talking, and moving papers. On many dockets, children are crying, crawling on the floors, throwing toys and food, and playing with microphones. In addition, in immigra- tion courtrooms across the country, parties routinely take notes on computers and use cell phones in court. Observers taking notes during a pro se asylum hearing is not inherently distracting. That the judge became distracted because a former immigration judge and an attorney from a human rights organization made her nervous does not justify closing the courtroom.

While the above examples are specific to MPP hearings, issues related to public access to the immigration courts is not exclusively limited to MPP. For example, according to a Daily Beast article, earlier this month a reporter was forced to leave an immigration courtroom in New York.

Very few respondents subject to MPP are represented. There are significant concerns with ac- cess to counsel and due process in MPP proceedings. Allowing observers in court, pursuant to the regulations, is crucial. A judge’s failure to follow the regulations and the constitution should be of great concern to EOIR. It is certainly of paramount concern to this group of former immi- gration judges.

As former immigration judges, we understand that a judge has the right to control the conduct of those attending a hearing, but exercise of that control cannot compromise the parties’ due pro-

cess rights. We request that EOIR investigate this issue and ensure that the public has appropri- ate access to all immigration courts.

Very truly yours, /s/

The Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

Steven Abrams

Terry Bain

Sarah Burr

Teofilo Chapa

Jeffrey Chase

George Chew

Matthew D’Angelo

Bruce J. Einhorn

Cecelia Espenoza

Noel Ferris

James Fujimoto

Jennie Giambastiani

John Gossart

Paul Grussendorf

Miriam Hayward

Rebecca Bowen Jamil

William Joyce

Carol King

Margaret McManus

Charles Pazar

Laura Ramirez

John Richardson

Lory Rosenberg

Susan Roy

Paul Schmidt

Ilyce Shugall

Denise Slavin

Andrea Sloan

William Van Wyke

Polly Webber

Bob Weisel

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

NOTE: A few of the above signatures were not received in time for the “hard copy” mailed to EOIR. They later were added to the publicly distributed version.

Public access is critical to Due Process and Fundamental Fairness in Immigration Court. In the Arlington Immigration Court, we were constantly “under observation” by reporters, Congressional staff, NGOs, students, Senior Executives from DOJ and DHS, Asylum Officers, OIL Attorneys, EOIR Headquarters and BIA staff, ORR staff, and other members of the public. We welcomed it. All of us viewed it as a “teaching opportunity” and a chance to demonstrate “Due Process in action” and to communicate our judicial philosophies and expertise in the law to others. It was an important “public education” opportunity.

Indeed, when I taught “Refugee Law & Policy” as an Adjunct Professor at Georgetown Law “Court Observation” was a required assignment. The same was true of many of my teaching colleagues at the many law schools in DC and Virginia.

Far from “disruptive” or “distracting,” I found that public observation actually improved everyone’s performance, including my own. Everyone in the courtroom got into “teaching mode,” willing and eager to demonstrate the importance of their roles in the justice system. Counsel on both sides would often remain for a few minutes after the case to discuss their respective roles and how they came to choose immigration law as a career (of course, being careful not to discuss particular case facts).

Indeed, one of the most meaningful items of “feedback” I got from an observer (paraphrased) was: “I expected something much more openly adversarial and hostile. I was surprised by the degree of cooperation, mutual respect, and teamwork by everyone in the courtroom including counsel, the witnesses, the interpreter, and the judge to complete the case in the time allotted and to inform the judge’s decision. Everyone seemed to be working toward a common goal of resolution, even though they had different roles and views on the right outcome.”

Of course that was then. I’ve been told that most Immigration Courts these days are much more “openly hostile territory” particularly for respondents and their counsel. All the more reason why we need more, rather than less, in person court observation.

Many thanks to our friend and Round Table colleague Judge Ilyce Shugall for bringing this festering problem “out in the open.”

PWS

12-12-19

ROLLING STONE: HOW STEPHEN MILLER & HIS WHITE NATIONALIST CABAL TOOK OVER OUR GOVERNMENT’S IMMIGRATION APPARATUS: “We used [CIS material] to spin a narrative where immigrants of color were not only dangerous, violent individuals but also posed an existential threat to America,” McHugh told Hatewatch. “We never fact-checked anything. We never called up other organizations to get any other perspective about those studies…. It was understood. You just write it up.”

https://apple.news/Ai9__HexTRd-ZH51tL17Maw

Andy Kroll reports for Rolling Stone:

New Emails Expose How Stephen Miller and His Pals Push Trump’s Agenda

For nearly three years, Stephen Miller has used his White House seat to orchestrate the most extreme anti-immigrant agenda in almost a century. But he hasn’t done it alone.

A loose network of lawyers and advisers embedded throughout the Trump administration has worked closely with Miller to carry out the daily effort of pushing through draconian and often inhumane policies like separating migrant families at the border, detaining young migrants in cagelike facilities, and drastically reducing the number of immigrants allowed entry into the country. In other words, Miller, with his white-nationalist mindset and fervor to enact xenophobic policies, is far from an isolated actor. He’s the leader of a broad operation spread across the federal government.

Newly released emails provided to Rolling Stone offer a glimpse of the working relationship between Miller and one of his internal allies and fellow ideologues: a senior adviser at Immigration and Customs Enforcement named Jon Feere. Feere has been a fixture in Miller’s immigration working group where new ideas for cracking down on immigration get conceived. Reading the emails, Feere comes across like Miller’s point man inside ICE, enjoying unfettered access to arguably the most influential aide in the Trump White House, working long hours to advance the administration’s extreme and often inhumane immigration policy.

In the emails, Feere strategizes with Miller about how to use the federal government to amplify their anti-immigration message; tees up potential attacks on prominent Democratic politicians; directly briefs Miller in great detail about upcoming enforcement actions and policy changes in the works; and recommends to Miller people the administration should hire to expedite its immigration agenda. The emails also show that on at least one occasion Feere bypassed his superiors at ICE to deliver updates and advice directly to Miller.

Related

Trump Caves to Kim Jong-un (Again)

Democrats Charge Trump with Abuse of Power and Defying Congress in Two Articles of Impeachment

“Stephen Miller didn’t cut ties with the extremists when he joined the government — he brought them with him,” says Austin Evers, executive director of American Oversight, a government watchdog group run by former members of the Obama administration. American Oversight first obtained Feere’s emails through a Freedom of Information Act request and provided them to Rolling Stone.

ICE and the White House did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Before he joined the administration, Feere’s bio says he worked for more than a decade at the rabidly anti-immigrant Center for Immigration Studies, which has played an instrumental role in shaping the administration’s immigration policies. The Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled CIS an active hate group. (In January, CIS filed a civil racketeering suit against SPLC’s leaders, but a district judge dismissed the suit.) As a policy analyst there, Feere took hardline positions critical of birthright citizenship as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment and of President Obama’s policies like DACA. He accused Obama of opening the border “to more STDs,” and gave testimony to Congress about restricting birthright citizenship. He wrote favorably of Arizona’s infamous “Show Us Your Papers” law and condemned the DREAM Act, cities that adopt sanctuary status, and Obama’s DACA policy. In 2015, he penned an op-ed titled “How Trump Could Change Birthright Citizenship.”

Feere’s outspokenness didn’t go unnoticed: He advised the 2016 Trump campaign on immigration for several months before taking a job inside the administration. On the morning of Trump’s inauguration, he hit send on a tweet: “It’s time to make immigration policy great again.”

The partnership between Feere and Miller was a natural one. Miller is a big fan of the Center for Immigration Studies. During a keynote address at a CIS event in 2015, he applauded the group for spurring “a debate that far too often operates, like illegal immigrants, in the shadows.” A recent investigation by SPLC’s Hatewatch revealed that Miller shaped Breitbart News’ immigration coverage leading up to the 2016 election by sending at least 46 emails that mentioned CIS research, employees, or contributors to a Breitbart editor named Katie McHugh. Miller sent McHugh the phone number of CIS’s research director and pushed McHugh to use CIS research in her stories, which she often did. (Breitbart fired McHugh in 2017. She says he has since disavowed right-wing extremist politics.)

“We used [CIS material] to spin a narrative where immigrants of color were not only dangerous, violent individuals but also posed an existential threat to America,” McHugh told Hatewatch. “We never fact-checked anything. We never called up other organizations to get any other perspective about those studies…. It was understood. You just write it up.”

After Trump’s victory, Miller brought fellow immigration hardliners with him into the new administration. In addition to Feere, there was Julia Hahn, a Breitbart writer who took a job in the White House, and Julie Kirchner, a former staffer at another prominent anti-immigration group, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), who became an adviser to the acting commissioner of Customs and Border Protection and later the top ombudsman at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service. Because Feere, Hahn, and Kirchner took advisory roles, that meant they didn’t have to be confirmed by the Senate, where they probably would’ve faced harsh questioning for their extreme views.

An active Twitter user before he went into government, Feere’s account went dark after his Inauguration Day tweet. That’s why the emails between Feere, Miller, and other Trump administration officials are useful — they give a rare glimpse at how key figures in the administration have worked behind the scenes to enact the largest crackdown on immigration in this country since the 1920s and ’30s.

“We’ve had quite draconian politics in the past,” says Daniel Tichenor, a professor at the University of Oregon. “But I don’t think we have ever had a modern presidential administration that looked back so longingly to the 1920s and ’30s as the good old days.”

The Feere-Miller emails released to American Oversight run to nearly 500 pages and are heavily redacted. But they’re still one of the few opportunities to see the administration and some of its most hardline members in action on the policy that Trump will be most remembered for: immigration.

One of the most striking emails is a December 22th, 2017, message that Feere sent to Miller and three other administration staffers. It’s a 10-point bulleted memo in which he updates Miller on a slew of different actions underway that he and his colleagues had worked on in the preceding week. The memo is notable because it appears to show how much latitude Feere has at ICE to not only brief the White House but drive forward the administration’s immigration agenda.

Feere says he led a meeting about crafting a new agreement between ICE and the Department of Labor on worksite immigration enforcement actions that would be “more favorable to ICE’s mission” of tracking down and deporting undocumented residents. He describes helping plan an upcoming ICE raid in the Bay Area, and tasking a field office to investigate a New York-based Pakistani American accused of supporting ISIS with bitcoin. He says he stopped an administration response to Amnesty International report on immigration enforcement; located ICE officers and operations “worth highlighting in speeches” for White House speechwriters; and assisted a Fox News contributor and “friendly NGO” on messaging after a draft proposal about separating migrant families had leaked to the media.

What’s notable as well about Feere’s December 22nd memo to Miller is that, according to emails, Feere apparently sent the message straight to Miller and other White House officials without clearing it by his bosses at ICE, who learned about the memo after the fact. “Here is Jon providing a weekly report to [redacted] that neither you or I saw before he sent it,” reads a follow-up email sent to ICE Acting Director Tom Homan by what appears to be Homan’s chief of staff, Tom Blank. (The redacted name is likely Miller’s. Homan declined to comment for the story.)

John Sandweg, who served as acting ICE director under Obama and reviewed the emails between Feere and Miller, says it’s not uncommon for an agency official like Feere to aggressively try to get credit for accomplishments and make the White House aware of what he’s doing. But Sandweg adds that it’s “a little strange” to see an adviser like Feere delivering updates and advice directly to the White House, as Feere did.

“You might have someone like [Feere] coordinating it, doing the grunt work, preparing it,” Sandweg says. “But going directly from him to the White House — that’s unusual. If you’re reporting that kind of detail to the White House, the director wants to sign off on that.”

In another email, sent on February 26th, 2018, Feere appears to forward the name and résumé of a Treasury Department employee for an opening at the Social Security Administration. In a follow-up email, Feere writes: “If we can get [name redacted] into SSA, it would help with information-sharing issues.” Greater access to Social Security information, immigration experts say, could assist ICE in its efforts to track down and deport undocumented residents in the U.S. Feere recommends to Miller that the applicant get a title of “Senior Advisor or similar [which] will ensure he has some clout over there.”

Other emails, while heavily redacted, show Feere’s efforts to build the case against DACA, which defers deportation for undocumented residents brought to the U.S. as children and allows them to receive temporary work permits. He writes in one memo: “DACA recipients include murderers, child molesters, individuals involved in fraud schemes, gang members, and many other types of criminals.” In another email, he writes to Miller on November 30th, 2017, to say that Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom were “silent” on the acquittal of an undocumented resident who was alleged to have shot and murdered 32-year-old Kate Steinle in July 2015, teeing up a potential attack on two nationally known Democrats.

And still other messages show a close working relationship and rapport between Feere and Miller. In one message, Feere asks Miller for a public defense of ICE’s then-acting director, Tom Homan, after Breitbart had published a series of stories that were critical of Homan, who had previously worked in the Obama administration. In another email Miller sends Feere his cellphone number and tells him to call over the weekend. In another, Feere gives Miller a list of “ideas for swift action,” at 7:30 p.m. (The substance of that email is redacted.) And in yet another message, with the subject line “Appropriations,” Miller thanks Feere for his work and tells him to “keep pushing.”

Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, a Penn State law professor and director of the Center for Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, says that Feere’s and CIS’s role in carrying out the administration’s immigration policy marks an ascent to power for one of the most extreme voices — a rise that would have been unthinkable even a decade ago. “They used to be called the loud minority,” Wadhia says. “The fact they’re now helping make immigration policy should be concerning to everyone.”

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

Remember: When Article III Federal Judges use concepts like “jurisdiction,” “deference,” “textualism,” “delegation,” “plenary power,” “discretion,” and “national security” to uphold the Trump/Miller assault on migrants, the rule of law, and our Constitution, what they are really doing is knowingly advancing the White Nationalist agenda while disguising their actions or inactions with often opaque legalisms. How can you rewrite the laws without Congress and in clear disregard of the Constitution, Due Process, Equal Protection, and prohibitions on racial and religious discrimination? Easy, when when the judges who are supposed to stand up for the law against tyranny instead look the other way.

How do you think that Jim Crow survived for at least a century with nary a peep from the Article IIIs about its obvious racist unconstitutionality? That’s the same type of corrupt judicial complicity that Trump, Miller, Barr, and the rest of the White Nationalist gang are counting on here. And, recently, they have been “right on.”

It’s also why despite all the recent revelations and calls by Democrats and opinion writers for his removal, Stephen Miller and his White Nationalist agenda aren’t going anywhere. Much as most Democrats and most pundits don’t want to admit it, Miller now represents the “real” GOP. The idea that GOP politicos will some morning wake up and find themselves appalled by illegality, racism, misogyny, and pandering to the hate agenda, and rediscover human decency, is a dangerous myth.

Note that no matter how outrageously racist, anti-Semitic, anti-American, misogynist, or otherwise hateful and demeaning Trump’s or Miller’s utterances might be, they draw no real condemnation from the GOP. At most, a smattering from the GOP might mutter something like “not useful” or “I wish he had chosen different words.”

And these days, most Federal Appeals Courts find ways to “go along to get along” without acknowledging what’s really going on here. I guess too many Federal Appellate Judges are incapable of seeing themselves and their families as being on the same level of humanity as Trump’s and Miller’s current targets. So, dehumanization and “Dred Scottification” of “the other” is OK by them. That’s both a shame and a national disgrace.

PWS

12-11-19

PROFILES IN JUDICIAL COWARDICE: AS FEDERAL COURTS FAIL, DUE PROCESS DIES, & THE REGIME SIMPLY THUMBS ITS NOSE AT THE LAW BY RETURNING ASYLUM SEEKING FAMILIES TO “DEATH ZONES!” — “Experts, advocates, the United Nations and Guatemalan officials say the country doesn’t have the capacity to handle any sizable influx, much less process potential protection claims. Guatemala’s own struggles with corruption, violence and poverty helped push more than 270,000 Guatemalans to the U.S. border in fiscal 2019.”

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-12-10/u-s-starts-pushing-asylum-seeking-families-back-to-guatemala-for-first-time

Molly O’Toole reports for the LA Times:

In a first, U.S. starts pushing Central American families seeking asylum to Guatemala

A woman leaves the market in Guatemala City with a bundle of bamboo culms. (Luis Soto / Associated Press)

By MOLLY O’TOOLE STAFF WRITER

DEC. 10, 2019 6:58 PM

WASHINGTON — U.S. officials have started to send families seeking asylum to Guatemala, even if they are not from the Central American country and had sought protection in the United States, the Los Angeles Times has learned.

In July, the Trump administration announced a new rule to effectively end asylum at the southern U.S. border by requiring asylum seekers to claim protection elsewhere. Under that rule — which currently faces legal challenges — virtually any migrant who passes through another country before reaching the U.S. border and does not seek asylum there will be deemed ineligible for protection in the United States.

A few days later, the administration reached an agreement with Guatemala to take asylum seekers arriving at the U.S. border who were not Guatemalan. Although Guatemala’s highest court initially said the country’s president couldn’t unilaterally enter into such an agreement, since late November, U.S. officials have forcibly returned individuals to Guatemala under the deal.

At first, U.S. officials said they would return only single adults. But starting Tuesday, they began applying the policy to non-Guatemalan parents and children, according to communications obtained by The Times and several U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officials.

One family of three from Honduras, as well as a separate Honduran parent and child, were served with notices on Tuesday that they’d soon be deported to Guatemala.

The Trump administration has reached similar agreements with Guatemala’s Northern Triangle neighbors, El Salvador and Honduras, in each case obligating those countries to take other Central Americans who reach the U.S. border. Those agreements, however, have yet to be implemented.

The administration describes the agreements as an “effort to share the distribution of hundreds of thousands of asylum claims.”

The deals — also referred to as “safe third country” agreements — “are formed between the United States and foreign countries where aliens removed to those countries would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection,” according to the federal notice.

Guatemala has virtually no asylum system of its own, but the Trump administration and Guatemalan government both said the returns would roll out slowly and selectively.

The expansion of the policy to families could mean many more asylum seekers being forcibly removed to Guatemala.

Experts, advocates, the United Nations and Guatemalan officials say the country doesn’t have the capacity to handle any sizable influx, much less process potential protection claims. Guatemala’s own struggles with corruption, violence and poverty helped push more than 270,000 Guatemalans to the U.S. border in fiscal 2019.

Citizenship and Immigration Services and Homeland Security officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

POLITICSWORLD & NATION

NEWSLETTER

Get our twice-weekly Politics newsletter

Subscribe

Molly O’Toole

Twitter

Instagram

Email

Facebook

Molly O’Toole is an immigration and security reporter based in the Los Angeles Times’ Washington, D.C., bureau. Previously, she was a senior reporter at Foreign Policy covering the 2016 election and Trump administration, and a politics reporter at the Atlantic’s Defense One. She has covered migration and security from Mexico, Central America, West Africa, the Middle East, the Gulf, and South Asia. She is a graduate of Cornell University and NYU, but will always be a Californian.

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

To be an Article III Federal Appellate Judge or Supreme Court Justice these days seems to be little more than a license to take a “what me worry approach” to Due Process, immigration, asylum, racism, and the human tragedy unfolding around us every day. As long as it isn’t their kids and families being harassed, abused, allowed to die in prison, or unlawfully sent to potential “death camps” in some of the most dangerous regions of the world, who cares?

Abuse of others, particularly the less fortunate and most vulnerable: “Out of sight, out of mind.” As long as the paychecks keep coming and the security is good in the ivory tower, the legal gobbledygook and spineless task evasion will keep flowing until our nation finally goes out of business under Trump’s anti-Constitutional authoritarian onslaught.

Will it affect those lifetime judicial pensions? Just don’t let the screams of the abused, tortured, and dying keep you up at night judges! But do authoritarian dictatorships really need “judges,” even subservient ones?

PWS

12-11-19

EUGENE ROBINSON @ WASHPOST: KID KILLERS ON THE LOOSE: “Sixteen-year-old Carlos Gregorio Hernandez Vasquez died horribly and needlessly. The Trump administration’s policy of deliberate, punishing cruelty toward Latin American migrants killed him.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-trump-administration-is-to-blame-for-a-teen-migrants-death/2019/12/09/569ae0e8-1ac6-11ea-8d58-5ac3600967a1_story.html

Sixteen-year-old Carlos Gregorio Hernandez Vasquez died horribly and needlessly. The Trump administration’s policy of deliberate, punishing cruelty toward Latin American migrants killed him.

That is the only conclusion to be drawn from a shocking report by the nonprofit newsroom ProPublica about Hernandez’s death in May at a U.S. Border Patrol station in Texas. I assume the agents and health-care workers who should have given Hernandez lifesaving attention are decent human beings, not monsters. But they work within an intentionally monstrous system that assigned no value to a young Guatemalan boy’s life.

President Trump’s racist and xenophobic immigration policies are not grounds for impeachment; rather, they are an urgent reason to defeat him in the coming election. But at least six migrant children, including Hernandez, have died in federal custody on Trump’s watch. Somebody should be held accountable. Somebody should go to jail.

Hernandez died of influenza and neglect.

He had crossed the Rio Grande without documents with a group of migrants who were almost immediately apprehended by the Border Patrol. In keeping with administration policy, he was separated from his adult sister and processed at a notoriously overcrowded holding facility in McAllen, Tex., where a nurse practitioner found he had a temperature of 103. She diagnosed him with the flu and said he should be taken to a hospital if his condition worsened.

Instead, worried he might infect others at the McAllen center, officials moved him to a Border Patrol station in nearby Weslaco and locked him in a cell. That was on the afternoon of May 19. By the following morning, Hernandez was dead.

Border Patrol logs show that agents checked on Hernandez several times that night. But ProPublica obtained cellblock video showing that “the only way . . . officials could have missed Carlos’ crisis is that they weren’t looking.”

The video “shows Carlos writhing for at least 25 minutes on the floor and a concrete bench,” ProPublica reported. “It shows him staggering to the toilet and collapsing on the floor, where he remained in the same position for the next four and a half hours.”

Customs and Border Protection, the parent agency of the Border Patrol, claimed that Hernandez’s lifeless body was discovered by agents doing a morning check. But the video shows, according to ProPublica, that it was Hernandez’s cellmate who sent up the alarm.

“On the video, the cellmate can be seen waking up and groggily walking to the toilet, where Carlos was lying in a pool of blood on the floor. He [the roommate] gestures for help at the cell door. Only then do agents enter the cell and discover that Carlos had died during the night.”

Let that sink in for a moment. A 16-year-old boy has obviously fallen ill and has a soaring fever. Instead of seeking medical care for him, agents of the United States government — acting in your name and mine — leave him to die on the cold concrete floor of a detention cell.

Hernandez’s death implies more than the apparent negligence of a few overworked Border Patrol agents. It indicts a whole system designed by the Trump administration to deter would-be migrants and asylum seekers by punishing those who do make the journey.

In Hernandez’s case, the fatal punishment was meted out illegally. He had been in custody for six days when he died, but the Border Patrol is only supposed to hold children for 72 hours, at most, before transferring them to the Department of Health and Human Services.

The Trump administration instituted a shockingly inhumane policy of separating migrant parents from their children, who in many cases were sent hundreds of miles away. Thousands of children were warehoused in cages, like animals. Toddlers and infants were absurdly expected to represent themselves at immigration hearings whose nature they could not begin to understand.

It is true that officials have had to deal with a flood of migrants who overwhelmed border facilities and personnel. But the Trump administration responded to the surge not with compassion but with purposeful callousness. It is horrific that six migrant children are known to have died in Customs and Border Protection custody since September 2018. It is even worse when you realize there were no such deaths, not a single one, during the eight years of the Obama administration.

According to ProPublica’s report, Carlos Gregorio Hernandez Vasquez was a bright and engaging boy who captained his school’s soccer team in the village of San Jose del Rodeo. The Border Patrol assigned him the alien identification number A203665141. His body was shipped home for burial.

Read more from Eugene Robinson’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.

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

So why are racist White Nationalist policies that kill kids and then cover up “OK?” Why are Kelly, Nielsen, “Big Mac With Lies,” “Gonzo Apocalypto,” and others responsible for human rights violations running around making big bucks off their misconduct, giving speeches as if they were “normal” former senior executives, and even running for public office rather than facing charges for their misconduct? Others like Chief Toady Billy Barr and “Cooch Cooch” remain in office while spreading their authoritarian lies and attacking our democratic institutions.

And what about complicit Federal Appellate Judges and Supreme Court Justices who have let Due Process, fundamental fairness, and human decency die while looking the other way?

Human rights criminals like Trump & Miller need plenty of “go along to get along” accomplices to carry out their abuse.

Thanks, Eugene, for speaking out when so many others in privileged positions of supposed responsibility have been so cowardly and complicit in the face of tyranny that intends to destroy our democracy and that has already undermined our humanity.

Where’s the outrage!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-11-19

COMPLICIT COURT UPDATE: 4th CIRCUIT JOINS 9th IN “TANKING FOR TRUMP” ON PUBLIC CHARGE RULE – Judges Harvie Wilkinson & Paul Niemeyer Go “Belly Up” For Trump, While Judge Pamela Harris Stands Up For The Rule Of Law –- Complicit Federal Judges continue to advance & enable Trump’s White Nationalist agenda by “working against our collective national interest.”

https://apple.news/AEvdsXcjDQJ6o7WK_NGgpYg

Scott Martelle writes in the LA Times:

Opinion: Court decisions are falling Trump’s way on a bad immigration policy

Just because two of three pending appeals have gone Trump’s way, that doesn’t mean his ‘public charge’ rule for immigrants is good policy.

Two down, one to go.

Federal judges in three separate circuits issued injunctions — two nationwide, one limited to the 9th Circuit — against President Trump’s pending “public charge” rule, which would make immigrants ineligible for green cards if they sign up for certain public benefits.

On Monday, the 4 Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., joined fellow jurists in the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in lifting injunctions after the federal government persuaded them that it likely had the legal authority to adopt the new restrictions.

That leaves the 2 Circuit Court of Appeals, which is mulling an appeal of a nationwide injunction issued in October by a district court in New York City, as the last barrier.

The lower court decisions hinged on complaints by immigrant advocates and several state attorneys general (including California) that the government violated the federal Administrative Procedure Act by adopting an “arbitrary and capricious” policy that exceeded its authority under immigration law. But two appellate courts now say the government likely had the authority to do what it did.

Even if that is true, that doesn’t make the new rule good policy. Much like the government’s effort to require potential immigrants to prove they could cover anticipated healthcare costs (that also has been held up in the courts), the public charge rule is clearly aimed at reducing the number of poor people admitted to the country and increasing the ranks of the wealthy.

You know, fewer people from those infamous “shithole countries” in Africa, South American and the Caribbean, and more from wealthier nations in Europe, such as Trump expressed favorite, Norway (good luck with that, as my colleague Paul Thornton once pointed out).

In typical fashion, the White House used the Monday decision as a point of attack.

“The 4th Circuit’s lifting of the lawless nationwide injunction imposed against the administration’s public charge immigration regulation is a major step forward for the rule of law,” the White House said. “It is our hope that the 2nd Circuit will, like the 9th and 4th Circuits have already done, lift the meritless nationwide injunction a New York district court has imposed against the rule so that it can be enforced, consistent with the plain letter of the law, for the benefit of all citizens and lawful residents of this country.”

But the “public charge” rule is not a benefit to all. It makes life tougher for people who have already immigrated and who are hoping to be joined by their families — allowed under decades of U.S. policy — and it counters our national economic interest.

As The Times editorial board wrote in September when the proposed rule surfaced:

“The government estimates that the new regulations would negatively affect 382,000 people, but advocates say that is likely an undercount. And the rules would keep people from coming to the country who economists say are vital for the nation’s future economic growth. President Trump’s xenophobic view of the world stands in sharp contradiction not only to American values, but to the nation’s history. We are a country of immigrants or descendants of immigrants, and as a maturing society we will rely more and more on immigration for economic growth. Research shows that even those who start out in low-wage jobs, and thus are likely to get some financial help from the government, often, over time, learn or improve skills that move them into higher income brackets and help the overall economy.”

So in the administration’s efforts to reduce immigration of all stripes, it continues to push policies that appease Trump’s narrowing base while working against our collective national interest.

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

Wonder who’s going to stand up for the legal rights of anti-democracy judges like Wilkinson and Niemeyer once Trump and his White Nationalists no longer need the courts? Would their immigrant ancestors have passed Trump’s nativist tests?

My full commentary on the similarly complicit ruling of the Ninth Circuit is here:http://immigrationcourtside.com/2019/12/06/complicit-9th-circuit-judges-continue-to-coddle-trump-this-time-legal-immigrants-are-the-victims-of-trumps-judicially-enabled-white-nationalist-agenda-judges-jay-bybee-sandra-i/

Constantly Confront Complicit Courts 4 Change!

Due Process Forever! Complicit Judges Never!

PWS

12-10-19

WHERE’S THE OUTRAGE? — 9th CIRCUIT JUDGES ASSIST REGIME’S AGENTS IN COMMITTING “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” MERE YARDS FROM THE BORDER! — NDPA Leader Jodi Goodwin, Esquire, Speaks Out: “I’ve been practicing law for 25 years and the last four to five months of practicing law has broken me. I don’t want to fucking do this anymore. [Her voice breaks again] It sucks. How do you explain to people that you know they thought they were coming to a place where there’s freedom and safety and where the laws are just, but that’s not the situation? I’m very mad.”

Jodi Goodwin, Esquire
Immigration Attorney
Harlingen, TX

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/remain-in-mexico-policy-immigrant-kids_n_5deeb143e4b00563b8560c69

Angelina Chapin reports for HuffPost:

A few times a week, attorney Jodi Goodwin walks across the bridge from Brownsville, Texas, to a refugee camp in Matamoros, Mexico, to meet with asylum-seekers. Her clients are among the more than 2,500 immigrants crammed into tents while they wait for U.S. immigration hearings ― often stuck for months in dirty and dangerous conditions.

The forced return to Mexico of migrants seeking refuge in the U.S. is one of President Donald Trump’s most inhumane immigration policies, yet it hasn’t received nearly the attention that his family separation and prolonged detention practices have.

Since January, under Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” initiative ― also known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) ― the U.S. government has sent at least 54,000 immigrants to wait for their court dates in Mexican border towns. Instead of staying with relatives in the U.S., families are sleeping in tents for up to eight months, in unprotected areas where infections spread within crowded quarters and cartel kidnappings are commonplace. Family separation ended a year ago. But Trump’s mistreatment of asylum-seekers continues in a different form.

Some parents are so desperate that they’ve resorted to sending their children across the bridge alone, since unaccompanied kids who arrive at the border cannot be turned away under MPP. Since October, at least 135 children have crossed back into the U.S. by themselves after being sent to wait in Mexico with their parents, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

In Mexico, many of these migrants don’t have access to lawyers and are forced to plead their cases in makeshift tent courts set up along the U.S. border where overwhelmed judges conduct hearings via video teleconference. The courts have limited public access ― lawyers and translators say that they have been barred from attending hearings. Migrants’ advocates argue that the tent courts violate due process, and immigrant rights organizations have filed a federal lawsuit against Immigration and Customs Enforcement over the use of videoconferencing.

Goodwin, who has 42 clients, said there is a serious shortage of lawyers willing to represent immigrants staying in another country where crime is rife. She spoke with HuffPost about why the Remain in Mexico policy is even more traumatic than separating thousands of families and why it hasn’t sparked public outrage.

AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION

Jodi Goodwin (center) at the refugee camp in Matamoros, Mexico.

HuffPost: Immigrant parents forced to wait in Mexico are making the heart-wrenching choice to send their kids to the U.S. alone. What are the conditions like at the camp in Matamoros?

Jodi Goodwin: It smells like urine and feces. There’s not enough sanitation. There’s 10 port-a-potties for thousands of people. Up until recently, there was no potable water available at all. People were bathing in the Rio Grande river, getting sick and, in some cases, drowning. People were seriously dehydrated.

The camp sounds completely unfitting for any human being, let alone children.

It’s a horrific situation to put families in. It’s great to live in a tent for the weekend when you’re going to the lake. It’s not great to live in a tent for months at a time where you don’t have basic necessities.

Are kids getting sick?

The kids are sick every day. I’ve seen all kinds of respiratory illnesses and digestive illnesses. I’ve seen chronic illnesses like epilepsy. I saw a baby that appeared to have sepsis who was forced to wait on the bridge for more than three hours before being taken to a hospital.

And what about the kidnappings? Have you heard of families being taken by cartel members who then try and extort an immigrant’s U.S. relatives for money?

About half of the people I’ve spoken to in Mexico have been kidnapped. The cartel knows if they can grab an immigrant, they’re likely to be able to work out a ransom. If they don’t, then they just kill them.

Any specific examples?

I dealt with one case where a mom from El Salvador and her 4-year-old son were kidnapped within an hour of being sent back to Mexico under MPP. They were taken for eight days before her brother in the U.S. paid the kidnappers $7,000.

The lady was terrified. She was sleep-deprived, food-deprived and water-deprived. She said that the people who had kidnapped her were extremely violent and hit her kid. They were drinking alcohol and raping people at a stash house where several other people were being held.

LOREN ELLIOTT / REUTERS

Migrants, most of them asylum-seekers sent back to Mexico from the U.S. under the “Remain in Mexico” program, occupy a makeshift encampment in Matamoros, Mexico, on Oc. 28, 2019.

The last time we spoke, you were on the frontlines of family separation, visiting detention centers where mothers were hysterically crying after being ripped apart from their children. How does the trauma of MPP compare, particularly for parents who are sending their kids across the border alone?

It’s way worse. I can’t with any confidence say that they will ever see their children again.

Why not?

I knew there were legal ways to get out of family separation. We were able to talk with our clients and didn’t have to go off to another country. And for those parents who got through their interviews or their court hearings, we were able to get them back with their kids.

With MPP, the assault is not only on human rights but also on due process within the court systems, which has completely hijacked the ability to be able to fix things. The parents can’t even get into the country to try to reunify with their kids.

Nearly 3,000 children were separated from their parents under Trump’s zero-tolerance policy. Do you think a similar number of families will be ripped apart because of Remain in Mexico?

It could be more. Over 55,000 people have been sent back to Mexico. I’ve talked to so many parents who have sent their kids across. It’s a heart-wrenching decision process that they go through. How do you give up your baby?

It reminds me of Jewish parents who were captives in Nazi Germany and had to convince their kids to get on a different train or go in a different line to save their own lives.

Have you witnessed these separations firsthand?

In November I saw a little boy and his 4-year-old sister sent across the bridge with an older child, who was about 14 years old. The teenager carried the baby boy, who still had a pacifier in his mouth, and the girl was holding onto the older kid’s belt loop.

I was standing on the bridge between Matamoros and the U.S. and I turned around to look down at the bank of the Rio Grande river. Every single parent who has sent their kid to cross tells me the same thing: As soon as they say goodbye and hug their kids, they run to the bank to watch them. [Her voice breaks] I knew there was somebody probably standing on that bank hoping those kids made it across.

Do you still think about those kids?

Oh yeah. The green binky that the little baby was sucking on is knitted in my mind.

VERONICA CARDENAS / REUTERS

The Mexican National Guard patrols an encampment where asylum-seekers live as their tents are relocated from the plaza to near the banks of the Rio Grande in Matamoros on Dec. 7, 2019.

You’ve been working hundreds of hours a month to try and help people stranded in Matamoros. This work must take a toll on you personally.

I’ve been practicing law for 25 years and the last four to five months of practicing law has broken me.

I don’t want to fucking do this anymore. [Her voice breaks again] It sucks. How do you explain to people that you know they thought they were coming to a place where there’s freedom and safety and where the laws are just, but that’s not the situation? I’m very mad.

Family separation resulted in massive outcry from the public, which eventually pressured the government to end the zero-tolerance policy. Why is MPP not getting the same attention?

There is no public outrage because it’s not happening on our soil. It’s happening literally 10 feet from the turnstile to come to the U.S. But because it’s out of sight and out of mind, there is no outrage. What ended family separation was public outrage. It had nothing to do with lawsuits. It had everything to do with shame, shame, shame.

This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

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

I’m with you, Jodi! Thanks for your dedication to justice for the most vulnerable!

What’s wrong with this scenario: life-tenured Federal Judges who won’t stand up for the rule of law, Due Process, and Equal Protection in the face of an arrogantly and overtly lawless White Nationalist Regime; DOJ and other U.S. Government lawyers who defend immoral and disingenuous positions in Federal Court, often, as in the Census Case and the DACA Case using pretextual rationales and knowingly false information; dehumanization, with overwhelming racial and religious overtones, of those who deserve our protection and rely on our sense of fairness; undercutting, mistreating and humiliating the brave lawyers like Jodi who are standing up for justice in the face of tyranny; GOP legislators who are lawyers defending Trump’s mockery of the Constitution, human decency, and the rule of law and knowingly and defiantly spreading Putin’s false narratives.

Obviously, there has been a severe failure in our legal and ethical education programs and our criteria for Federal Judicial selections, particularly at the higher levels, and particularly with respect to the critical characteristic of courage. Too many “go alongs to get alongs!” I can only hope that our republic survives long enough to reform and correct these existential defects that now threaten to bring us all down.

Where’s the accountability? Where’s the outrage? Where’s our humanity?

We should also remember that many asylum seekers from Africa, who face extreme danger in Mexico, are also being targeted (“shithole countries?”) and abused as part of the Regime’s judicially-enabled, racially driven, anti-asylum, anti-rule-of-law antics at the Southern Border. https://apple.news/AyYSWSXNfSdOm63skxWaUTQ

Also, morally corrupt Trump Regime officials continued to tout “Crimes Against Humanity” as an acceptable approach to border enforcement and “reducing apprehensions!” Will machine gun turrets be next on their list? Will Article III Judges give that their “A-OK?”

We’re actually paying Article III Federal Judges who are knowingly and intentionally furthering “Crimes Against Humanity.” Totally outrageous!

Constantly Confront Complicit Courts 4 Change!

Due Process Forever; Complicit Courts Never!

PWS

12-10-19

BIA SEEKS TO REPEAL CAT BY MISINTERPRETATION; MUSALO’S FACT FINDING MISSION TO EL SALVADOR SHOWS MALICIOUS ABSURDITY OF REGIME’S BOGUS “SAFE THIRD COUNTRY” ASSAULT ON HUMAN RIGHTS; 9th & 11th CIRCUITS CONTINUE TO TANK ON THE RULE OF LAW; & OTHER LEGAL NEWS ABOUT THE WHITE NATIONALIST REGIME & THE RESISTANCE — The Gibson Report — 12-10-19 — Compiled By Elizabeth Gibson, Esquire, NY Legal Assistance Group

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

TOP UPDATES

NY to begin issuing driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants<https://www.newsday.com/news/nation/immigrants-driver-s-licenses-new-york-1.39283599>

Newsday: The Green Light Law also allows new kinds of records to be used by immigrants to apply for licenses. These include an unexpired passport from another country, an unexpired identification number from a consulate, and a foreign driver’s license that is valid or expired for less than 24 months. If an applicant doesn’t have a Social Security number, they need to sign an affidavit that they hadn’t been issued one. Even the federal government would need a court order to obtain these records. The law requires that most of the records to eventually be destroyed, and supporters expect that would happen before court orders could be issued. The documentation is specifically identified as not being a public record under the law.

Justices Lean Toward Broader Review of Deportation Orders<https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/justices-lean-toward-immigrants-over-deportation-review>

Bloomberg: Justices from both the conservative and liberal wings of the court aggressively questioned the government’s attorney in a case examining what immigration decisions are reviewable in federal court.

More immigration judges to be assigned to cases at tent facilities<https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/12/06/politics/immigration-court-judges-remain-in-mexico/index.html>

CNN: As of mid-September, there were 19 judges from three separate immigration courts in Texas hearing cases. But the latest expansion includes the use of immigration judges assigned to a center in Fort Worth, Texas, that is closed to the public, leaving little opportunity for people to observe hearings.

Inside the So-Called “Safe Third”—and Trump’s Latest Attack on Asylum-Seekers<https://msmagazine.com/2019/12/04/inside-the-so-called-safe-third-and-the-trump-administrations-latest-attack-on-asylum-seekers/>

Ms.: [Karen Musalo (CGRS)] recently returned from a human rights fact-finding trip with colleagues to El Salvador, and our findings illustrate the absurdity of a U.S. / El Salvador safe third country agreement.

Year In Review: The Most Significant Immigration Stories Of 2019<https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2019/12/09/the-most-disturbing-immigration-stories-of-2019/#74b86cac1302>

Forbes: The year 2019 produced many significant and, in some cases, tragic stories about immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers. The list is not comprehensive but focuses on those stories considered most important to remember.

North Dakota county may become US’s 1st to bar new refugees<https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/north-dakota-county-uss-1st-bar-refugees-67579252>

ABC: If they vote to bar refugees, as expected, Burleigh County — home to about 95,000 people and the capital city of Bismarck — could become the first local government to do so since President Donald Trump issued an executive order making it possible.

Trump Has Built a Wall of Bureaucracy to Keep Out the Very Immigrants He Says He Wants<https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/12/trump-h1b-visa-immigration-restrictions/>

MJ: Even as President Donald Trump has complained about rules that prevent American companies “from retaining highly skilled and… totally brilliant people” from abroad, his administration has made sweeping changes to the H-1B program, denying visas to skilled immigrants, some who have been working in the United States for years. USCIS has been denying H-1B petitions at a record rate: 24 percent of first-time H-1B applications were denied through the third quarter of 2019 fiscal year, compared with 6 percent in 2015.

LITIGATION/CASELAW/RULES/MEMOS

Matter of O-S-A-F-<https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1224026/download>

(1) Torturous conduct committed by a public official who is acting “in an official capacity,” that is, “under color of law” is covered by the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted and opened for signature Dec. 10, 1984, G.A. Res. 39/46, 39 U.N. GAOR Supp. No. 51, at 197, U.N. Doc. A/RES/39/708 (1984) (entered into force June 26, 1987; for the United States Apr. 18, 1988), but such conduct by an official who is not acting in an official capacity, also known as a “rogue official,” is not covered by the Convention.

(2) The key consideration in determining if a public official was acting under color of law is whether he was able to engage in torturous conduct because of his government position or if he could have done so without a connection to the government.

New Acting Court Administrator at New York – Varick Immigration Court

EOIR: Effective today, Paul Friedman is the Acting Court Administrator for the New York – Varick, Fishkill, and Ulster immigration courts. Paul is currently the Court Administrator for the Elizabeth Immigration Court in New Jersey. He will be splitting his time between the Elizabeth IC and the Varick IC each week.

Appeals court lifts some rulings blocking Trump ‘public charge’ rule for immigrants<https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/05/trump-public-charge-immigrants-legal-076855>

Politico: A divided 9th Circuit panel clears away obstacles to a key administration immigration policy, but courts in other parts of the country [including SDNY] still have it on hold.

ACLU Files Lawsuit Challenging Programs that Rush Migrants Through Asylum Screenings Without Access to Attorneys in Border Patrol Facilities<https://www.aclutx.org/en/press-releases/aclu-files-lawsuit-challenging-programs-rush-migrants-through-asylum-screenings>

ACLU: The lawsuit states that the new programs – known as Prompt Asylum Claim Review (“PACR”) and the Humanitarian Asylum Review Process (“HARP”) – require the detention of asylum seekers in dangerous CBP facilities known as “hieleras” (or “iceboxes” for their freezing temperatures) with no meaningful way to obtain or consult with an attorney before their hearings.

Acevedo v. Barr Denied<https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/17-3519/17-3519-2019-12-03.html>

Justia: The Second Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA’s decision affirming the IJ’s determination that petitioner was removable and ineligible for cancellation of removal. The court held that petitioner’s conviction under New York Penal Law 110.00, 130.45 for attempted oral or anal sexual conduct with a person under the age of fifteen constitutes sexual abuse of a minor, and was therefore an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The court explained that petitioner’s conviction under the New York statute did not encompass more conduct than the generic definition and could not realistically result in an individual’s conviction for conduct made with a less than knowing mens rea.

11th Circuit Defers to Matter of A-B-<https://immigrationcourtside.com/2019/12/04/11th-circuit-tanks-defers-to-matter-of-a-b-refugee-women-of-color-sentenced-to-potential-death-without-due-process-by-judges-elizabeth-l-branch-peter-t-fay-frank-m-hull/>

Courtside: The BIA concluded, based on recent precedent from the Attorney General, Matter of A-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018), that Amezcua-Preciado’s proposed social group of “women in Mexico who are unable to leave their domestic relationships” was not a cognizable particular social group under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”).

Typo/ambiguity in the new I-912 instructions for SIJS<https://www.uscis.gov/i-192>

Page 6 of the new I-912 instructions state: “If you are applying for adjustment of status or filing related forms based on SIJ classification, you are not required to complete Part 2. of Form I-912 or to show proof of income to request a fee waiver.” Part 2 is the biographical information. It is possible this is an error and USCIS meant Part 3, regarding income. If you have any test cases that won’t age out, spread the word on how this plays out.

USCIS Extension of Comment Period on Proposed Rule with Adjustments to Fee Schedule and Other Changes<https://www.aila.org/advo-media/submit-feedback-notices-requests-for-comment/84-fr-67243-12-9-19>

USCIS extension of the comment period on the proposed rule published at 84 FR 62280 on 11/14/19, which would significantly alter the USCIS fee schedule and make other changes, including form changes. Comments are now due 12/30/19. (84 FR 67243, 12/9/19) AILA Doc. No. 19120900

EOIR to Open New Immigration Court in Los Angeles<https://www.aila.org/infonet/eoir-to-open-new-immigration-court-in-los-angeles>

EOIR will open a new immigration court in Los Angeles, on December 9, 2019. The Van Nuys Blvd. immigration court will cover Kern, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura counties, and parts of Los Angeles County. Notice includes court’s location, contact information, and hours of operation. AILA Doc. No. 19120234

CBP Meets with Privacy Groups to Discuss Biometric Entry-Exit Mandate<https://www.aila.org/infonet/cbp-meets-with-privacy-groups-to-discuss-biometric>

On 12/3/19, CBP met with privacy groups to discuss its implementation of the congressional biometric entry-exit mandate and the protection of traveler privacy during the biometric facial comparison process at ports of entry. CBP has implemented this technology at more than 20 U.S. ports of entry. AILA Doc. No. 19120432

DOS Final Rule Clarifying Passport Regulations Regarding Applicants with Seriously Delinquent Tax Debt<https://www.aila.org/infonet/dos-84-fr-67184-12-9-19>

DOS final rule making a clarification to the regulations on passports regarding situations in which a passport applicant is certified by the Secretary of the Treasury as having a seriously delinquent tax debt. The rule is effective 12/9/19. (84 FR 67184, 12/9/19) AILA Doc. No. 19120932

USCIS 60-Day Notice and Request for Comments on Additional Proposed Revisions to Form I-290B<https://www.aila.org/advo-media/submit-feedback-notices-requests-for-comment/uscis-84-fr-66924-12-6-19>

USCIS 60-day notice and request for comments on proposed revisions to Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion. USCIS originally published this notice at 84 FR 39359 and decided to propose additional changes in this new 60-day notice. Comments are due 2/4/20. (84 FR 66924, 12/6/19) AILA Doc. No. 19120934

ICE Opening New Detention Facility in West Texas<https://www.aila.org/infonet/ice-opening-new-detention-facility-in-west-texas>

ICE announced that it is opening the Bluebonnet Detention Center in Anson, Texas, the week of December 9, 2019. The facility, which will be managed by Management and Training Corporation (MTC), will house about 1,000 ICE detainees as they await outcomes of their immigration proceedings or removal.

AILA Doc. No. 19120430

ICE Provides Guidance on the Phase-Out of the Interactive Scheduling System<https://www.aila.org/infonet/ice-provides-guidance-on-the-phase-out>

Obtained via FOIA, ICE provided the guidance to ICE staff regarding the phase-out of the Interactive Scheduling System and replacement by the DHS Portal to schedule Notices to Appear. The Portal replaced CASE-ISS as of August 2019. Special thanks to Aaron Hall. AILA Doc. No. 19120330

Update to Form I-192, Application for Advance Permission to Enter as a Nonimmigrant. New Edition Dated Dec. 2, 2019.<https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMDAsInVyaSI6ImJwMjpjbGljayIsImJ1bGxldGluX2lkIjoiMjAxOTEyMDMuMTM4MDU4MTEiLCJ1cmwiOiJodHRwczovL3d3dy51c2Npcy5nb3YvaS0xOTI_dXRtX3NvdXJjZT1yc3MtZmVlZCZ1dG1fY2FtcGFpZ249Rm9ybXMlMjBVcGRhdGVzIn0.igkmXB-R6v9goSblHb89LrAWdtcG83febe5H96Erz2U/br/72220790478-l>

Update to Form I-192, Application for Advance Permission to Enter as a Nonimmigrant. New Edition Dated Dec. 2, 2019.

Update to Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion. New Edition Dated Dec. 2, 2019.<https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMDIsInVyaSI6ImJwMjpjbGljayIsImJ1bGxldGluX2lkIjoiMjAxOTEyMDMuMTM4MDU4MTEiLCJ1cmwiOiJodHRwczovL3d3dy51c2Npcy5nb3YvaS0yOTBiP3V0bV9zb3VyY2U9cnNzLWZlZWQmdXRtX2NhbXBhaWduPUZvcm1zJTIwVXBkYXRlcyJ9.BnD9VWQtxoxzTff9s58El_ZL4l5JOIv4hyGLDNNvDJE/br/72220790478-l>

Update to Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion. New Edition Dated Dec. 2, 2019.

Update to Form I-191, Application for Relief Under Former Section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). New Edition Dated Dec. 2, 2019.<https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMDMsInVyaSI6ImJwMjpjbGljayIsImJ1bGxldGluX2lkIjoiMjAxOTEyMDMuMTM4MDU4MTEiLCJ1cmwiOiJodHRwczovL3d3dy51c2Npcy5nb3YvaS0xOTE_dXRtX3NvdXJjZT1yc3MtZmVlZCZ1dG1fY2FtcGFpZ249Rm9ybXMlMjBVcGRhdGVzIn0.9detMlYAc9qo9rwvtKBwQvFvEDlzTVJbDR2Bych15f0/br/72220790478-l>

Update to Form I-191, Application for Relief Under Former Section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). New Edition Dated Dec. 2, 2019.

RESOURCES

* Asylos<https://www.asylos.eu/>: Free country conditions database and individualized research.

* Practice Advisory: Strategies and Considerations in the Wake of Pereira v. Sessions<https://cliniclegal.org/resources/practice-advisory-strategies-and-considerations-wake-pereira-v-sessions>

* Practice Alert: Updates to the BIA Practice Manual<https://www.aila.org/infonet/practice-alert-updates-to-the-bia-practice-manual>

* USCIS Issues Policy Alert Regarding Fees for Submission of Benefits Requests<https://www.aila.org/infonet/uscis-issues-policy-alert-regarding-fees>

* GAO: Arrests, Detentions, and Removals, and Issues Related to Selected Populations<https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-36>

* New NY DMV Guidance<https://dmv.ny.gov/driver-license/driver-licenses-and-green-light-law> and license and permit guide<http://nysdmv.standard-license-and-permit-document-guide.sgizmo.com/s3/?_ga=2.197959914.472787525.1575669305-120439318.1520888742>

* DHS report on CBP detention of children and families<https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/fccp_final_report_1.pdf>

* FAQ: Federal Court’s Preliminary Injunction Restores Asylum Eligibility for Asylum Seekers Turned Back at Ports of Entry Before July 16, 2019<https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/other_litigation_documents/challenging_custom_and_border_protections_unlawful_practice_of_turning_away_asylum_seekers_faq.pdf>

* Human Rights Fiasco: The Trump Administration’s Dangerous Asylum Returns Continue<https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/HumanRightsFiascoDec2019.pdf>

* Practice Pointer: CBP Transfer Notices for U Visa Petitions<https://asistahelp.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Practice-Pointer_-Transfer-Notices-to-CBP.pdf>

* Forced Return to Danger: Civil Society Concerns with the Agreements Signed between the United States and Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador <https://www.lawg.org/wp-content/uploads/Forced-Return-to-Danger-STC-Civil-Society-Memo-12.4.19.pdf>

* Making Way for Corruption in Guatemala and Honduras<https://www.lawg.org/wp-content/uploads/LAWGEF-Guatemala-Honduras-memo-December-2019.pdf>

EVENTS

* 12/10/19 Immigration Justice Campaign for a Free Webinar on Recent Attacks on Asylum<https://www.aila.org/about/announcements/join-ijc-for-free-webinar-recent-attacks-asylum>

* 12/10/19 USCIS Invites Stakeholders to Teleconference on SIJ Classification Updates <https://www.aila.org/infonet/uscis-invites-stakeholders-teleconference-on-sij>

* 12/10/19 Working With Transgender, Gender Non-conforming, and Non-binary Immigrants: A Guide for Legal Practitioners!<https://avp.us8.list-manage.com/track/click?u=fb8da3e27ad6713b5d8945fc2&id=70a5b33685&e=15233cf2a6>

* 12/12/19 Family-Based Immigration<https://mailchi.mp/e0c658697ffb/save-the-dates-new-immigration-law-fundamentals-series?e=09f6a8c81a>

* 12/12/19 Annual AILA New York Chapter Symposium<https://agora.aila.org/Conference/Detail/1637>

* 12/13/19 Walk-through of our latest Practice Advisory: Adjustment Applications of TPS Holders<https://secure.everyaction.com/Ehcp3tCeXkSu6MU8WxWOTw2?emci=458c6463-4518-ea11-828b-2818784d6d68&emdi=eb297b03-6318-ea11-828b-2818784d6d68&ceid=6058633&contactdata=fMDCB%2fqMqZ3aN7qEu%2bEEOZ%2f2u0bt1aESH09dm5dECnvlpUiBkFdYswuRXlQCtzzyIpgKxImxdeQKGFsR9FmfW5bEKkiDV4xpC%2brHKTjalyc7w16jw%2bSgJg5GHlK0kroKZ05AP0aHGbsGnYQCk2EX70whLDCxYaRq%2f0jgrAKy3hBelwcS%2fB5nvMSmoeNxg%2f83NHhP5SSrMwjY6MHa0O9UbSCevL%2frb%2fQ2w9N1BEtsFNwULTT1RpAXYa1Axo%2fAcXRktUZ3InKJH5jCw7olAZDtDVKQemN6U%2fzkwURRNhwT4S32Y5xzNEB9X0qfvoiUKvxe>

* 12/16/19 Census 101: Energizing and Mobilizing NYC Nonprofits to Get Out The Count<https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1rryroN2pG2kYUew8H3e8zCTyLRsqnyrB1o9RQ1e8L6s/edit>

* 12/17/19 Adjustment of Status and Consular Processing<https://mailchi.mp/e0c658697ffb/save-the-dates-new-immigration-law-fundamentals-series?e=09f6a8c81a>

* 12/17/19 Incredibly Credible: Preparing Your Client to Testify<https://agora.aila.org/Conference/Detail/1632>

* 12/17/19 Keeping Our Communities Safe: The Impact of ICE Arrests at NYS Courts<https://www.eventbrite.com/e/keeping-our-communities-safe-the-impact-of-ice-arrests-at-nys-courts-registration-80735649501>

* 12/20/19 Census 101: Energizing and Mobilizing NYC Nonprofits to Get Out The Count<https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1rryroN2pG2kYUew8H3e8zCTyLRsqnyrB1o9RQ1e8L6s/edit>

* 2/6/20 Basic Immigration Law 2020: Business, Family, Naturalization and Related Areas<https://www.pli.edu/programs/basic-immigration-law?t=live>

* 2/7/20 Asylum, Special Immigrant Juvenile Status, Crime Victim, and Other Forms of Immigration Relief 2020<https://www.pli.edu/programs/asylum-juvenile-immigration-relief?t=live>

* 2/28/20 5th Annual New York Asylum and Immigration Law Conference

* 7/23/20 Defending Immigration Removal Proceedings 2020<https://www.pli.edu/programs/defending-immigration-removal?t=live>

ImmProf

Sunday, December 8, 2019

* Music Break: Watch Lin-Manuel Miranda’s Stunning Video: “Immigrants (We Get the Job Done)”<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/music-break-watch-lin-manuel-mirandas-stunning-new-video-for-immigrants-we-get-the-job-done.html>

* Ninth Circuit Stays Injunction of Trump Public Charge Rule<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/ninth-circuit-stays-injunction-of-trump-public-charge-rule.html>

* Trump is trying to make it too expensive for poor American immigrants to stay<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/trump-is-trying-to-make-it-too-expensive-for-poor-american-immigrants-to-stay.html>

Saturday, December 7, 2019

* Immigrants’ access to legal assistance further diminished by EOIR memo<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/the-justice-department-recently-issueda-policy-memo-that-would-limit-immigrants-ability-to-rely-on-friends-of-the-court-for-l.html>

* Immigration Article of the Day: Aspiring Americans Thrown Out in the Cold: The Discriminatory Use of False Testimony Allegations to Deny Naturalization by Nermeen Arastu<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/immigrtaion-article-of-the-day-aspiring-americans-thrown-out-in-the-cold-the-discriminatory-use-of-f.html>

Friday, December 6, 2019

* Your Playlist: Luba Dvorak<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/your-playlist-luba-dvorak.html>

* Workplace Immigration Inquiries Quadruple Under Trump<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/workplace-immigration-inquiries-quadruple-under-trump.html>

* Inside the Cell Where a Sick 16-Year-Old Boy Died in Border Patrol Care<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/inside-the-cell-where-a-sick-16-year-old-boy-died-in-border-patrol-care.html>

* From the Bookshelves: The Ungrateful Refugee: What Immigrants Never Tell You by Dina Nayeri (2019)<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/from-the-bookshelves-the-ungrateful-refugee-what-immigrants-never-tell-you-by-dina-nayeri-2019.html>

Thursday, December 5, 2019

* Russian Finds Inventive Way to Swindle Migrants<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/russian-finds-inventive-way-to-swindle-migrants-.html>

* Immigration Article of the Day: Becoming Unconventional: Constricting the ‘Particular Social Group’ Ground for Asylum by Fatma E. Marouf<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/immigration-article-of-the-day-becoming-unconventional-constricting-the-particular-social-group-grou.html>

* University-Wide Scholarship Program for Displaced Students<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/university-wide-scholarship-program-for-displaced-students.html>

* Joseph A. Vail Asylum Law Workshop<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/joseph-a-vail-asylum-law-workshop.html>

* New Report Based on 3,000 Legal Screenings of Undocumented Immigrants<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/new-report-based-on-3000-legal-screenings-of-undocumented-immigrants.html>

* From the Bookshelves: They Came to Toil: Newspaper Representations of Mexicans and Immigrants in the Great Depression by Melita M. Garza<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/from-the-bookshelves-they-came-to-toil-newspaper-representations-of-mexicans-and-immigrants-in-the-g.html>

* Music Break: Rapper Rich Brian gets vulnerable about his Asian identity, immigration story<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/music-break-rapper-rich-brian-gets-vulnerable-about-his-asian-identity-immigration-story.html>

Wednesday, December 4, 2019

* Looking for Exam Inspiration?<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/looking-for-exam-inspiration-.html>

* GAO Report: Immigration-Related Prosecutions Increased from 2017 to 2018 in Response to U.S. Attorney General’s Direction<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/gao-report-immigration-related-prosecutions-increased-from-2017-to-2018-in-response-to-us-attorney-generals-direction.html>

* Peter Margulies: Court Issues Preliminary Injunction Against President Trump’s Ban on Uninsured Immigrants<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/peter-margulies-court-issues-preliminary-injunction-against-president-trumps-ban-on-uninsured-immigr.html>

* ICE bought state driver’s license records to track undocumented immigrants<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/ice-bought-state-drivers-license-records-to-track-undocumented-immigrants.html>

* “Building a Wall Out of Red Tape” from PRI/The World<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/pris-building-a-wall-out-of-red-tape.html>

* How McKinsey Helped the Trump Administration Detain and Deport Immigrants<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/how-mckinsey-helped-the-trump-administration-detain-and-deport-immigrants.html>

* Immigration Article of the Day: Faithful Execution: Where Administrative Law Meets the Constitution by Evan D. Bernick<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/immigration-article-of-the-day-faithful-execution-where-administrative-law-meets-the-constitution-by.html>

Tuesday, December 3, 2019

* From the Bookshelves: Perchance to DREAM: A Legal and Political History of the DREAM Act and DACA by Michael A. Olivas<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/from-the-bookshelves-perchance-to-dream-a-legal-and-political-history-of-the-dream-act-and-daca-by-m.html>

* Unprecedented: Trump Is First to Use PATRIOT Act to Detain a Man Forever<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/unprecedented-trump-is-first-to-use-patriot-act-to-detain-a-man-forever.html>

* El Sueño Americano | The American Dream: Photographs by Tom Kiefer<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/el-sue%C3%B1o-americano-the-american-dream-photographs-by-tom-kiefer.html>

* SCOTUSblog: Argument preview for Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr and Ovalles v. Barr<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/scotusblog-argument-preview-for-guerrero-lasprilla-v-barr-and-ovalles-v-barr.html>

* César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández: Abolish Immigration Prisons<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/c%C3%A9sar-cuauht%C3%A9moc-garc%C3%ADa-hern%C3%A1ndez-abolish-immigration-prisons-.html>

* History of United States Immigration Laws<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/history-of-united-states-immigration-laws.html>

Monday, December 2, 2019

* From the Bookshelves: Border Wars by Julie Hirschfield Davis and Michael D. Shear<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/from-the-bookshelves-border-wars-by-julie-hirschfield-davis-and-michael-d-shear.html>

* Is OPT in peril? Colleges sign amicus brief opposing end of OPT<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/is-opt-in-peril.html>

* A Fact Worth Remembering: Half of Undocumented Immigrants are Visa Overstays<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/12/a-fact-worth-remembering-half-of-undocumented-immigrants-are-visa-overstays.html>

* Immigration in Pop Culture: ICE Raid on “Shameless”<https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2019/1

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

The item about the BIA’s atrociously wrong CAT interpretation in Matter of O-F-A-S-, the results of the Musalo visit to El Salvador, the continuing “go along to get along” with Trump’s legal abuses in immigration by gutless panels of the 9th & 11th Circuits in City & County of San Francisco and AMEZCUA-PRECIADO, respectively, and the expansion of lawless “Tent Courts” by EOIR ought to outrage every American.

On the flip side, the possibility that the Supremes will finally stiff the Regime’s bogus arguments for limiting or eliminating judicial review of final orders of removal and the new ACLU suit about the Regime’s unlawful schemes to prevent attorney access for asylum seekers provide at least some hope of better days to come for the “Good Guys of the Resistance.”

Thanks, Elizabeth, for keeping the NDPA informed!

PWS

12-10-19

HISTORY W/ HEATHER COX RICHARDSON: Remembering Dec.7, 1941, Exposing Those Who Betray Its Legacy —“The interests of reactionary American leaders and Russian president Putin run parallel.”

Heather Cox Richardson
Historian
Professor, Boston College

December 7, 2019

Dec 8

On the sunny Sunday morning of December 7, 1941, Messman Doris Miller had served breakfast aboard the U.S.S. West Virginia, stationed in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, and was collecting laundry when the first of nine Japanese torpedoes hit the ship. In the deadly confusion, Miller reported to an officer, who told him to help move the ship’s mortally wounded captain off the bridge. Unable to move him far, Miller sheltered the captain behind the ship’s conning tower. Then another officer ordered Miller to pass ammunition to him as he started up one of the two abandoned anti-aircraft guns in front of the conning tower. Miller had not been trained to use the guns because, as a black man, his naval assignment was to serve the white officers. But while the officer was distracted, Miller began to fire one of the guns. He fired it until he ran out of ammunition. Then he helped to move injured sailors to safety before he and the other survivors abandoned the West Virginia, which sank to the bottom of Pearl Harbor.

That night, America declared war on Japan. Japan declared war on America the next day, and four days later, on December 11, 1941, Italy and Germany both declared war on America. “The powers of the steel pact, Fascist Italy and Nationalist Socialist Germany, ever closely linked, participate from today on the side of heroic Japan against the United States of America,” Italian leader Benito Mussolini said. “We shall win.” Of course they would. Mussolini and Germany’s leader, Adolf Hitler, believed the mongrel Americans had been corrupted by Jews and “Negroes,” and could never conquer their own organized military machine.

The steel pact, as Mussolini called it, was the vanguard of his new political ideology. That ideology was called fascism, and he and Hitler thought would destroy democracy once and for all.

Mussolini had been a socialist as a young man and had grown terribly frustrated at how hard it was to organize people. No matter how hard socialists tried, they seemed unable to convince ordinary people that they must rise up and take over the country’s means of production.

The efficiency of World War One inspired Mussolini. He gave up on socialism and developed a new political theory that rejected the equality that defined democracy. He came to believe that a few leaders must take a nation toward progress by directing the actions of the rest. These men must organize the people as they had been during wartime, ruthlessly suppressing all opposition and directing the economy so that business and politicians worked together. And, logically, that select group of leaders would elevate a single man, who would become an all-powerful dictator. To weld their followers into an efficient machine, they demonized opponents into an “other” that their followers could hate.

This system of government was called “fascism,” after the Latin word “fasces,” which were a bundle of sticks bound together. The idea is that each stick can be easily broken alone, but as a bundle are unbreakable. (It was a common symbol: in fact, Lincoln’s hand rests on fasces in the statue at the Lincoln Memorial.) Italy adopted fascism, and Mussolini inspired others, notably Germany’s Adolf Hitler. Those leaders came to believe that their system was the ideology of the future, and they set out to destroy the messy, inefficient democracy that stood in their way.

America fought World War Two to defend democracy from fascism. And while fascism preserved hierarchies in society, democracy called on all men as equals. Of the more than 16 million Americans who served in the war, more than 1.2 million were African American men and women, 500,000 were Latinos, and more than 550,000 Jews were part of the military. Among the many ethnic groups who fought, Native Americans served at a higher percentage than any other ethnic group—more than a third of able-bodied men from 18-50 joined the service—and among those 25,000 soldiers were the men who developed the famous “Code Talk,” based in tribal languages, that Hitler’s codebreakers never cracked.

The American president at the time, Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt, hammered home that the war was about the survival of democracy. Fascists insisted that they were moving their country forward fast and efficiently—claiming the trains ran on time, for example, although in reality they didn’t— but FDR constantly noted that the people in Italy and Germany were begging for food and shelter from the soldiers of democratic countries.

Ultimately, the struggle between fascism and democracy was the question of equality. Were all men really created equal, or were some born to lead the rest, whom they held subservient to their will?

Based in the principle that all men are created equal, democracy, FDR reminded Americans again and again, was the best possible government. Thanks to armies made up of men and women from all races and ethnicities—a mongrel population– the Allies won the war against fascism, and it seemed that democracy would dominate the world forever.

But as the impulse of WWII pushed Americans toward a more just and inclusive society after it, those determined not to share power warned their supporters that including people of color and women as equals in society would threaten their own liberty. Those reactionary leaders rode that fear into control of our government, and now, once again, democracy is under attack by those who believe some people are better than others.

In June 2019, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that democracy is obsolete. He believes that a few oligarchs should run the world while the rest of us do as we are told, and he is doing his best to destroy both American democracy and the international structures, like NATO, that hold it in place. The interests of reactionary American leaders and Russian president Putin run parallel. Astonishingly, that affinity has recently come out into the open. Some of our leaders are publicly echoing Putin’s propaganda, apparently willing to work with him to undermine the principles on which our nation rests so long as it means they can stay in power.

Will we permit the destruction of American democracy on our watch?

When America came under attack before, people like Doris Miller refused to let that happen. For all that American democracy still discriminated against him, it gave him room to stand up for the concept of human equality. He did so until 1943, when he laid down his life for it. Promoted to cook after the Navy sent him on a publicity tour, Miller was assigned to a new ship, the U. S. S. Liscome Bay, which was struck by a Japanese torpedo on November 24, 1943. It sank in minutes, taking two-thirds of the crew, including Miller, with it.

I hear a lot these days about how American democracy is doomed and the oligarchs will win. Maybe. But the beauty of our system is that it gives us people like Doris Miller.

Even better, it makes us people like Doris Miller.

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

Who would have thought that Putinist fascism would take over such a large portion of the U.S. Government without firing a shot?

“Will we permit the destruction of American democracy on our watch?” Interesting question on which, unfortunately, the jury is still out.

Anyone who watched Ted “Out Of Cruz Control” (R-RUS) suck up to and double down on V. Putin’s & Trump’s favorite false narrative about the Ukraine on “Meet the Press” yesterday couldn’t be too optimistic for the survival of our democracy if the GOP has any say in the matter! Chuck Todd was left almost speechless by Cruz’s outright lies and Putinist propaganda!

PWS

12-09-19

150 YEARS AGO, ANOTHER WHITE NATIONALIST DEMAGOGUE PUSHED AMERICAN DEMOCRACY TO THE PRECIPICE – Trump Following In A. Johnson’s Shoes! — Learn About The Johnson Impeachment With “Going To The Devil” A New Docudrama From The Great Courses!

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/29/opinion/sunday/andrew-johnson-donald-trump.html

Professor Manisha Sinha writes in the NY Times:

Opinion

Donald Trump, Meet Your Precursor

Andrew Johnson pioneered the recalcitrant racism and impeachment-worthy subterfuge the president is fond of.

By Manisha Sinha

Ms. Sinha is the author of “The Slave’s Cause: a History of Abolition.”

Nov. 29, 2019

Last week, in defense of her father, Ivanka Trump tweeted out a quotation she wrongly attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville: “A decline of public morals in the United States will probably be marked by the abuse of the power of impeachment as a means of crushing political adversaries or ejecting them from office.”

The misquotation came from an opinion essay in The Wall Street Journal that has since been corrected. What is fascinating about this incident though, is that the quotation actually comes from an 1889 book, “American Constitutional Law,” that defends Andrew Johnson against his impeachment in 1868. By the time the book was written, emancipation and the attempt to guarantee black rights lay in shambles, and conservatives rallied to the defense of Johnson, one of the most reviled presidents in American history.

Much more than impeachment connects the presidencies of Andrew Johnson and Donald Trump. No one expected either man to enter the White House. Both presidencies began with a whiff of illegitimacy hanging over them: Johnson’s because he became president when Lincoln was assassinated, Mr. Trump’s because he won the Electoral College despite having nearly three million fewer popular votes than his opponent, the largest losing margin of any president who actually won the election. The size of the gap did not bode well for American democracy.

Historical parallelism rarely works in a simplistic manner. But it does work when historians discern broad similarities and patterns that link our present moment to the past. Many fallible men have inhabited the office of the presidency. Only a handful have been so oblivious to the oath they took that they have met the constitutional standard for impeachment.

The first president against whom impeachment proceedings were considered was John Tyler, who like Johnson became president after an untimely death, that of President William Henry Harrison. A proslavery zealot, Tyler has the unique distinction so far of being the only president to commit treason against his country. He voted for Virginia’s secession from the Union.

Unlike Tyler, Johnson refused to go with his state, Tennessee, when it seceded from the Union. For this, he was appointed military governor of Tennessee and then rewarded with the vice-presidential spot on the National Union Party presidential ticket headed by Lincoln in 1864. Johnson came closest to being removed from the presidency when his conviction fell one vote short of the required two-thirds majority needed in the Senate.

If the recent House impeachment hearings have revealed anything, it is that Mr. Trump’s actions clearly meet the criteria laid out in the impeachment clause, “Treason, bribery or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” While Mr. Trump’s criminality is of the same order as Richard Nixon’s, trying to interfere in a presidential election, like Johnson, he exhibits no public or private decorum. Johnson’s and Mr. Trump’s biographies could not be more different but their lack of presidential demeanor was evident from the start. As the historian Eric Foner has put it, “Americans, more often than not, choose mediocre presidents, but require of them a decorum foreign to other aspects of their life.” Johnson, a poor white Southerner, became a slaveholder and successful politician, occupying local, state and national office. Mr. Trump, brought up in the corrupt and highflying world of New York’s real estate business, is an oddly successful political neophyte.

Both Johnson and Mr. Trump amply displayed their unfitness for the presidency before getting the job. Johnson so fortified himself with whiskey on taking his oath of office for the vice presidency that his rambling, drunken speech mortified all who were present. Lincoln, who gave his memorable Second Inaugural Address the same day, noted, “This Johnson is a queer man.” Mr. Trump is a teetotaler but ran a presidential campaign full of grotesque insults, ridicule, lies and vulgarity. His crude and cruel pronouncements after his ascent to the presidency are too many to recount. Ambassador Gordon Sondland, a Trump pick, in his testimony at the impeachment hearings in the House, uses the term “TrumpSpeak”: profanity-laced language that guided a personal political agenda and undermined United States foreign policy and national security. Both Johnson and Mr. Trump, neither blessed with literary or oratorical skills, succeeded two of the most gifted presidential wordsmiths.

But most significantly, both men made an undisguised championship of white supremacy — the lodestar of their presidencies — and played on the politics of racial division. For Johnson, it was his obdurate opposition to Reconstruction, the project to establish an interracial democracy in the United States after the destruction of slavery. He wanted to prevent, as he put it, the “Africanization” of the country. Under the guise of strict constructionism, states’ rights and opposition to big government, previously deployed by Southern slaveholders to defend slavery, Johnson vetoed all federal laws intended to protect former slaves from racial terror and from the Black Codes passed in the old Confederate states. This reduced African-Americans to a state of semi-servitude. Johnson peddled the racist myth that Southern whites were victimized by black emancipation and citizenship, which became an article of faith among Lost Cause proponents in the postwar South.

It is a myth that Mr. Trump seems to have fully bought into, given his defense of “beautiful” Confederate statues and monuments. Like Johnson, he uses derogatory language for people of color and he has expressed his preference for Nordic immigrants. Mr. Trump’s handpicked man in charge of immigration policy, the brain behind the separation of families in immigration detention camps, is Stephen Miller, who has recently been publicly revealed to be a white nationalist. The abolitionist feminist Frances Ellen Watkins Harper called Johnson an “incarnation of meanness,” words that are still applicable today.

Both Johnson’s and Mr. Trump’s concept of American nationalism is narrow, parochial and authoritarian. Johnson opposed the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, that guarantees equality before the law to all persons and citizenship to all born in the United States. Mr. Trump has threatened both to revoke its constitutional guarantee of national birthright citizenship and have the entire amendment overturned. Johnson’s highhanded actions and disregard of Congress led to Thomas Nast’s famous “King Andy” cartoon in Harper’s Weekly. Today Mr. Trump’s unaccountable style of governing reflects his Attorney General William Barr’s doctrine of unitary executive power, oblivious to the checks and balances and separation of powers in the Constitution.

The American republic was founded on the repudiation of the divine right of kings to rule. That is the reason that the impeachment clause of the Constitution holds elected officials, including the president, accountable for bribery and criminal wrongdoing.

Johnson and Mr. Trump not only managed to diminish their office but also engaged in actions that have dangerous repercussions for American democracy. Their crimes are not just specific impeachable acts but also the systematic undermining of the rule of law, democratic governance, human rights and the national interest. Johnson pardoned nearly all high-ranking Confederates who had taken up arms against the United States government. In one case, he also pardoned a white Virginian who murdered a black man in broad daylight and looked the other way at reports of massacres of freed people and harassment of Southern white unionists. Mr. Trump, against the advice of the Defense Department and the Navy, has just pardoned a Navy SEAL, Edward Gallagher, who violated the military’s rules of conduct. He has even hinted that he wants the disgraced Chief Gallagher at his rallies.

What Mr. Trump and his enablers call the “deep state” is nothing but the rules and norms of democratic government. It has become clear from the testimony of upstanding national security and foreign service officials like Ambassadors Marie Yovanovitch and William R. Taylor, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, Fiona Hill and David Holmes that he undermined the very fabric of the United States government in seeking to profit personally from the conduct of foreign policy, by withholding aid from a democratically elected anti-corruption Ukrainian government unless its officials investigated his domestic political rivals, the Bidens. Over 150 years ago, the testimony before Congress of ordinary patriotic Americans, former slaves, Southern unionists, Northern travelers to the post war South, Union Army officers and federal officials completely discredited Johnson’s racist policies.

Mr. Trump openly invites and, now we know, privately demands foreign interference in our elections, a scenario that the men who founded the American Republic and wrote its Constitution repeatedly warned against. He attacks his opponents and even supporters who do not agree with him on Twitter. Johnson, too, loved to vilify his opponents, like Frederick Douglass and Radical Republican congressmen. Both presidents precipitated a constitutional crisis that could be solved only through an impeachment process. The author Brenda Wineapple has written that Johnson was “the chief architect” of his own impeachment. The same is true of Mr. Trump.

Unlike with Nixon and Mr. Clinton, attempts to impeach Johnson and Mr. Trump preceded the actual impeachment inquiry because both systematically undermined federal laws and democratic institutions the moment they took office. Their personal narcissism and disregard for the principles of democratic governance led to early calls for impeachment. In Johnson’s case, violation of the Tenure of Office Act when he removed Lincoln’s Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton, led to his impeachment. While this law encroached on executive privilege, it was intended to prevent Johnson’s interference in congressional Reconstruction and his increasingly dangerous obstructionism. It was the law of the land when Johnson violated it by firing Stanton. Similarly, while it is certainly a president’s prerogative to appoint and fire American ambassadors, the removal of Ambassador Yovanovitch was the result of a sleazy attempt to pressure Ukraine’s government.

In 1866, a Northern public sickened by Johnson’s antics and vitriolic rhetoric elected a thumping majority of his opponents. In 2018, the country handed a rebuke to Mr. Trump by electing a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives, which has now begun impeachment proceedings against him. Trump has handed his own smoking gun to them, his infamous call with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine. Johnson removed and belittled Union Army officers. The Purple Heart-wearing Lt. Col. Vindman has been subject to nativist, anti-Semitic slurs and death threats after his moving testimony.

Johnson’s defenders, like Senator Willard Saulsbury of Delaware, the one man who could drink him under the table, and Senator Garrett Davis of Kentucky, were as oblivious to facts, reason and propriety as their modern counterparts, Senator Lindsey Graham and Representatives Devin Nunes and Jim Jordan. The vote to convict Johnson lost as a handful of moderate Republicans voted to acquit when he promised not to interfere in Reconstruction any longer, though he remained unrepentant, continuing to criticize the attempt to establish black citizenship until the day he died in 1875. But Johnson was damaged goods after impeachment, and neither the Republicans nor the Democrats wanted him anywhere near their presidential tickets in 1868.

House Democrats face a different scenario today given a Republican majority in the Senate. The likelihood of convicting Mr. Trump is much lower than it was for Johnson. The Republican Party, no longer the party of Lincoln, refuses to be persuaded, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Like the Republicans in 1868, House Democrats are not waiting for a presidential election to send a rebuke to a president who behaves with impunity against his country, its ideals and interests. The House Judiciary Committee would do well to develop articles of impeachment not just on narrow legalistic grounds but also on the broad ground of violation of the Constitution and the undermining of American democracy.

In drawing up 11 articles of impeachment against Johnson, House Republicans focused narrowly on violation of the Tenure of Office Act in the first nine. But the last two articles accused Johnson of opposing Reconstruction and bringing “disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt and reproach,” onto “the Congress of the United States” and for his “intemperate, inflammatory and scandalous harangues, and therein utter loud threats and bitter menaces, as well against Congress as the laws of the United States duly enacted thereby, amid the cries, jeers and laughter of the multitudes then assembled in hearing,” language that could be used verbatim against Mr. Trump. As Representative George Julian pithily put it, Johnson ought to be impeached for “his career of maladministration and crime.”

Some of the most damning testimony against Mr. Trump has come from impressive women like Ambassador Yovanovitch and Fiona Hill. Their 19th-century counterparts were abolitionists like the stalwart Lydia Maria Child, who wrote words as true today as then: “Every true lover of the country must want to creep into a knot hole and hide himself, wherever the name of our president is mentioned.” Johnson and Mr. Trump are both authoritarian demagogues who threatened the world’s longest lasting experiment in democratic republicanism. Democrats must convince the American people not only of Mr. Trump’s specific crimes, but of the very real danger that his continuing presence in office presents to the Republic.

Manisha Sinha, a professor of history at the University of Connecticut, is the author of “The Slave’s Cause: A History of Abolition.”

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

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

Want to know more about the Johnson impeachment?

Check out this new 1 hr. 15 min. docudrama from The Great Courses: “Going To The Devil.”

Subscribers to “The Great Courses Plus” can get it at the website. Even if you don’t have access, you can sign up for a free trial.

Either way, you can check out the free trailer here:

https://www.thegreatcoursesplus.com/show/going_to_the_devil_the_impeachment_of_1868

FULL DISCLOSURE: Our son Will works for The Great Courses.

PWS

12-01-19

“BIG MAC’S” LEGACY IS A PREVIEW OF “COOCH COOCH’S” PLANS FOR FURTHER “WEAPONIZING” DHS AGAINST HUMANITY — Child Abuse, Illegal Actions, Contempt For Court Decrees Likely To Ramp Up Under Spectacularly Unqualified White Nationalist “Statue Of Liberty Denier!”

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/immigration/story/2019-10-14/cbp-holds-migrants-longer-than-it-is-supposed-to-lawyer-claims?utm_source=SDUT+Essential+California&utm_campaign=516be9d215-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_10_15_12_56&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1cebf1c149-516be9d215-84889485

Gustavo Solis reports for the San Diego Union-Tribune:

Customs and Border Protection may be violating the law by holding asylum-seeking children longer than the agency is allowed to, according to lawyers who represent migrants along the U.S.-Mexico border.

By GUSTAVO SOLIS

OCT. 14, 2019

6:29 PM

Lawyers are accusing Customs and Border Protection in San Diego of breaking their own policies and potentially the law by holding migrant children in custody longer than the agency is allowed to.

Under the Flores Settlement Agreement, the federal government generally cannot detain migrant children and their parents together for more than brief periods. The agreement states CBP should not hold children for more than 72 hours and Immigration and Customs Enforcement should not detain them for more than 20 days.

However, asylum-seeking children are routinely held for more than 72 hours in San Diego, according to Erika Pinheiro, a staff attorney with the nonprofit Al Otro Lado.

“We are seeing cases of prolonged detention every day,” she said. “There is no rhyme or reason to it. Sometimes they are released the same day, sometimes it’s a week later. We’ve had cases of people in CBP custody for three weeks.”

Many of the people being held in CBP custody are part of the Remain in Mexico program, which forced asylum seekers to live in Mexico while waiting for their cases to be decided in immigration courts.

The latest example involves a 9-year-old asylum seeker and her mother who have been in CBP custody since Oct. 4, as first reported by KPBS.

The mother and family were released from CBP custody Monday afternoon, Pinheiro said.

That case is particularly disturbing because both the child and mother are reportedly sick — suffering from stomach pain and diarrhea — which could be a separate violation of the Flores Settlement Agreement, the lawyer added.

Apart from limiting the amount of time children can be in federal custody, the Flores Settlement Agreement also establishes basic standards of care that include access to medical care.

A CBP spokesman declined to answer specific questions about the 9-year-old’s case or more general questions about Pinheiro’s claims that the agency is violating the law.

The spokesman said that the agency treats those in its custody with, “dignity and respect,” while striving to, “process individuals as expeditiously as possible,” and noted that, “most individuals are in our facilities for 72 hours or less.”

President Trump has called the Flores Settlement Agreement a “loophole,” that allows immigrants to be released from immigration detention centers. In August, the Trump administration unveiled proposed regulations that would replace Flores.

Specifically, the new policies would abolish ICE’s 20-day limit on detaining families and establish new minimum standards of care for people held in detention centers.

According to CBP’s own policies, “detainees should generally not be held for longer than 72 hours in CBP facility and every effort must be made to hold detainees for the least amount of time required for their processing, transfer, release, or repatriation as appropriate and as operationally feasible.”

Immigration attorney Rose Thompson has seen multiple asylum seekers spend more than 72 hours in CBP custody, including a case of a mother and her adult daughter spending 12 days in CBP custody.

Another asylum seeker said the conditions inside CBP custody were so poor that she asked to be sent back to Mexico, Thompson said.

“It’s horrible,” she said. “It’s not an area that’s intended to detain people for longer than 48 or 72 hours because it’s not comfortable. I don’t know even if there are beds.”

An August 2019 report of conditions inside federal custody noted that the average length of detention for asylum seekers here in San Diego was 3.4 days and more than eight percent of migrants surveyed in the report were held in custody for five days or more.

That report, published by the U.S. Immigration Policy Center, noted that more than 10 percent of asylum seekers in custody reported experiencing medical issues in detention.

The Flores Settlement Agreement also requires the federal government to provide basic care for children in custody. It stipulates that minors most be treated with, “dignity, respect, and special concern for their particular vulnerability.”

Similarly, CBP guidelines regarding medical treatment state that officers are required to report illnesses to a supervisor and document them in an electronic system of record while also seeking or providing medical care in a timely manner.

However, Pinheiro claims that CBP is also violating this aspect of both the Flores Agreement and the agency’s internal policies.

She points to the mother and daughter released from detention on Monday as just the latest example of migrants not receiving adequate care while in custody.

“I have never had a client say they saw a doctor while in CBP custody,” she said.

Conditions of migrants in CBP custody made headlines in June, when a group of lawyers in Texas asked a judge to issue a temporary restraining order and a contempt order calling for CBP to “immediately start processing children for release to parents or relatives,” and provide children with, “basic necessities including adequate food, clean water, medical care, and access to sleep.”

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

There is a fairly simple solution for the problem of a Government that disobeys the law. Federal Judges should start throwing “Cooch Cooch,” his subordinates, Barr, and the DOJ lawyers advancing untrue and unethical arguments in support of their “clients’” indefensible positions in jail for contempt of court. In the case of lawyers, like “Cooch Cooch,” Barr, and his subordinates they should also be referred to their respective state bars for disbarment proceedings.

Until these thugs are held accountable, the child abuse and other human rights outrages will continue.

PWS

10-15-19

PROFESSOR ILYA SOMIN @ THE ATLANTIC: How The Supremes Have Intentionally & Unconstitutionally Screwed Migrants — “Dred Scottification” & Modern Day Jim Crows —“But there is an area of public policy in which the government routinely gets away with oppression and discrimination that would be readily recognized as unconstitutional anywhere else: immigration law.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/us-immigration-laws-unconstitutional-double-standards/599140/

Americans generally take it for granted that the U.S. government cannot restrict freedom of speech. It cannot discriminate on the basis of ethnicity and religion, and it cannot detain people without due process. Though these rights are not absolute, there is at the very least a strong constitutional presumption against such measures. Much of this is thanks to the Bill of Rights and other constitutional protections, particularly the Fourteenth Amendment. But there is an area of public policy in which the government routinely gets away with oppression and discrimination that would be readily recognized as unconstitutional anywhere else: immigration law.

In Dred Scott v. Sandford, Chief Justice Roger Taney infamously wrote that black people “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” Many aspects of immigration policy are unfortunately based on a similar assumption: Immigrants have virtually no constitutional rights that the federal government is bound to respect.

Last year, in Trump v. Hawaii, the Supreme Court upheld President Donald Trump’s “travel ban” policy, which barred most entry into the United States from several Muslim-majority nations. The Court did so despite overwhelming evidence showing that the motivation behind the travel ban was religious discrimination targeting Muslims, as Trump himself repeatedly stated. The supposed security rationale for the travel ban was extraordinarily weak, bordering on outright fraudulent. In almost any other context, the courts would have ruled against a policy so transparently motivated by religious bigotry, and so lacking in any legitimate justification. It would have been considered an obvious violation of the First Amendment.

In other situations, the Supreme Court has a much lower bar for what qualifies as unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of religion. Indeed, in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, decided just a few weeks before the travel ban case, the Supreme Court overturned a decision from a state civil rights commission in a case regarding a baker who declined to prepare a cake for a same-sex wedding ceremony for religious reasons. Although the commission had originally concluded the baker had violated state antidiscrimination law, the Court found that two of the group’s seven members had made biased statements against the baker’s religion—meaning that his case hadn’t been afforded the neutral treatment demanded by the First Amendment’s free exercise clause—and invalidated the commission’s decision. The Court reached that decision even though the commission would quite likely have ruled against the baker regardless of the prejudices of the two members (the other five commissioners also supported the ruling). All five of the justices who voted with the majority in the travel-ban case were part of the 7–2 majority in Masterpiece Cakeshop.

Read: How the Supreme Court used ‘protecting families’ to justify the travel ban

Why the difference between the two cases? As Chief Justice John Roberts explained in his majority opinion in the travel ban ruling, the answer is that courts defer to the government far more in immigration cases than practically any other area in which constitutional rights are at stake. As he put it, judicial “inquiry into matters of entry and national security is highly constrained.”

The travel ban is far from the only case in which immigration restrictions have been held to a lower constitutional standard compared with almost any other exercise of government power. In August, the Israeli government was rightly criticized for barring entry to two American members of Congress because of their support for the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. But few recalled that the U.S. also has a long history of banning foreigners with political views that the government disapproves of. Concerns that European immigrants had dangerous political views were a major motivation behind the highly restrictive 1924 Immigration Act, and were also used to justify barring many Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany in the 1930s. Even today, the law forbids entry to anyone who has been a “member of or affiliated with the Communist or any other totalitarian party.” Meanwhile, the government cannot discriminate against U.S. citizens who share those same views, including by denying them government services available to others.

Similar constitutional double standards pervade many other aspects of immigration policy. Courts have ruled that the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment provides for paid counsel in most cases where the state threatens indigent individuals with severe deprivations of liberty. But indigent migrants targeted for detention and deportation are not entitled to free legal representation, and often have to navigate a complex legal system without assistance. This leads to such horrific absurdities as toddlers “representing” themselves in deportation proceedings. You don’t have to be a lawyer to recognize that this does not comport with the due process of law required by the Fifth Amendment.

Read: The thousands of children who go to immigration court alone

Some argue that nothing is wrong with such policies, because immigrants have no constitutional right to enter the United States. But the Constitution undeniably prohibits various types of discrimination with respect to issues that are not themselves constitutional rights. For example, there is no constitutional right to receive Social Security benefits. But it would still be unconstitutional for the federal government to adopt a policy that extended such benefits only to Christians, or only to people who support the president.

Noncitizens are not categorically denied all constitutional rights; far from it. If they are accused of a crime, they get the same procedural rights as citizens. If the government condemns their property, they are entitled to “just compensation” under the Fifth Amendment. Many other constitutional rights cover them as well. But the anti-immigrant double standard applies to virtually all laws and regulations governing entry into the United States, immigration detention, and deportation.

Immigrants are not the only ones who suffer as a result of the immigration-law double standard. Many native-born citizens suffer along with them. A study by the Northwestern University political-science professor Jacqueline Stevens estimates that the federal government detained or deported some 4,000 American citizens in 2010 alone, and more than 20,000 from 2003 to 2010, due to mistakes resulting from the extremely lax procedural safeguards surrounding immigration detention and deportation. Other American-citizen victims of the immigration double standard include the thousands of parents forcibly separated from their children (and vice versa) by measures such as Trump’s travel ban, which would have been invalidated as unconstitutional if not for special judicial deference on immigration policy. Many U.S. citizens also suffer from the extensive racial profiling permitted in immigration enforcement.

There is no basis for the immigration double standard in the text and original meaning of the Constitution. Most constitutional rights are phrased as generalized limitations on government power, not privileges that only apply to specific groups of people, such as U.S. citizens, or to government actions in specific places, such as U.S. territory. The First Amendment, for instance, states that “Congress shall make no law” restricting freedom of speech and religion, not “Congress shall make no law—except when it comes to immigration” restricting those rights.

A few constitutional rights are indeed limited to U.S. citizens or to “the people,” as in the case of the Second Amendment right to bear arms, which might be interpreted as a synonym for citizens. But the fact that a few rights are specifically reserved for citizens highlights the broader principle that most are not. There would be no need to specify such restrictions if the default assumption were that all rights are limited to citizens.

This inference from the text is backed by founding-era practice. During that period, it was assumed that even suspected pirates captured at sea, whether U.S. citizens or not, were protected by the Bill of Rights and therefore entitled to the due process of law guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. Immigrants surely deserve at least as much protection as alleged pirates.

During the founding era, the dominant view, held by Founding Fathers including Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (the “father of the Constitution”), was that the federal government did not even have a general power to restrict immigration. The Supreme Court did not decide that Congress had a general power over immigration until the Chinese Exclusion Case of 1889, a ruling heavily influenced by racial prejudice. It is perverse that the exercise of a federal power that rests on such dubious foundations is largely exempt from the judicial scrutiny that applies to almost all other powers.

Admittedly, since the late 19th century, many Supreme Court precedents have reinforced the so-called plenary power doctrine, which holds that normal constitutional constraints on federal authority largely do not apply to immigration restrictions. For example, a variety of Supreme Court decisions hold that migrants could be excluded based on their political views, and based on restrictive laws whose enactment was in large part motivated by racial and ethnic prejudice. But these precedents are not as clear as is often assumed. Many upheld discriminatory immigration restrictions when similar discrimination was also permitted in the domestic context. For example, some involved racially discriminatory restrictions at a time when courts also upheld domestic Jim Crow laws, and others upheld the exclusion of communists at a time when courts permitted domestic persecution of communists as well.

Still, in addition to rejecting the reasoning of the travel-ban decision, uprooting the plenary power theory entirely would require reconsideration of the traditional interpretations of many earlier precedents, even though it would not require fully overruling those cases. The Court could instead accept that those precedents were justifiable insofar as they upheld discrimination that was also considered permissible in other areas of law at the time, but reject the idea that they require perpetuation of a double standard between immigration law and other fields.

Rejecting that view is the right course. The plenary-power doctrine has no basis in the Constitution. It was born of the racial and ethnic bigotry of the late 19th century, and deserves to suffer the same fate as Plessy v. Ferguson and other products of that mind-set.

Abolishing constitutional double standards in immigration law would not end all immigration restrictions. But it would ensure that immigration policy is subject to the same constitutional constraints as other exercises of federal authority. The government could still restrict immigration based on a variety of characteristics. For example, it could still discriminate using such criteria as migrants’ education, occupational credentials, and criminal records. But it would no longer be permitted to engage in racial, ethnic, religious, or other discrimination that is forbidden in other contexts.

Ending this double standard will not be easy, and probably cannot be done by lawyers alone. The civil-rights movement, the feminist movement, and the gun-rights movement are all examples of how successful struggles to strengthen protection for constitutional rights usually require a strategy that integrates litigation with political mobilization. The lessons of that history might be useful to those who seek to end one of the most egregious double standards in our constitutional jurisprudence.

This story is part of the project “The Battle for the Constitution,” in partnership with the National Constitution Center.

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

Hey, Hey, ho, ho, double standard has got to go!

It’s actually not that hard to get the Constitution right and to do the right thing. The Republic and Constitutional Government are “on the ropes” as a result of Trump’s White Nationalist corruption and gross abuses of the Rule of Law. And, all current indications are that the Supremes’ complicit majority intends to continue to corruptly and disingenuously destroy our republic. So, who will protect them and their families in the “Post-Constitutional Chaos” they are promoting?

Where, oh where, has judicial courage and integrity gone? Trump is destroying America, but a complicit Supremes’ majority has been a key enabler! What’s wrong with these guys? And, that’s certainly not to minimize the role of prior Supremes in failing to enforce required Constitutional protections for migrants. After all, the unconstitutional U.S. Immigration Courts have been operating under the DOJ for decades.

Think how history might have been different if the Supremes had “just said no” to Trump’s unconstitutional, clearly religiously and politically motivated, “Muslim Ban” instead of “rolling over.” (“The Court did so despite overwhelming evidence showing that the motivation behind the travel ban was religious discrimination targeting Muslims, as Trump himself repeatedly stated.”) Instead of shrinking before tyranny, the Supremes could have made it clear that Trump & Miller and their sycophants would have to act within the Constitution with respect to foreign nationals. The lower courts had it right! The Supremes undermined them and trashed the Rule of Law in the process!

Trump advertised that he could steamroll the Constitution with racism and religious bigotry. And, the feckless Supremes’ majority proved him right, dissing those courageous lower court judges who actually stood up for the Constitution in the process. The utter disaster that has followed, including betrayals of our real national security, can be laid directly at the feet of a complicit Supremes’ majority!

Will John Roberts go down as the “reincarnation of Chief Justice Roger Taney?”

PWS

10-07-19

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE GEORGETOWN LAW COMMUNITY ON THE UPCOMING (OCT. 7) CAMPUS APPEARANCE OF ACTING DHS SEC. KEVIN McALEENAN: Yes, McAleenan Is Intellectually Dishonest & Morally Corrupt, But He Should Be Allowed To Speak On Campus – Education, Preparation, Confrontation, & Challenge Is The Best Way To Deal With A Public Official Who Has Violated (& Continues To Violate) His Oath Of Office!

Dear Georgetown Law Colleagues & Community Members:

I agree 100% with the assessment by my colleague that Kevin McAleenan is a corrupt, immoral, and indecent human being. He is an affront to American democracy, human rights, and simple human decency, as well as a congenital liar. Imagine a person who would proudly negotiate incredibly dishonest “Safe Third Country” agreements with three of the most corrupt and dangerous countries in the world, none of which has a functional asylum system.

I have highlighted McAleenan’s despicable activities numerous times on my blog, immigrationcourtside.com. Perhaps fortuitously, one of my latest post highlights McAleenan’s “Let ‘Em Die In Mexico” program and the complicity of the Supremes and other Federal Appellate Courts in allowing these blatant violations of Constitutional, statutory, and human rights to continue. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2019/10/03/complicit-supremes-9th-circuit-help-trump-big-mac-with-lies-abuse-asylum-seekers-in-mexico-let-em-die-in-mexico-is-a-disgrace-enabled-by-judg/

Folks should also note Mac’s knowing participation in promoting death of forced migrants by starvation in Guatemala, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/trump-admin-ignored-its-own-evidence-climate-change-s-impact-n1056381, and his equally despicable program of returning those seeking legal refugee status under our laws to face violence in failed states that are basically “war zones.” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/27/honduras-central-america-asylum-seekers-us-guatemala-el-salvador?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Mac also is spreader of the demonstrably false claim that asylum seekers don’t show up for their hearings (they show up nearly 100% of time, when represented), that their claims lack merit (he has never, to my knowledge, adjudicated a single asylum claim and is a leading proponent of the Trump Administration’s intentional, racially and gender biased misapplication of asylum laws to Central Americans), and that the Flores settlement protecting children from abusive detention is a “loophole.”

He promoted regulations recently found by U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee to be patently illegal that would have authorized indefinite detention in substandard conditions of families and children whose “crime” was to seek legal protection under our laws. Rather than working cooperatively with pro bono lawyers, he has made it virtually impossible for dedicated, hard-working lawyers to represent individuals returned to Mexico. He has replaced Asylum Officers with totally unqualified Border Patrol Officers to improperly increase the number of “credible fear” denials, over the objection of the professional Asylum Officers. He runs detention centers with life threatening conditions and lies about it.

He has also abandoned the responsible use of prosecutorial discretion and overloaded the Immigration Court dockets with absolute “dreck” that should never been brought in the first place. Contrary to his bogus claims, the vast number of removals of non-criminals being pursued by ICE in the Immigration Courts are not only intentionally destroying the justice system but demonstrably harm the United States with each mindless, biased, and unnecessary removal of long-time law-abiding individuals who are contributing to their communities and often leave U.S. citizen family members behind. The recent proposal of DHS to misapply the “public charge” grounds to prevent individuals from gaining lawful permanent residence or U.S. citizenship is beyond disgraceful. His subordinates have gloried in spreading racially-motivated terror in ethnic communities throughout the United States.

I could go on for pages about Mac’s cowardly immorality and illegal behavior.

But, all of that being said, he’s an Acting Cabinet Secretary and should be heard. I think the best course is to publicize his misdeeds in advance, so those attending can be fully informed about what he actually stands for and his total disdain for human rights and the rule of law. I also believe that he should be confronted with his many lies and illegal and immoral actions and challenged to justify his unjustifiable positions. He needs to know that most of us do not agree with the Trump Administration’s perverted world view and disavowal of basic statutory, Constitutional, and human rights which he has dishonestly advanced and advocated.

Again, I appreciate my esteemed colleague’s courageously speaking out about McAleenan’s disgraceful record of misusing public service to abuse and threaten the lives of the most vulnerable among us. I also appreciate how it has affected him and his family personally. As a former public servant for three-and-one-half decades, I find Mac to be a vile disgrace to honest, ethical, and decent public service.

But, I think “hearing and confronting” is a better course than “tuning him out.” Maybe this occasion will help inform and energize the Georgetown Law Community about the abuses of American values, human rights, Constitutional Due Process, and the Rule of Law being carried out by our Government in our name every day against our fellow human beings who have the misfortune to be migrants in today’s world.

I also note that MPI and CLINIC, the sponsors of these presentations, are among the nation’s leading defenders of immigrants’ rights and social justice. That is another reason why I would defer to their decision to invite McAleenan to this event as an “opportunity to confront and understand the face of evil.”

Thanks for listening.

Due Process Forever, McAleenan’s Lies Never!

Best,

Paul Wickham Schmidt

Adjunct Professor of Law
Georgetown Law

U.S. Immigration Judge (Retired)

Former Chairman, Board of Immigration Appeals

Former Deputy General Counsel & Acting General Counsel

(Legacy) U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service

TWO MORE FROM HON. JEFFREY CHASE EXPOSING TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY & HOW THE COMPLICIT FEDERAL COURTS FURTHER THESE ABUSES! — “How innocent women and children resigning themselves to being severely beaten, raped, and killed in their home countries constitutes all problems being solved is beyond comprehension.”

Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase
Jeffrey S. Chase Blog

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2019/9/16/the-cost-of-outsourcing-refugees

The Cost of Outsourcing Refugees

It seems perversely appropriate that it was on 9/11 that the Supreme Court removed the legal barrier to the Trump Administration’s most recent deadly attack on the right to asylum in this country. I continue to believe that eventually, justice will prevail through the courts or, more likely, through a change in administration. But in the meantime, what we are witnessing is an all-out assault by the Trump Administration on the law of asylum. The tactics include gaming the system through regulations and binding decisions making it more difficult for asylum seekers to prevail on their claims. But far uglier is the tactic of degrading those fleeing persecution and seeking safety here. Such refugees, many of whom are women and children, are repeatedly and falsely portrayed by this administration and its enablers as criminals and terrorists. Upon arrival, mothers are separated from their spouses and children from their parents; all are detained under dehumanizing, soul-crushing conditions certain to inflict permanent psychological damage on its victims. In response to those protesting such policies, Trump tweeted on July 3: “If illegal immigrants are unhappy with the conditions in the quickly built or refitted detention centers, just tell them not to come. All problems solved!”

How innocent women and children resigning themselves to being severely beaten, raped, and killed in their home countries constitutes all problems being solved is beyond comprehension.

Those in Trump’s administration who have given more thought to the matter don’t seek to solve the problem, but rather to make it someone else’s problem to solve. By disqualifying from asylum refugees who passed through any other country on their way to our southern border or who entered the country without inspection; by forcing thousands to remain exposed to abuse in Mexico while their asylum claims are adjudicated, and by falsely designating countries with serious gang and domestic violence problems as “safe third countries” to which asylum seekers can be sent, this administration is simply outsourcing refugee processing to countries that are not fit for the job in any measurable way. Based on my thirty-plus years of experience in this field, I submit that contrary to Trump’s claim, such policies create very large, long-term problems.

I began my career in immigration law in the late 1980s representing asylum seekers from Afghanistan, many of whom were detained by our government upon their arrival. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Afghans constituted the largest group of refugees in the world. At one point, there were more than 6 million refugees from Afghanistan alone, most of whom were living in camps in Pakistan. Afghan children there received education focused on fundamentalist religious indoctrination that was vehemently anti-western. The Taliban (which literally means “students”) emerged from these schools. The Taliban, of course, brought a reign of terror to Afghanistan, and further provided a haven for Al-Qaeda to launch the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The outsourcing of Afghan refugees to Pakistan was the exact opposite of “all problems solved,” with the Taliban continuing to thwart peace in Afghanistan up to the present.

Contrast this experience with the following: shortly before I left the government, I went to dinner with a lawyer who had mentioned my name to a colleague of his earlier that day. The colleague had been an Afghan refugee in Pakistan who managed to reach this country as a teen in the early 1990s, and was placed into deportation proceedings by the U.S. government. By chance, I had been his lawyer, and had succeeded in obtaining a grant of asylum for him. Although I hadn’t heard from him in some 25 years, I learned from his friend that evening that I had apparently influenced my young client when I emphasized to him all those years ago the importance of pursuing higher education in this country, as he credited me with his becoming a lawyer. Between the experiences of my former client and that which led to the formation to the Taliban, there is no question as to which achieved the better outcome, and it wasn’t the one in which refugees remained abroad.

In 1938, at a conference held in Evian, France, 31 countries, including the U.S. and Canada, stated their refusal to accept Jewish refugees trapped in Nazi Germany. The conference sent the message to the Nazis on the eve of the Holocaust that no country of concern cared at all about the fate of Germany’s Jewish population. The Trump administration is sending the same message today to MS-13 and other brutal crime syndicates in Central America. Our government is closing the escape route to thousands of youths (some as young as 7 years old) being targeted for recruitment, extortion, and rape by groups such as MS-13, while simultaneously stoking anti-American hatred among those same youths through its shockingly cruel treatment of arriving refugees. This is a dangerous combination, and this time, it is occurring much closer to home than Pakistan. Based on historic examples, it seems virtually assured that no one will look back on Trump’s refugee policies as having solved any problems; to the contrary, we will likely be paying the price for his cruel and short-sighted actions for decades to come.

Copyright 2019 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

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

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2019/9/14/former-ijs-file-amicus-brief-in-padilla-v-ice

Former IJs File Amicus Brief in Padilla v. ICE

The late Maury Roberts, a legendary immigration lawyer and former BIA Chair, wrote in 1991: “It has always seemed significant to me that, among all the members of the animal kingdom, man is the only one who captures and imprisons his fellows. In all the rest of creation, freedom is the natural order.”1 Roberts expressed his strong belief in the importance of liberty, which caused him consternation at “governmental attempts to imprison persons who are not criminals or dangerous to society, on the grounds that their detention serves some other societal purpose,” including noncitizens “innocent of any wrongdoing other than being in the United States without documents.”2

The wrongness of indefinitely detaining non-criminals greatly increases when those being detained are asylum-seekers fleeing serious harm in their home countries, often after undertaking dangerous journeys to lawfully seek protection in this country. The detention of those seeking asylum is at odds with our obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention, which at Article 31 forbids states from penalizing refugees from neighboring states on account of their illegal entry or presence, or from restricting the movements of refugees except where necessary; and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees at Article 9, para. 4 the right of detainees to have a court “without delay” determine the lawfulness of the detention order release if it is not.

In 1996, in response to an increase in asylum seekers at ports of entry, Congress enacted a policy known as expedited removal, which allows border patrol officers to enter deportation orders against those noncitizens arriving at airports or the border whom are not deemed admissible. A noncitizen expressing a fear of returning to their country is detained and referred for a credible fear interview. Only those whom a DHS asylum officer determines to have a “significant possibility” of being granted asylum pass such interview and are allowed a hearing before an immigration judge to pursue their asylum claim.

In 2005, the Board of Immigration Appeals issued a precedent decision stating that detained asylum seekers who have passed such credible fear interview are entitled to a bond hearing. It should be noted that the author of this decision, Ed Grant, is a former Republican congressional staffer and supporter of a draconian immigration enforcement bill enacted in 1996, who has been one of the more conservative members of the BIA. He was joined on the panel issuing such decision by fellow conservative Roger Pauley. The panel decision was further approved by the majority of the full BIA two years after it had been purged of its liberal members by then-Attorney General John Ashcroft. In other words, the right to bond hearings was the legal conclusion of a tribunal of conservatives who, although they did not hold pro-immigrant beliefs, found that the law dictated the result it reached.

14 years later, the present administration issued a precedent decision in the name of Attorney General Barr vacating the BIA’s decision as “wrongly decided,” and revoking the right to such bond hearings. The decision was immediately challenged in the courts by the ACLU, the Seattle-based Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, and the American Immigration Council. Finding Barr’s prohibition on bond hearings unconstitutional, U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman issued a preliminary injunction blocking the decision from taking effect, and requiring bond hearings for class members within 7 days of their detention. The injunction additionally places the burden on the government to demonstrate why the asylum-seeker should not be released on bond, parole, or other condition; requires the government to provide a recording or verbatim transcript of the bond hearing on appeal; and further requires the government to produce a written decision with particularized determinations of individualized findings at the end of the bond hearing.

The Administration has appealed from that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On September 4, an amicus brief on behalf of 29 former immigration judges (including myself) and appellate judges of the BIA was filed in support of the plaintiffs. Our brief notes the necessity of bond hearings to due process in a heavily overburdened court system dealing with highly complex legal issues. Our group advised that detained asylum seekers are less likely to retain counsel. Based on our collective experience on the bench, this is important, as it is counsel who guides an asylum seeker through the complexities of the immigration court system. Furthermore, the arguments of unrepresented applicants are likely to be less concise and organized both before the immigration judge and on appeal than if such arguments had been prepared by counsel. Where an applicant is unrepresented, their ongoing detention hampers their ability to gather evidence in support of their claim, while those lucky enough to retain counsel are hampered in their ability to communicate and cooperate with their attorney.

These problems are compounded by two other recent Attorney General decisions, Matter of A-B- and Matter of L-E-A-, which impact a large number of asylum claimants covered by the lawsuit who are fleeing domestic or gang violence. Subsequent to those decisions, stating the facts giving rise to the applicant’s fear can be less important than how those facts are then framed by counsel. Immigration Judges who are still navigating these decisions often request legal memoranda explaining the continued viability of such claims. And such arguments often require both a legal knowledge of the nuances of applicable case law and support from experts in detailed reports beyond the capability of most detained, unrepresented, newly-arrived asylum seekers to obtain.

Our brief also argues that the injunction’s placement of the burden of proof on DHS “prevents noncitizens from being detained simply because they cannot articulate why they should be released, and takes into account the government’s institutional advantages.” This is extremely important when one realizes that, under international law, an individual becomes a refugee upon fulfilling the criteria contained in the definition of that term (i.e. upon leaving their country and being unable or unwilling to return on account of a protected ground). Therefore, one does not become a refugee due to being recognized as one by a grant of asylum. Rather, a grant of asylum provides legal recognition of the existing fact that one is a refugee. 3 Class members have, after a lengthy screening interview, been found by a trained DHS official to have a significant possibility of already being a refugee. To deny bond to a member of such a class because, unlike the ICE attorney opposing their release, they are unaware of the cases to cite or arguments to state greatly increases the chance that genuine refugees deserving of this country’s protection will be deported to face persecution

The former Immigration Judges and BIA Members signing onto the amicus brief are: Steven Abrams, Sarah Burr, Teofilo Chapa, Jeffrey S, Chase, George Chew, Cecelia Espenoza, Noel Ferris, James Fujimoto, Jennie Giambiastini, John Gossart, Paul Grussendorf, Miriam Hayward, Rebecca Jamil, Carol King, Elizabeth Lamb, Margaret McManus, Charles Pazar, George Proctor, Laura Ramirez, John Richardson, Lory D. Rosenberg, Susan Roy, Paul W. Schmidt, Ilyce Shugall, Denise Slavin, Andrea Hawkins Sloan, Gustavo Villageliu, Polly Webber, and Robert D. Weisel.

We are greatly indebted to and thankful for the outstanding efforts of partners Alan Schoenfeld and Lori A. Martin of the New York office of Wilmer Hale, and senior associates Rebecca Arriaga Herche and Jamil Aslam with the firm’s Washington and Los Angeles offices in the drafting of the brief.

Notes:

Maurice Roberts, “Some Thoughts on the Wanton Detention of Aliens,”Festschrift: In Celebration of the Works of Maurice Roberts, 5 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 225 (1991).

Id. at 226.

UNHCR,Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status Under the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees at Para. 28.

Copyright 2019 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

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

Thanks, Jeffrey, my friend, for courageously highlighting these issues. What a contrast with the cowardly performance of the Trump Administration, Congress, and the ARTICLE IIIs!

I’m proud to be identified with you and the rest of the members of our Roundtable of Former Judges who haven’t forgotten what Due Process, fundamental fairness, refugee rights, and human rights are all about.

Also appreciate the quotation from the late great Maurice A. “Maury” Roberts, former BIA chair and Editor of Interpreter Releases who was one of my mentors. I‘m sure that Maury is rolling over in his grave with the gutless trashing of the BIA and Due Process by Billy Barr and his sycophants.

PWS

09-24-19

9TH CIR/TRUMP “KILL ‘EM IN MEXICO PROGRAM” ENDANGERS ASYLUM SEEKERS & THOSE WHO ASSIST THEM —Judicial Disgrace Continues To Destroy Lives, Mock Humanity, Undermine The Rule of Law! — “Extortion-minded mobs view vulnerable migrants as walking ATMs.“

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2019-09-01/kidnapping-of-pastor-in-mexican-border-town-dramatizes-threats-to-migrants

Patrick J. McDonnell

Mexico City Bureau Chief

LA Times

NUEVO LAREDO, Mexico — The kidnappers came to the shelter near the U.S.-Mexico border looking for Cuban migrants, favored targets because relatives in the United States are known to pay exorbitant ransoms to free abducted loved ones.

In cartel-dominated Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, a gateway to the United States, it’s a lucrative racket: Snatch a migrant from Cuba, Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, Venezuela or elsewhere; commandeer their cellphones; then call U.S. relatives demanding thousands of dollars.

No need to spell out the consequences of nonpayment in the lawless Mexican border state of Tamaulipas, known for mass graves and massacres of migrants — including hundreds slain by gunmen of the Zetas cartel outside the town of San Fernando in 2010-11.

(Los Angeles Times)

On Aug. 3, when the Rev. Aaron Mendez, an evangelical pastor and head of the Amar shelter, refused the kidnappers’ demands, the thugs took him away.

The pastor entered the twilight world of Mexico’s “disappeared” — officially 37,000 and growing, with Tamaulipas state leading Mexico in the grisly statistic. Federal and state police are investigating what happened to Mendez, said Ivan Moyle, a spokesman for the Tamaulipas prosecutor’s office, who declined to comment further.

The case has dramatized the systematic fashion of abductions and shakedowns faced by migrants and others at an especially sensitive time — when U.S. authorities have been expelling tens of thousands of Central Americans, Cubans and others back to Mexico’s crime-ridden border cities under the Trump administration’s Migrant Protection Protocols, known informally as “Remain in Mexico.”

Under the program, rolled out in January in the border cities of Tijuana and San Diego — and later expanded to other U.S.-Mexico crossings — more than 37,500 U.S.-bound migrants have been returned to Mexico to wait for U.S. court hearings. Many intend to seek political asylum in the United States.

More than 3,000 have been dispatched across the Rio Grande to Tamaulipas — both to Nuevo Laredo, opposite Laredo, Texas; and to Matamoros, sister city to Brownsville, Texas — since the program was extended in July. Mexican authorities provide little housing or other aid to the returnees, who are often left on the streets to fend for themselves.

Extortion-minded mobs view vulnerable migrants as walking ATMs. They are easy prey, lacking family ties in Mexico and known to have U.S. relatives with access to dollars. Mob halcones — hawks, or lookouts — watch bus stations and other strategic spots, eyeing potential quarry.

Though drug trafficking provides the bulk of cartel income, Mexico’s organized crime groups are multibillion-dollar conglomerates that also control migrant smuggling, kidnapping and other illicit ventures, working in cahoots with corrupt police and politicians.

“There is no protection,” said Father Julio Lopez, a Catholic priest who runs the Casa de Migrante Nazareth shelter in Nuevo Laredo.

Three Honduran migrant families who returned to Mexico under the Migrant Protection Protocols recently recounted in interviews with the Los Angeles Times how gangsters kidnapped them, obliging relatives in the United States to pay ransoms. All three said they had alerted U.S. immigration officials that they had been abducted in Mexico — but were nonetheless sent back to Mexico.

U.S. authorities say multiple factors are considered when determining whether apprehended migrants should be sent back to Mexico, including whether they face persecution or torture. Claims by migrants are documented, authorities said, but fear of being kidnapped does not necessarily disqualify detainees from being sent back to Mexico.

“One of our main priorities in the U.S. Border Patrol is the safety and the well-being of the people that we apprehend,” said Jose A. Martinez, acting assistant chief Border Patrol agent in Laredo, Texas.

The State Department has slapped its highest security alert on Tamaulipas, noting that “armed criminal groups target public and private passenger buses as well as private automobiles traveling through Tamaulipas, often taking passengers hostage and demanding ransom payments.”

Beti Suyapa Ortega, 36, said she was unaware of the extent of the danger when she boarded a Mexican public bus last month headed for the U.S. border with her son, Robinson Javier Melara, 17. The single mother of five from the northern Honduran state of Yoro said she was fleeing maras, or gangs, that demanded weekly extortion payments at her family’s grocery store.

“The maras in Honduras are bad, but here I think they are even worse,” Ortega said.

Ortega spoke in a sweltering ground-floor waiting room in the concrete compound of Mexico’s immigration agency in Nuevo Laredo, where she and others fearful of going outside lingered for hours on plastic chairs and mats strewn on the floor.

On Aug. 4, Ortega said, she and her son were on a bus when a group of about 10 men flagged the vehicle down on the outskirts of Nuevo Laredo. The gangsters demanded that passengers produce identification and forced all foreigners off the vehicle, she said.

“We control this area!” one of the toughs declared, saying that he and the others were from the Northeast Cartel — the dominant gang in Nuevo Laredo and splinter faction of the hyper-violent Zetas mob.

Ortega and her son were taken to a house where about a dozen other migrants were being held, she said, and the kidnappers grabbed her phone. They found the number of her younger brother, Kevin Joel Ortega, 25, who had arrived in Atlanta a few months earlier. The captors snapped photos of Ortega and her son and dispatched the images to her brother, demanding $8,000 for their release, she said.

“If he didn’t pay, they said they would turn us over to ‘other people,’” Ortega said, trembling as she recalled the ominous phrasing. “My brother said it would take him time to raise the money, that he had just arrived, but please not to do anything to us.”

Ortega and her son were held for two weeks in a room with others, sleeping on the floor, receiving two daily meals — mostly beans and rice — and spending much of the time bored and watching a large flat-screen TV, she said. Her jailers did not physically harm anyone, she said, but angrily called the captives’ relatives in the United States daily, insisting on the payments.

“A time finally comes when one is not afraid anymore,” said Ortega, who was barefoot as she kept a close eye on her teenage son, the eldest of her five children, resting on the mat in the grimy Mexican immigration outpost. Her other four kids remained in Honduras.

Her brother in Atlanta was instructed to deposit the funds electronically in five different U.S. bank accounts, Ortega said.

On Aug. 18, when the money had been paid, Ortega said, she and her son were driven to a spot along the Rio Grande, where the cartel strictly controls illicit crossings, and taken across the river in an inflated tire tube.

Ortega and her son were detained in U.S. custody in Texas for two nights, she said, before being released with a court date of Dec. 10 in San Antonio.

“We told them [U.S. immigration authorities] we had been kidnapped, but they didn’t believe us,” Ortega said.

On Aug. 20, U.S. Border Patrol officers returned Ortega, her son and 18 other distraught migrants on foot to Nuevo Laredo across the Juarez-Lincoln International Bridge that spans the Rio Grande, in a sullen procession repeated here daily beneath the blazing sun. Many clutched transparent plastic bags emblazoned with the seal of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and containing notices to appear in immigration court.

But Ortega, like the others huddled in the Mexican immigration depot, said she had no intention of sticking around Nuevo Laredo. She was too frightened. She and fellow migrants were waiting for bus transport to Tapachula, a Mexican city near the Guatemalan border. The one-way rides are a Mexican government initiative that serves a double purpose — removing discouraged migrants from the perilous border zone, while also diminishing the chances that they will make the long and hazardous trip back for U.S. court dates.

“We’ve had enough,” Ortega said.

Also waiting for the bus was Maria Suyapa Rodriguez, 35, and her 12-year-old son. She and her son, she said, had also been kidnapped — on Aug. 15 at the Nuevo Laredo bus terminal, one of the most treacherous spots in town. The two were released two days later when her sister in New York agreed to pay a ransom, said Rodriguez, who did not know the amount. The pair subsequently crossed the Rio Grande, she said, and surrendered to the Border Patrol, which returned them to Mexico.

Like Ortega, Rodriguez said she had given up and would forgo her Jan. 10 U.S. court date and return home to Honduras, following the tracks of so many migrants, broke and petrified of Mexican organized crime.

In one case, said Father Lopez, a Guatemalan man swallowed his phone’s SIM card to prevent kidnappers from tracking down relatives. A Honduran kidnap victim recalled flushing papers with the scrawled numbers of U.S. kin down the toilet.

Among the recent clients at Casa de Migrante Nazareth was Rosa Emilia Torrez, 45, her husband and her two children, a 12-year-old son and an infant daughter. Kidnappers grabbed the family at the Nuevo Laredo bus station July 21, Torrez said, two days after U.S. immigration authorities expelled them back to Nuevo Laredo. The family had planned to take a bus to Durango, Mexico, and wait at a relative’s home until their Sept. 25 U.S. court date, Torrez said.

Their captors released the family July 28, according to Torrez, after her brother-in-law in New Orleans paid $16,000, negotiated down from an initial demand of $32,000.

The kidnappers, Torrez said, then insisted on taking the family back across the Rio Grande to Texas, where, Torrez said, the Border Patrol arrested the family again.

Torrez said she tried to explain to the agents that the kidnappers forced them to return to the U.S. side — and that they feared being sent back to Mexico yet again — but no one paid any attention.

“We just take your fingerprints and send you back to Mexico,” the Border Patrol agent told her, Torrez said.

U.S. immigration authorities returned the family to Nuevo Laredo on Aug. 1, said Torrez, who added that her family plans to find safe housing somewhere in Mexico and show up for their immigration hearing in Texas later this month.

“We came this far,” Torrez said. “We aren’t turning back now.”

Times staff writer Molly Hennessy-Fiske in Houston and Cecilia Sanchez of The Times’ Mexico City bureau contributed to this report.

Subscribe

Patrick J. McDonnell

Twitter

Instagram

Email

Facebook

Patrick J. McDonnell is the Los Angeles Times Mexico City bureau chief. McDonnell is a native of the Bronx, where he majored in Irish-American studies and N.Y. Yankee fandom. He is a graduate of New York University and the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, was a Nieman fellow at Harvard and a 2014 Pulitzer finalist in international reporting for coverage from inside Syria.

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

Cowardly tyrants like Trump his lying DHS lackeys like McAleenan & co. count on the complicity of at least some Federal Judges to get away with their program of undermining the rule of law and violating human rights. So far, the Ninth Circuit has obliged them when it comes to declaring “open season” on the world’s most vulnerable individuals seeking, but not finding, justice and fairness under our law.

The “Big Lie” By U.S. Border Patrol:

“One of our main priorities in the U.S. Border Patrol is the safety and the well-being of the people that we apprehend,” said Jose A. Martinez, acting assistant chief Border Patrol agent in Laredo, Texas.

Obviously, Chief Martinez is a liar. The safety and well-being of those apprehended in the U.S. not only is not a “main priority,” it’s not even “on the radar screen.” Indeed, sending folks who have passed credible fear back to Mexico to be abused and possibly Continue reading 9TH CIR/TRUMP “KILL ‘EM IN MEXICO PROGRAM” ENDANGERS ASYLUM SEEKERS & THOSE WHO ASSIST THEM —Judicial Disgrace Continues To Destroy Lives, Mock Humanity, Undermine The Rule of Law! — “Extortion-minded mobs view vulnerable migrants as walking ATMs.“

BJORKLUNDEN REPORT, PART I: “American Immigration: A Legal, Cultural, & Historical Approach to Understanding the Complex and Controversial Issues Dominating Our National Dialogue”

I had the pleasure of co-teaching this course with my good friend Professor Jennifer Esperanza of the Beloit College Anthropology Department. The venue was Lawrence University’s amazing Northern Campus, known as Bjorklunden, on the wildly beautiful shores of Lake Michigan in Door County, Wisconsin, from August 4-9, 2019. This was a “derivative” of an immigration component of a summer session of Jenn’s class for undergraduates at Beloit. This time we had a group of 15 enthusiastic, well-informed post graduate students from a variety of professional backgrounds.

Here’s what we set out to achieve:

Class Description:

All Americans are products of immigration. Even Native Americans were massively affected by the waves of European, involuntary African-American, Asian, and Hispanic migration. Are we a nation of immigrants or a nation that fears immigration? Should we welcome refugees or shun them as potential terrorists? Do we favor family members or workers? Rocket scientists or maids and landscapers? Build a wall or a welcome center? Get behind some of the divisive rhetoric and enter the dialogue in this participatory class that will give you a chance to “learn and do” in a group setting. Be part of a team designing and explaining your own immigration system.

Class Objectives:

_Understand how we got here;

_Understand current U.S. immigration system and how it is supposed to work;

_Learn more about the various lived experiences of immigrants and refugees through their personal stories and ethnographic accounts

_Develop tools to become a participant in the ongoing debate about the future of American immigration;

_Get to know a great group of people, enjoy Door County, and have some fun in and out of class

Here are our “five major themes:”

Day 1: An Introduction to Immigration (From the Top Down and the Bottom Up)

Highlight: Getting the “immigration histories” of the participants

Day 2: Labor Migration: Push/Pull Factors

Highlight: Stories and examples of the “hard-work culture” created by various groups of hard-working immigrants to the U.S. both documented and undocumented with a particular emphasis on the culture created by Hispanic restaurant workers

Day 3: “Making Home”

Highlight: Watching and discussing NPR broadcast on German immigrants in rural Wisconsin which related directly to the family histories of many of us in the class (including me)

Day 4: “Well Founded Fear”

Highlights: Jenn’s live storytelling performance of her own family immigration experience, watch on Youtube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEODrtuj_Pk&t=323s

My coverage of the entirety of refugee history and modern U.S. refugee and asylum laws in 70 minutes (favorite student comment/compliment: “I expected this to be deadly, but it wasn’t.”)

Day 5: Contemporary Issues: The Future of Immigration, Refuges, & Asylum

Highlight: The class presentations of the famous (or infamous) “Mother Hen v. Dick’s Last Resort” “Build Your Own Refugee System” Exercise

Here’s the complete Course Outline (although admittedly we varied from this when necessary):

Bjorklunden 2019 Syllabus_American Immigration

Here’s my “Closing Statement:”

“CLOSING STATEMENT”

Lawrence University

Bjorklunden Campus

Bailey’s Harbor, WI

August 9, 2019

Jenn and I thank you for joining us. We’ve had our “Last Supper” and our “Final Breakfast” here at beautiful Bjorklunden. That means that our time together is ending.

In five days, we have completed a journey that began on Monday with hunter-gatherers in Africa thousands of years ago, and ends inside today’s headlines about ripping apart families in Mississippi and trying to develop better approaches to refugees: individuals who are an integral part of the human migration story as old as man, and who will not be stopped by walls, prison cells, removals, or cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or rhetoric from our so-called “leaders.” On the way, we wound through our own rich immigration heritages and personal stories about how migration issues continue to shape our lives, including, of course, bringing this wonderful group together in the first place.

Jenn shared with you some very personal stories about her own family’s recent immigration experiences and how it shaped, and continues to mold her own life and future. I introduced you, at least briefly, to a key part of my own life, the U.S. Immigration Court, the retail level of our immigration system, where “the rubber meets the road” and where the maliciously incompetent actions of unqualified politicos have created “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and made a bad joke out of the precious Constitutional right to Due Process under law for all in the U.S. regardless of status or means of arrival.

Our lively class discussions have not been “merely academic,” but real and practical. We have discussed real life scenarios literally “ripped from today’s headlines,” involving real people and real human dilemmas, including the challenges facing those whose job it is to ensure that justice is served. Although this class is done, the learning, the intense human drama, and the “living theater” of American immigration will continue.

Jenn and I have enjoyed working with all of you over this week. The past five days have certainly been a high point for us this summer.

We have communicated our shared values of fairness, scholarship, timeliness, respect, and teamwork! And, we hope that our ability to bond and bridge generational, age, academic, gender, professional, cultural, and geographic gaps to bring you this learning experience has served as a “living example” of how those shared values play out in “real life.”

For me and others like me, our “time on the stage” is winding down. Others, like Jenn and Chuck, are still very much engaged in the production. Still others, like Mary’s inspiring grandchildren, Jenn’s boys, and my eight grandchildren, are “waiting in the wings” to take the stage and assume their full roles in the ongoing drama of human history.

Our hope and challenge for each of you is that no matter where you are in the process of lifelong learning and doing, you will reach your full potential as informed, caring, and compassionate human beings, and that you will continue to strive to make our world a better place! We also hope that something that you have learned in this class will make a positive difference in your life or the life of someone you care about.

Thanks again for inviting us into your lives, engaging, participating, and sharing. Journey forth safely, good luck, and may you do great things in all phases of life!

Here’s our “Class Photo” taken on the deck outside the Lakeside Seminar Room where we met:

Left to right: Steve Handrich, Judge Charlie Schudson, Nancy Behrens, Mary Poulson, Jeff Riester (fellow LU ’70), Chuck Meissner, Genie Meissner, Chuck Demler (LU ’11, Associate Director of Major and Planned Giving), Greta Rogers, Me, Professor Jennifer Esperanza (Beloit College), Renee Boldt, Susan Youngblood, Chris Coles, Cynthia Liddle, Fred Wileman (my cousin), Mary Miech

Here are some shots of Bjorklunden:

Bjorklunden -- Lake Michigan South — Looking South Along Lake Michigan Shore

Exploring the Ice Age With “Naturalist Jane”

Lake Michigan North — AM on Lake Michigan Looking North Toward Bailey’s Harbor

And, this is Jenn and me conducting our “exit session” @ the Door County Brewing Co. in Bailey’s Harbor:

Jenn & Paul — “Oh, the beauty of exam-free teaching!”

Thanks again to Mark Breseman (LU ’78), Executive Director; Kim Eckstein, Operations Manager; Alex Baldschun, Assistant Director; Jeff Campbell, Head Chef; Mark Franks, General Maintenance Mechanic; Lynda Pietruszka, Staff Assistant/Weekend Program Manager, and, of course, the amazing, brilliant, personable, and talented LU student staff at Bjorklunden for taking care of our every need and making everything work.

The student staff basically runs the place from an operational standpoint. While many universities brag about their hotel and hospitality management programs, as far as I could see the student staff at Lawrence was getting great “hands on” experience and training in hospitality management from the ground up. How do I know? Well, in the “corporate phase” of my career, I represented some of the largest international hotels and hospitality corporations in the world. The “hands on” training that these students were getting appeared to be very comparable to those of well-known hotel management programs and just the type of skills that major hotel chains are always looking for in their executives and managers.

Special thanks to Alex and Kim, for emergency copying and technical services; to Kim for showing me the only “Level 2” Electric Vehicle Charger in Bailey’s Harbor (I’ve recommended that as a proudly eco-friendly institution Lawrence install Level 2 EV Chargers and dedicated plugs for Level 1 EV Chargers in convenient locations on both the Appleton and Northern Campuses); to Jeff for giving me tasty vegan options for every meal; and to Lynda and Mark Franks for their general cheerfulness and “can do” attitude. I also appreciate the student staff who resided on my corridor for putting up with my constant whistling.

I thank Chuck Demler for getting me involved in the Bjorklunden teaching program. I am indebted to Jeff Riester for not sharing his recollections (if any) of our time together as undergraduates at Lawrence with particular reference to our two terms at the Lawrence Overseas Campus then located in Boennigheim, Germany.

Finally, thanks to my good friend and professional teaching colleague Professor Jenn Esperanza of Beloit College (who also happens to be “best buds” with my daughter Anna and her husband Daniel, a fellow Professor at Beloit College) for undertaking this adventure together and being willing to share so much of her very moving and relatively recent personal experiences with immigration and being part of the “American success story.” Jenn and I appreciated the enthusiastic participation of all the members of our group and their signing up for our class.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-21-19

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Constantly Confront Complicit Courts 4 Change!

Due Process Forever! Complicit Judges Never!

Related posts:

Constantly Confront Complicit Courts 4 Change!

Due Process Forever; Complicit Courts Never!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Donald Trump, Meet Your Precursor

Want to know more about the Johnson impeachment?

Check out this new 1 hr. 15 min. docudrama from The Great Courses: “Going To The Devil.”

Subscribers to “The Great Courses Plus” can get it at the website. Even if you don’t have access, you can sign up for a free trial.

Either way, you can check out the free trailer here:

FULL DISCLOSURE: Our son Will works for The Great Courses.

PWS

12-01-19

Related posts:

Customs and Border Protection may be violating the law by holding asylum-seeking children longer than the agency is allowed to, according to lawyers who represent migrants along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Related posts:

Hey, Hey, ho, ho, double standard has got to go!

Related posts:

Related posts:

The Cost of Outsourcing Refugees

Former IJs File Amicus Brief in Padilla v. ICE

Related posts:

The “Big Lie” By U.S. Border Patrol:

Related posts:

BJORKLUNDEN REPORT, PART I: “American Immigration: A Legal, Cultural, & Historical Approach to Understanding the Complex and Controversial Issues Dominating Our National Dialogue”

Here’s what we set out to achieve:

Here are our “five major themes:”

Day 1: An Introduction to Immigration (From the Top Down and the Bottom Up)

Highlight: Getting the “immigration histories” of the participants

Day 2: Labor Migration: Push/Pull Factors

Highlight: Stories and examples of the “hard-work culture” created by various groups of hard-working immigrants to the U.S. both documented and undocumented with a particular emphasis on the culture created by Hispanic restaurant workers

Day 3: “Making Home”

Highlight: Watching and discussing NPR broadcast on German immigrants in rural Wisconsin which related directly to the family histories of many of us in the class (including me)

Day 4: “Well Founded Fear”

Highlights: Jenn’s live storytelling performance of her own family immigration experience, watch on Youtube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEODrtuj_Pk&t=323s

My coverage of the entirety of refugee history and modern U.S. refugee and asylum laws in 70 minutes (favorite student comment/compliment: “I expected this to be deadly, but it wasn’t.”)

Day 5: Contemporary Issues: The Future of Immigration, Refuges, & Asylum

Highlight: The class presentations of the famous (or infamous) “Mother Hen v. Dick’s Last Resort” “Build Your Own Refugee System” Exercise

Here’s the complete Course Outline (although admittedly we varied from this when necessary):

Here’s my “Closing Statement:”

Here’s our “Class Photo” taken on the deck outside the Lakeside Seminar Room where we met:

Here are some shots of Bjorklunden:

And, this is Jenn and me conducting our “exit session” @ the Door County Brewing Co. in Bailey’s Harbor:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts: