"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
Not to mention that even the Trump administration (the Trump administration!) found that refugees and asylees are a net positive for public budgets over the long run. That is, despite typically arriving penniless, these immigrants ultimately pay more in taxes than they receive in government benefits.
Contra DeSantis’s insinuations about immigrant moochers, these are people who want to work and become economically self-sufficient. That’s presumably why DeSantis’s own henchmen promised fictitious jobs to lure the asylum seekers onto flights.
. . . .
If Republican officials actually wanted to reduce the number of people coming to the border without advance permission, there are plenty of things these politicians could do. They could push for expansion of guest-worker visas, for instance. Or more funding for the refugee admissions program. Or really any other legal, orderly pathway to come to the United States.
After all, the main reason there is such a crush at the border — and why the asylum system in general is so overwhelmed — is that right now this is one of the very few legal ways to get to America.
Yes, I said legal: The families being hoodwinked and shipped around the country like chattel on chartered buses and flights are here lawfully, based on what’s been publicly reported. They turned themselves in upon crossing the border precisely so that they can apply for asylum, as is their legal right. The federal government has screened them, and granted them humanitarian parole while they pursue their asylum cases in court.
It’s not an ideal system. Or an especially fast one. It would be much better to fix the rest of our broken legal immigration system so that those other, more orderly pathways are available. Especially the pathways that offer quicker access to work permits, given America’s current massive labor shortages.
It’s true that Democrats have also put forth relatively little effort to fix these problems. In some cases Democrats seem fearful of appearing too pro-immigrant, having apparently bought into the GOP lore that deep down Americans are xenophobes. But even what little Democrats have tried to do they generally can’t do without 60 Senate votes. Which Democrats don’t have.
Democrats need Republicans to cooperate on immigration reform, and Republicans won’t. Even when those reforms are coupled with investments in border security that Republicans claim to want. The GOP would rather keep around a dragon they can perpetually promise to slay one day — and better yet, to taunt and torture for a while, in public, first.
*************************
Read Catherine’s complete article at the link. Interesting that Catherine understands so much so well, while those in the Biden Administration charged with immigration and human rights policy are so clueless, timid, and inept!
In the meantime, the Dems have done little to make the current laws relating to refugees and asylum work. The much-hyped “asylum rule changes” at DHS have had little, if any, discernible positive impact. EOIR is a national disgrace — continuing the “death spiral” that accelerated during the Trump kakistocracy. The refugee system remains in shambles. The proposed 15,000 allocation of refugee admissions for FY 2023 to Latin American and the Caribbean is an insult and a “signal” to other receiving nations in the area that we are not serious about addressing the problem. There is no rational resettlement program for asylum seekers crossing the border, thus providing an unnecessary opening for the “performative cruelty” of clowns like DeSantis and Abbott.
None of these things are “rocket science” or “budget busters.” They just require knowledgeable leadership, values, and the courage to act on them. Apparently, faced with the cruelty and desecration of values by the “MAGA GOP,” the Dems think that “all they have to do is show up, smile, and mumble platitudes” to seem like the only choice for Americans who believe in democracy. Maybe — but I wouldn’t count on it!
I think that Catherine “hit the nail on the head” with this assessment of the spineless policy officials driving refugee and asylum policies in the Biden Administration: “In some cases Democrats seem fearful of appearing too pro-immigrant, having apparently bought into the GOP lore that deep down Americans are xenophobes.” Cowardice on immigrants, immigrants’ rights, and racial justice has become an endemic problem in the Democratic Party.
EOIR’s approach to asylum seekers at the Southern Border hasn’t changed much under Garland! Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Just as during the Trump administration, RMX immigration court hearings remain a due process farce, with asylum seekers overwhelmingly unable to obtain legal counsel and denied refugee protections. Only five percent of people sent to Mexico under RMX 2.0 have a lawyer. According to analysis by the Syracuse University Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, this is an even lower representation rate than the eight percent representation rate during the Trump administration’s implementation of RMX. Unsurprisingly, very few people in RMX 2.0 have been granted asylum protection. As of June 30, 2022, only 63 asylum seekers in RMX 2.0 had been granted relief—less than four percent of completed cases. This abysmal asylum grant rate is nearly identical to the 4.1 percent grant rate for completed RMX 1.0 cases. Seventy-five percent of completed RMX 2.0 cases ended with in absentia removal orders, virtually unchanged from the 72 percent in absentia removal order rate for completed RMX cases during the Trump administration. The gauntlet of grave dangers and terrible conditions inherent to RMX, rather than the merits of asylum seekers’ requests for protection, continued to determine the outcome of these cases.
EOIR is where much of the racially motivated Trump/Miller plan to dehumanize migrants, strip them of legal rights, harass their attorneys, and create a “false narrative” of “manufactured” “failures to appear” and “bogus asylum denials” played out. Many at EOIR either actively supported these outrageous violations of human rights or “went along to get along” with massive abuses and the creation of a hostile environment for due process and legally correct asylum adjudications.
Yet, Garland and his lieutenants have failed to do the necessary “housecleaning” at EOIR and to bring in legitimate expert judges and professional administrators to restore due process and fairly and correctly interpret and apply asylum law! Indeed, many of the same judges and bureaucrats who presided over this farce continue to inflict injustice on migrants and their attorneys at Garland’s EOIR! How and why do Garland and his complicit lieutenants get away with it?
It’s also why, notwithstanding the evil motives behind the “orbiting” of asylum applicants, they are better off almost anywhere than Texas, which continues to operate largely as an “asylum-free and due-process-free zone” under Garland!
Immigrations expert outlines next steps for Martha’s Vineyard migrants
Governor Baker has activated 125 members of the Massachusetts National Guard to assist in relief efforts for the nearly 50 migrants who came here last week.
Those migrants are now staying at Joint Base Cape Cod after they were flown into Martha’s Vineyard on Wednesday.
“There’s no doubt about the fact that it was a political move, not a move calculated to make the system work or to help people,” said Paul Wickham Schmidt, a retired U.S. Immigration judge and adjunct professor at Georgetown University.
Schmidt says it was surprising to see dozens of migrants dropped off on Martha’s Vineyard last week without any notice.
“With advanced notice, I think they could have done an even better job and probably with more focus on helping the individuals and less focus on what’s happening here,” said Schmidt.
People living on Martha’s Vineyard jumped into action to provide food and shelter for the immigrants from Venezuela, and now this weekend, they’ve been moved to dorms set up at Joint Base Cape Cod, where MEMA is trying to keep families together while providing not only beds and food, but also services from health care to legal support.
“Getting somebody who can take a personal interest and can make sure people can check in where they’re supposed to,” said Schmidt.
Schmidt says now, the migrants will need lawyers to help them check into an ICE office, Immigration court and an asylum office – all of which didn’t exist on Martha’s Vineyard.
Even though the last few days have been confusing, Schmidt believes the migrants will get the help they need as they get closer to Boston.
“This could have some silver linings because I think the people aren’t in Texas, which is sort of an asylum-free zone, where the judges deny almost every asylum case and there’s obviously a hostile local attitude,” said Schmidt.
Schmidt says immigration courts in Massachusetts are more likely to grant asylum cases than in Texas or Florida.
State leaders say they appreciate all the donations and support coming in for the migrants, but at this point they can’t accept any donations at Joint Base Cape Cod.
If you’d like to donate to the relief efforts, you should send an email to the Massachusetts Voluntary Organizations Active in Disasters at MAVOAD@gmail.com.
As the latter article from Paul Waldman @ WashPost points out, the GOP has no answers whatsoever about how to reform the U.S. immigration system. Dems have some proposals, but lack qualified, expert dynamic leadership on the issue.
Even without legislation, there are lots of things the Biden Administration could have done by now to fix the broken asylum and refugee systems and make them functional, using current law! The biggest missed opportunity is painfully obvious to all expert observers: Fix the broken Immigration Courts starting with the Trump holdover BIA which is still a serious and unconscionable drag on our entire legal system!
For example, given the size and importance of the Venezuelan refugee flow, and the mass of available documentation about the truly horrible human rights conditions under the Maduro regime in Venezuela, there should be many BIA precedents guiding practitioners and judges on how to prepare and grant asylum to Venezuelan asylum seekers. This would encourage and facilitate DHS, the private/NGO bar, and Immigration Judges in rapidly moving Venezuelan asylum grants through the system in a timely fashion.
Instead, there are no favorable Venezuelan asylum precedents that I know of. Moreover, almost all the recently BIA precedents on asylum are crabbed, legally deficient, often factually misleading, sometimes anti-historical, “prompts” on how to manipulate the law to improperly deny needed protection. They send grossly improper signals to already under-trained Immigration Judges that “any reason to deny asylum” is the BIA’s “comfort zone.”
There is an old saying that “elections have consequences.” But, apparently, when Dems win and Merrick Garland is the Attorney General, not so much.
Unfortunately, given the disorder and dysfunction promoted by Garland’s Immigration Courts’ biased and defective handling of asylum cases — essentially “working overtime” to manufacture bogus reasons to deny “slam dunk” asylum grants and providing defective guidance — and the disturbing lack of competent leadership on immigration and human rights by the Biden Administration, that’s going to take litigation in the Article IIIs. Getting individuals out of “Asylum Free Zones” operating in violation of sound legal standards for adjudicating asylum cases, primarily in the 5th and 11th Circuits, will be a huge “plus.”
Keep the focus on the “good guys” who need our help! That’s the best way of taking it to the cowardly grandstanders using humans as pawn and “photo ops.” It’s also the best way of dealing with clueless Dems, like Garland, who empower the “DeSantis’s of the world” by failing to fix our failing legal refugee and asylum systems and to vigorously stand up for the legal and human rights of those needing and deservingprotection!
There is a “great story” to tell about the contributions of those granted asylum and other immigrants to America. If Garland and “tone deaf” Dems are afraid to tell it, it’s up to the rest of us to do the work for them!
The phrase “America First” fell rapidly into disrepute during World War II, largely because the America First Committee (whose most prominent spokesman was Charles Lindbergh) had urged non-intervention and appeasement and been accused of anti-semitism and fascist sympathies. It was then consigned to temporary obscurity, but not everyone forgot. The slogan was periodically recalled to articulate resurgent right-wing nationalism, often explicitly white nationalism, from Gerald L.K. Smith, once known as “America’s most notorious antisemite,” who founded the America First Party in the 1940s, to Barry Goldwater, hailed by his supporters as an “America First” politician and described by the conservative National Review in 1963 as standing for “States’ Rights, strict construction, limited government, private enterprise, and America first, last and always.” It was used to describe David Duke and George Wallace, before being resuscitated by Pat Buchanan (“We are not isolationists. We simply believe in America first, last and always,” he declared in 2000) in his presidential campaigns. A certain Donald Trump flirted with making his own run under Buchanan’s Reform Party banner, then brought the phrase triumphantly back a century after Wilson popularized it.
[Competing visions of the American Dream are driving Democrats and Republicans apart]
Now the America First Policy Institute declares that its slogan is “America First, Always” and that its immigration policy will mean no longer putting “America last” — echoing the language of a March 1922 editorial from what was then the nation’s most popular weekly, the Saturday Evening Post, as it harangued its readers about the “immigration problem” caused by “our policy of putting the alien and his interests first, and America last.”
These “America First” initiatives go beyond attempts at excluding the “alien” that were already divisive, and futile, a century ago. One of the most prominent spokesmen for “America First” today is Nicholas Fuentes, a white Christian nationalist who organized the America First Political Action Conference earlier this year. Fuentes was also present at the storming of the Capitol, as were his “Groyper” followers, waving his “AF” flags. Fuentes declared: “It is the American people, and our leader, Donald Trump, against everybody else in this country and this world.” That is certainly what “America First” has meant in the past, as its leaders promise that only they can put America first, by inflaming divisions against nearly every other human being. But it is “America First” that endures, not its erstwhile leaders — and its history offers a pretty good indication of what to expect from Trumpism without Trump.
***********************
I highly recommend that everyone read Sarah’s full article at the link.
Immigrants are almost always the first target of this “confederacy of cowards” — because they are most vulnerable. U.S. courts have traditionally been unwilling to effectively enforce the constitutional and legal rights of “the other.” But, as pointed out in the article, the hate and resentment continues to pour out against additional groups and individuals until “almost every other human being” becomes a target.
We see it today in Virginia Governor Glenn “Junkman” Youngkin’s recent cowardly and unconstitutional “targeting and bullying” of transgender school kids under the ridiculously bogus rubric of “parents rights.” Just where does the “right” of neo-fascist parents to bully the children of others come from?
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Grimm case in 2020 already has found that “Junkman’s” scofflaw attempt to force transgender kids to use the wrong bathroom likely will be held unconstitutional. But, the Constitution and laws have never been anything but “convenient props” for America Firsters!” Compare the courage of the Grimm plaintiff with the ugly cowardice of the “Junkman” and his followers. (This following “Junkman’s” outrageous trip to Maine to campaign for notorious racist GOP gubernatorial candidate Paul LePage).
But, the Fourth Circuit might be an aberration. Often, getting reactionary judges who lack the character and guts to stand up against demonization of their fellow humans helps fuel and protect the “America First” movement from accountability. That’s certainly been at the core modern GOP mis-governance, and the Dems have been painfully “slow on the uptake” in countering it.You have only to look at Merrick Garland’s astounding mis-handling of the reactionary, weaponized, and totally dysfunctional Immigration “Courts” under his control to see just how slow!
In the end, it will be up to the upcoming generation to decide what kind of America they want to live in: An America that respects and honors the dignity, worth, and human potential of all of its inhabitants and serves as a model of tolerance and inclusion for the rest of the world? Or, an America where a minority of extreme right wing authoritarians are at war with the rest of us and, indeed, with humanity itself. Your choice!
Gary Sampliner is a director of JAMAAT (Jews and Muslims and Allies Acting Together) and a member of the Bethesda Jewish Congregation, which with Bradley Hills Presbyterian Church and the Maqaame Ibrahim Islamic Center is working to assist arriving migrants and asylum seekers. JAMAAT is a member organization of the Interfaith Immigration Coalition.
Gratitude might not be the reaction Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) was expecting when he began sending frequent busloads of migrants and asylum seekers to the greater D.C. area. But gratitude, warmth and a renewed sense of collective responsibility are the responses I have seen as D.C.-area organizations and faith communities (and, most recently, its government) have stepped up to welcome and support newcomers.
With Abbott’s bus initiative — a costly venture likely to be funded in large part by Texas taxpayers — we’ve seen an apparent strategy to inflict maximum pain on our region and score political points, using vulnerable people as weapons aimed at pressuring the Biden administration into taking more drastic measures to seal our nation’s southern border.
But, despite the deeply cynical nature of Abbott’s plans, we might actually owe him a debt of gratitude.
We know that providing transportation is one part of establishing a dignified reception system for people seeking safety, and we’ve witnessed repeatedly the long-term payoffs to our communities and nation when we offer support to those in need of refuge.
The D.C. area has been generous in welcoming migrants fleeing persecution. With community and government support, Virginia has been the third-highest recipient of recent Afghan refugees to the United States, and Maryland is not far behind. My own synagogue and the church and mosque with whom we share our building have been active in helping welcome Afghan refugees to the area since 2017. The Jewish-Muslim community organization I help to direct has been working to get other interfaith partnerships involved in similar efforts.
Afghan arrivals are not the only ones receiving a warm reception. With the help of some heroic community and faith groups — many of which are part of the Migrant Solidarity Mutual Aid Network — our area has mobilized quickly to welcome the migrants being bused here from the southern border. These tremendous efforts have demonstrated, yet again, the area’s commitment to extending welcome and hospitality to those in need.
As with the public-private, multisector approach used in Afghan and other refugee resettlements, we need all hands on deck to welcome new arrivals to the area. We need as many available resources as possible, including the support of local, state and federal governments, faith groups, nonprofit organizations and community volunteers.
It is heartening to see D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) now stepping up to the challenge and opportunity posed by the arriving migrants. On Thursday, she announced the establishment of an Office of Migrant Services, with an initial allocation of $10 million, to meet the needs of the migrants who are moving elsewhere or intending to reside here. As an official “Welcoming City,” D.C. government assistance should be an essential element of the response to welcome migrants to our region — especially considering that, as a majority of the D.C. Council has told Bowser, D.C. is expected to have a surplus of around $500 million in fiscal 2022 — even though D.C. has good reason to request Federal Emergency Management Agency reimbursement to help satisfy the overriding federal responsibility over immigration matters.
But the need for private and community support for the incoming migrants remains critical for their successful integration into our community. Though my organizations’ work with the Afghan community continues, we’ve begun to provide various types of assistance to the newcomers being bused here. We are pleased to see and strongly encourage fellow faith communities and groups around the area to join us in this important work of welcome and are pleased when they do. This is an opportunity to demonstrate the best of who we are in the face of unprecedented levels of forced dislocations worldwide.
The bottom line is this: If we want to continue to live up to our values, many more of us need to step up to assist the new arrivals. And if we can meet this challenge, we will set an example for the rest of our country to follow.
******************
One frequent mistake is to view this situation as “an emergency” or “temporary.” That leads to “short-term thinking” — throw some money at it, energize volunteers, and “hold the fort” until the so-called “crisis” subsides.
Problem is, money runs out, volunteers burn out or get called to pitch in on other issues, and the media turns its attention elsewhere. But, refugees and asylees will continue to come.
And, the better we treat our new arrivals, the more who will develop ties here and choose the DMV as their U.S. residence. While nativists like Abbott view this as a “crisis” and an “invasion,” I agree with Gary that it’s a great opportunity for us and these migrants. We’ve lived the DMV area for almost 50 years. Most of the growth and prosperity over that time can be linked, directly or indirectly, to recent immigrants, both with and without documents!
In many ways, the situations in other countries that drive migration are worse than at any time since the end of the Cold War. And, it’s not getting better, at least in the short run. Meanwhile, our legal refugee and asylum systems remain a shambles, despite the Biden Administration’s promise to do better than the Trump White Nationalist kakistocracy.
For example, oneof the largest, probably the largest, flow of refugees in the Western Hemisphere is from Venezuela. And, contrary to the restrictionist blather, the vast majority of the six million who have fled Venezuela are NOT in the U.S. Colombia has received at least 1.8 million, where the U.S. has fewer than 350,000.
But, there is no immediate prospect that most Venezuelans will return or stop coming. Nor is there any chance that countries like Colombia are going to “up their share” so that the U.S. can take fewer!
Yet, the Biden Administration has failed to provide consistent, helpful, guidance on Venezuelan asylum at either DHS or DOJ. An improved and better BIA, with expert judges committed to a proper application of asylum law, should have issued appropriate precedents that could have been a basis for getting tens of thousands of grantable Venezuelan asylum cases off the endless backlogs and on the road to green cards.
But, Garland continues to mismanage asylum law at all levels. He employs unfocused politicos, unqualified Trump-era bureaucrats, and judges who got or retained their jobs under Sessions or Barr because of their actual or perceived willingness to unlawfully deny asylum. Nor has DHS implemented any semblance of the necessary, realistic, robust overseas refugee program for Venezuela, Haiti, and the Northern Triangle!
Mayorkas has “beefed up” the TPS program for Venezuela. But, by its own terms, that’s not a long-term solution. They extended TPS for Haitians while denying recent arrivals their legal rights to seek asylum and inexplicably returning thousands to the dangerous, failed state without any process at all. It’s a farce — but one with ugly racial overtones and a horrible message! To say that Biden’s refugee and asylum programs are screwed up would be an understatement!
Refugee flows, including asylum, are both inevitable and continuing. They are an important, beneficial, and essential component of legal immigration.
Those seeking legal refuge can be forced largely into the underground system, as Trump tried to do; largely admitted in an orderly legal fashion as progressive experts urge; or there can be a haphazard “combination of the two” which is what we have now!
Undoubtedly, refugees and asylees are good from America. They will get jobs, make contributions, and have families of U.S. citizens. The tax base and U.S. institutions will benefit.But, that’s the “long view.”
In the short run, migrants need food, affordable housing, orientation, and education. Kids will need more teachers with specialized skills in a time of nationwide teacher shortage and politicized demonization of educators and administrators. School populations will increase. That takes money. Taxpayers and the politicians answerable to them are notoriously focused on the now, rather than the whenever.
So, the pressing issue is how to institutionalize, regularize, and fund successful migrant resettlement. In other words, how do we get from here to there in the absence of effective government leadership, planning, and funding – often on multiple levels?
Dan Kowalski Online Editor of the LexisNexis Immigration Law Community (ILC)Raed Gonzalez ESQUIRE Chairman, Gonzalez Olivieri LLP Houston, TX PHOTO: best lawyers.com
From Dan:
Another CA5 Pereira / Niz-Chavez Remand: Parada v. Garland (unpub.)
“[T]he BIA’s decision to deny Parada’s motion to reopen was based on a legally erroneous interpretation of the statutes governing Notices to Appear and the stop-time rule. The Supreme Court has since reinforced the holding of Pereira and held—again— that to trigger the stop-time rule, a Notice to Appear must come in the form of “a single document containing all the information an individual needs to know about his removal hearing.” Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474, 1478, 1486 (2021). That did not occur in this case, as the Notices to Appear served on Parada and her daughter did not contain the time or date for their removal proceedings. Thus, because “[a] putative notice to appear that fails to designate the specific time or place of the noncitizen’s removal proceedings is not a ‘notice to appear under section 1229(a),’ and so does not trigger the stop-time rule,” Pereira, 138 S. Ct. at 2113–14 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1)(A)), the deficient Notices to Appear received by the Paradas did not stop the clock for the Paradas. … [O]ne of two keys must fit before the stop-time rule can be unlocked: service of a valid Notice to Appear or commission of an enumerated offense. The latter has not occurred here as no one has asserted that either of the Paradas has committed such an offense. And we have already concluded that the former has not occurred because the Notices to Appear served on the Paradas lacked the time and date of their hearing. Thus, the stop-time-rule box remained locked, the Paradas’ clock never stopped, and they accrued the necessary 10 years to satisfy the physical-presence requirement for cancellation of removal. In so concluding, we agree with the Ninth Circuit [emphasis added] which also held that “[b]y its terms . . . the stop-time rule applies to only the two circumstances set out in the statute, and a final order of removal satisfies neither.” Quebrado Cantor, 17 F.4th at 871. … To return to the analogy above, when Congress provided the two exceptions to the physical-presence requirement, it created all the keys that would fit. It did not additionally create a skeleton key that could fit when convenient. To conclude otherwise “would turn this principle on its head, using the existence of two exceptions to authorize a third very specific exception.” Quebrado Cantor, 17 F.4th at 874. Instead, “the ‘proper inference’ is that Congress considered which events ought to ‘stop the clock’ on a nonpermanent resident’s period of continuous physical presence and settled, in its legislative judgment, on only two.” Id. (quoting Johnson, 529 U.S. at 58). Lacking either here, the BIA committed a legal error in concluding otherwise and finding that the Paradas did not satisfy the physical-presence requirement to be eligible for cancellation of removal. For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is GRANTED and the case is REMANDED to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. … IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent pay to petitioners the costs on appeal [emphasis added] to be taxed by the Clerk of this Court.”
[Yet another victory for Superlitigator Raed Gonzalez! Who else could persuade CA5 to agree with CA9, and get an award of costs?]
Due Process Superheroes like Houston’s Raed Gonzalez are standing up for the rights of EVERYONE in America! PHOTO: Creative Commons
Kudos to Raed for “taking it to” America’s worst “courts” in America’s most “immigrant-unfriendly” Circuit!
Tons of “rotten tomatoes” to Garland for his horrible mismanagement of EOIR, OIL, and the legal aspects of immigration policy at DOJ!
Rotten Tomatoes Garland & his lieutenants deserve appropriate recognition for failing to bring long-overdue reforms to America’s most dysfunctional “parody of a court system” — EOIR! PHOTO: Creative Commmons
Immigration expert Professor Richard Boswell of UC Hastings College of Law asks: “Can someone explain why the government has been so obstinate on these cases?I like the fee award but I doubt that it has much impact on their behavior.”
Professor Richard Boswell UC Hastings Law PHOTO: LinkedIn Professor Boswell asks the right question. So far, “Team Garland” has no answers!
I wish I knew, my friend, I wish I knew! There is no rational excuse for Garland’s abject failure to: put EOIR and OIL under progressive expert leadership committed to human rights and due process; replace the many weak “Trump holdover appointees” at the BIA with expert real, professionally competent judges; weed out more of the “deadwood” on the immigration bench; bring in qualified experts as EOIR Judges who could potentially create an existential improvement in the composition, performance, and procedures of the entire Federal Judiciary that would go even beyond the essential task of saving the lives of migrants; and finally make Constitutional Due Process and equal justice for all real at the “retail level” of our American Justice system!
If our democracy fails — certainly an unhappy possibility at this point in time — future historians will undoubtedly dissect the major responsibility stemming from Garland’s inexplicably weak, disconnected, and inept performance in ignoring the dangerous dysfunction in our Immigration Courts and Immigration Judiciary.
The scurrilous attack on our democracy by far-right demagogues started with racist lies about immigrants, continued with the weaponizing of the Immigration Courts, and evolved with the compromising of the Article III Judiciary! But, it certainly hasn’t ended there!
Getting rid of the leftovers of the “Trump Kakistocracy” at DOJ and EOIR should be one of the top priorities of the Biden Administration’s “campaign to save American democracy!” Why isn’t it?
The unconscionable failure of Garland’s chief lieutenants, Lisa Monaco, Vanita Gupta, Kristen Clarke, and Elizabeth Prelogar — all of whom supposedly have some experience and expertise in constitutional law, human rights, civil rights, racial justice, and legal administration (talk about a shambles at EOIR!) — to get the job done for immigrant justice at DOJ also deserves to go “under the microscope” of critical examination.
How do they glibly go about their highly paid jobs daily while migrants suffer and die and their attorneys are forced to waste time and struggle against the absurdist disaster at EOIR? Can any of these “out of touch” bureaucrats and politicos even imagine what it’s like to be practicing at today’s legally incompetent, insanely mal-administered, intentionally anti-due-process, overtly user unfriendly EOIR?
By the grace of God, I’m not practicing before the Immigration Courts these days! But, after recent conversations with a number of top practitioners who are being traumatized, having their precious time wasted, and seeing their clients’ lives threatened by EOIR’s stunning ongoing incompetence and dysfunction, I don’t understand what gives high-level political appointees and smug bureaucrats the idea that they are entitled to be “above the fray” of the godawful dysfunction, downright stupidity, and human trauma at EOIR for which they are fully accountable!
One practitioner opened their so-called “EOIR Portal” to show me how they were being mindlessly “double and triple booked,” sometimes in different locations, even as we spoke. Cases set for 2024 were “accelerated” — for no obvious reason — to October 2022 without advance notice to or consultation with the attorney — a clear violation of due process! Asylum cases that would require a minimum of three hours for a fair hearing were being “shoehorned” into two-hour slots, again without consulting the parties!
Long a backwater of failed technology, the “powers that be” at EOIR and DOJ are misusing the limited, somewhat improved technology they now possess to make things worse: harassing practitioners, discouraging representation, and further undermining due process with haste makes waste “Aimless Docket Reshuffling.” Because of EOIR’s gross mismanagement, more Immigration Judges are actually producing more backlog, issuing more wrong decisions, and generating more unnecessary non-dispositive time-wasting motions. It’s an abuse of power and public funding on a massive, mind-boggling scale that undermines our entire justice system!
It seems that the “malicious incompetence” of the Trump DOJ has been exchanged for “just plain incompetence and intransigence” at Garland’s DOJ. Is this “change we should embrace?” Hell no!
Let’s hope that the real superheroes like Raed Gonzalez, folks working in the trenches of our failed justice system, can bail the rest of us out and inspire others to use all legal and political means at our disposal to rise up against Garland’s intransigence on immigration, human rights,and racial justice at DOJ!
I agree with President Biden that the extreme, insurrectionist far-right is the greatest threat to American democracy at this moment. But, it is by no means the ONLY one! It’s time for everyone committed to our nation’s future as a constitutional democracy to look closely at the deadly EOIR farce that threatens humanity, undermines the rule of law in America, and squanders tax dollars and demand positive change! Now!
It’s not rocket science, 🚀 even if it is inexplicably “over Garland’s head!”
Has Alfred E. Neumann been “reborn” as Judge/AG Merrick Garland? “Not my friends or relatives whose lives as being destroyed by my ‘Kangaroo Courts.’ Just ‘the others’ and their immigration lawyers, so who cares, why worry about professionalism, ethics, and due process in Immigration Court?” PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
Ethics Prohibited Beyond This Point! “The naked self-interest was so rampant that Trump’s West Wing could be considered a nudist colony where decency was shed instead of clothing.” CREATIVE COMMONS.
Documents seized from Donald Trump’s Florida home (credit: Department of Justice)
Sometimes we write a lot of words on Steady. Today will be an exception. Because for all that there is to say, for all that needs to be said, for all that an accounting for history requires we say, the general sentiments are quite simple:
They knew. They all knew.
It was clear to anyone who had an ounce of appreciation for what the job of the presidency entails, to anyone who respected the constitutional order of our government, to anyone who worried about the health and safety of this nation, to anyone with a moral compass, to anyone who prizes the common sense of purpose that great leaders can summon, that Donald J. Trump had no business anywhere near the presidency.
Now, as he melts down in the face of a serious criminal investigation, as we see pictures of how he stored classified material and his utter disregard for our nation’s most sensitive secrets, as we are left to wonder what he was up to and what damage was done, we should recognize that we would not be where we are today without his enablers, apologists, and hangers-on.
They heralded his outrageousness in a chorus of sycophancy.
They feted his vileness.
They viciously attacked those who pointed out the obvious, that Trump was mentally, emotionally, intellectually, morally, and constitutionally unfit for his office.
And who are they? They are the Republican politicians, the so-called serious ones who expressed their concerns in private even as they used Trump to achieve their desired tax cuts and judges. They are the members of his administration — senior and junior — who jockeyed to maximize their career benefit at the expense of doing the necessary work for the American people. They are the lawyers who twisted themselves into pretzels to try to legalize his inherent lawlessness. They are the media personalities who saw Trump as a printing press for their accrual of wealth and power. They are the capitalists who put corporate earnings ahead of the well-being of the nation.
While Trump’s voters were primed with a toxic stew of hatred, bigotry, and divisiveness, the small cabal playing the inside game didn’t bother with the MAGA hats. They were too busy trading access for favors. The naked self-interest was so rampant that Trump’s West Wing could be considered a nudist colony where decency was shed instead of clothing.
But make no mistake…
In their cowardice, they knew.
In their cynicism, they knew.
In their contempt, they knew.
In their rationalizations, they knew.
In their acquittals of his conduct, even for impeachment, they knew.
They knew when they could have stopped him — before he became president, and once he was president.
But they didn’t stop him. And with their inaction, they encouraged him.
As the Trump bubble begins to pop, all these people who knew what he was all along will likely scurry like cockroaches when the lights go on. They will make all sorts of excuses for their complicity. They will gaslight, lie, and try to rewrite history. You can already see it in many of their so-called tell-all books. Except what they are telling is only the story they want people to hear. It is not the truth.
The truth is that they don’t dare say what we all know. They knew.
Note: If you are not already a subscriber to our Steady newsletter, please consider doing so. And we always appreciate you sharing our content with others and leaving your thoughts in the comments.
***********************
Throughout history, despots and would-be despots have surrounded themselves with motley crews of sycophants, toadies, and retainers. Trump has excelled at it!
We saw it in the recent Supreme Court decisions that supercharged the legal philosophy of “originalism” on abortion and guns. Reproductive rights, said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., are neither found in the explicit words of the Constitution nor “deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions,” so they don’t exist as rights. As for states that want to regulate guns, said Justice Clarence Thomas, only regulations that have “a distinctly similar historical regulation” from the 18th century will be allowed. The America of 1789 becomes a prison the conservative justices can lock us all in whenever it suits them.
Originalism was a scam from the start, a foolproof methodology for conservatives to arrive at whatever judicial result matches their policy preferences: Cherry-pick a few quotes from the Federalist Papers, cite an obscure 1740 ordinance from the Virginia colony one of your clerks dug up, then claim that scripture leads us inexorably to only one outcome.
By happy coincidence, that outcome is always the one Republicans seek. Anyone who disagrees, or who shows how absurd the right’s historical analysis is even on its own terms, simply isn’t respecting the divine will of the framers.
. . . .
**********************
The “immigration/human rights/racial justice” community was one of the first to see the unconscionable human carnage and grotesque legal perversions produced by right-wing restrictionist/nativist politicos and judges.
The “founding fathers” were, of course, folks who, for all their vision and achievements, recognized slavery was wrong but continued to exploit a slave society, enshrined slavery in our original Constitution, and even went so far as to define slaves as 3/5 of a person to insure their White owners could exercise disproportionate and unjustified political power while giving those whose labor and humanity they stole no political or legal rights whatsoever.
In other words, these were complex, brilliant, yet deeply flawed and morally challenged individuals, who institutionalized and enshrined “dehumanization” or “de-personification” of “the other” because it was expedient and served their purposes. There was a limit to their vision, creativity, wisdom, and courage. It mostly extended only so far as “free, White men who owned property (including, of course, human property).”
The rest of society has been slow on the uptake and even slower on taking effective concerted action against the perils of far-right “originalism” and other bogus right-wing dogmas which have somehow obtained “fake legitimacy” and now threaten our nation and our world.
SAN ANTONIO — At least 40 migrants were found dead in the back of a tractor-trailer in San Antonio Monday, according to two federal law enforcement officials briefed on the horrific finding.
Rescuers pulled at least 15 others from the vehicle and they were taken for medical treatment, said one of the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to provide preliminary information.
The truck was found by agents from Homeland Security Investigations, a branch of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement that specializes in human trafficking cases, one of the officials said. HSI agents are leading the investigation.
. . . .
*************************
Developing story. Read the complete version at the above link.
Anti-Asylum Judges In Action! Factual distortions, ignoring evidence, and misapplications of the law are some of the “weapons” wielded by some EOIR judges to stop asylum seekers from getting the life-saving legal protections they deserve! Article III Courts can compound the problem by mis-using “deference” to avoid critical examination of the frequent abuses of humanity and the rule of law inflicted by this parody of a court system. Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
ONE TINY STEP FOR MANKIND: But It’s Going To Take Much More Than Finally Replacing A Few Stunningly Unqualified Judges To Save EOIR!
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
Courtside Exclusive
June 25, 2022
Over the last few weeks the long overdue and essential process of weeding out poorly qualified Immigration Judges — still on “probation” at EOIR — finally got off to a very modest start.
Imagine yourself as a refugee fighting for your life in an asylum system that’s already stacked against you and where the “judges” work for the Attorney General, part of the Executive Branch’s political and law enforcement apparatus.
How would you like your life to be in the hands of (now) former Immigration Judge Matthew O’Brien. He was appointed in 2020 by former AG Bill Barr — a staunch defender of the Trump/Miller White Nationalist, xenophobic, anti-immigrant agenda.
Nativism A “Qualification?”
What made O’Brien supposedly “qualified” to be a “fair and impartial” administrative judge?
Thankfully, O’Brien will pass into history. But, the damage inflicted by the “official policy of child abuse” will adversely affect generations.
Or, perhaps it was O’Brien’s intimate connection with a leading nativist group. Immediately prior to his appointment, he was the “Research” Director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (“FAIR”) — a group renowned for sloppy to non-existent “research” and presenting racially-motivated myths and fear mongering as “facts.”
As noted by Nowrasteh, that’s not the only example of FAIR providing “bogus research papers” designed to “rev up hate” and demean the contributions of immigrants both documented and undocumented.
The Anti-Defamation League (“ADL”), one of America’s most venerable anti-hate, anti-misinformation groups, founded more than a century ago “To stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all,” had this to say about O’Brien’s former employer:
While the majority of the extreme anti-immigrant sentiment in the U.S. emanates from fringe groups like white supremacists and other nativists, there are a number of well-established anti-immigrant groups such as Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), NumbersUSA and The Remembrance Project which have secured a foothold in mainstream politics, and their members play a major role in promoting divisive, dangerous rhetoric and views that demonize immigrants. A number of these groups have attempted to position themselves as legitimate advocates against “illegal immigration” while using stereotypes, conspiracy theories and outright bigotry to disparage immigrants and hold them responsible for a number of societal ills. A decade ago, most of this bigotry was directed primarily at Latino immigrants, but today, Muslim and Haitian immigrants, among others, are also targeted.
. . . .
There is a distinct anti-immigrant movement in this country, whose roots can be traced back to the 1970s. Groups such as the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) hope to influence general audiences with somewhat sanitized versions of their anti-immigrant views. In their worldview, non-citizens do not enjoy any status or privilege, and any path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants or refugees is portrayed as a threat to current citizens. Like some other problematic movements, the anti-immigrant movement also has a more extreme wing, which includes border vigilante groups, as well as groups and individuals that seek to demonize immigrants by using racist, sometimes threatening language.
So, perhaps, you say, once actually “on the bench,” Judge O’Brien was able to overcome his biases and knowledge gaps and function as a fair and impartial judicial officer. Nope! Not in the cards!
According to TRAC, O’Brien denied almost every asylum case he heard (96.4% denials). That was, astoundingly, nearly 40% above the average of his colleagues in Arlington and nearly 30% higher than the nationwide asylum denial rate of approximately 67%.
But, to put this in perspective, we have to recognize that this denial rate had already been intentionally and artificially increased by a expanded,”packed,” politicized, “weaponized,” and intentionally “dumbed down” EOIR during the Sessions/Barr era at DOJ. For example, approximately 10 years ago, more than 50% of asylum, cases were being granted annually nationwide, and approximately 75% of the asylum cases in Arlington were granted. See, e.g., https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/judge2014/00001WAS/index.html. And, even then, most asylum experts would have said that the nationwide grant rate was too low.
Gaming The System For Denial
It’s not that conditions in “refugee/asylum sending” countries have gotten better over the past decade! Far from it! The refugee situation today is as bad as it has ever been since WWII and getting worse every day.
So, why would legal refugee admissions be plunging to record lows (despite a rather disingenuous “increase in the refugee ceiling” by the Biden Administration) and asylum denials up dramatically over the past decade?
It has little or nothing to do with asylum law or the realities of the worldwide refugee flow, particularly from Latin American and Caribbean countries. No, it has to do with an intentional move, started under Bush II, tolerated or somewhat encouraged in the Obama Administration, but greatly accelerated during the Trump-era, to “kneecap” the legal refugee and asylum processing programs. Indeed, the “near zeroing-out” of refugee and asylum admissions and the illegal replacement of Asylum Officers by totally unqualified CBP Agents by the Trump Administration are two of the most egregious examples.
Ironically, the EOIR backlog tripled. Under the “maliciously incompetent management” of the Trump group at DOJ, more judges actually meant more backlog! How is that giving taxpayers “value” for their money?
Some of the new judges, like O’Brien and some of the Immigration Judges “elevated” to the BIA, were appointed specifically because of their established records of anti-asylum bias, rude treatment of attorneys, and dehumanizing treatment of asylum seekers and other migrants.
“Ignorance And Contempt”
It’s not like O’Brien was just your “garden variety” “conservative jurist.”(I’ve actually worked with many of the latter over the years). No, he was notorious for his lack of scholarship, rudeness, and bias!
Here are a few of the comments he received on “RateYourJudge.com:”
“Rarely grants cases. No knowledge of the law, only there to deny cases. He needs to be removed.”
“Biased judge, hates immigrants and even kids of immigrants.”
“Incompetent.”
“One of the most condescending and self-righteous judges I have had the displeasure to hear. His word choice and tone left absolutely no doubt that he considered the Respondent to be beneath his notice, even to the point of referring to her as “the female Respondent” and to her domestic partner as a “paramour”. I have heard other judges’ oral opinions on very similar sets of facts, and they were accomplished in a fifth of the time with no loss of dignity to anyone.”
“This guy’s ignorance about immigration law and contempt for the people who appear before him is staggering. The way he threatens lawyers is reprehensible. EOIR is a disgrace.”
“Horrible human being with no business being on the bench. Shame on EOIR for allowing him to continue adjudicating cases.”
“Late, abusive, made up his mind before the case even started, frequently interrupted testimony, yelled at immigrants and their lawyer, and refused to listen to anything we said. Ignorant of the law and facts of the case. He should go back to directing hate groups.”
Among the stream of negative comments there were three “positive” comments about O’Brien;
Most of the comments both positive and negative were “anonymous” or apparent user “pseudonyms;”
“RateMyImmigrationJudge” is neither comprehensive nor transparent.
Flunking the “Gold Standard”
So, was O’Brien really as horrible as most experts say? Let’s do another type of “reality check.”
Among the other IJs at the Arlington Immigration Court, two stand out as widely respected expert jurists who have served for decades across Administrations of both parties. Judge John Milo Bryant was first appointed as an Immigration Judge in 1987 under the Reagan Administration. Judge Lawrence Owen Burman was appointed in 1998 under the Clinton Administration. With 66 years of judicial service between them, they would be considered more or less the “gold standard” for well-qualified, subject matter expert, fair and impartial Immigration Judges.
Significantly, according to the last TRAC report, O’Brien’s asylum grant rate of 3,6% wasapproximately 1/15th of Judge Bryant’s and approximately 1/22 of Judge Burman’s. https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/judgereports/. Case closed! O’Brien should never have been on a bench where asylum seekers lives were at stake and expertise and fairness are supposed to be job requirements!
“Worse Than O’Brien”
What about now former Arlington Immigration Judge David White who was removed at the same time as O’Brien? Apparently, during his relatively short tenure (appointed by Barr in 2020), White was unable to deny enough asylum to qualify for TRAC’s system (100 decisions minimum).
Yet, he made an indelible impression on those “sentenced” to appear before him. Here are comments from RateMyImmigrtionJudge.com:
“This judge is absolutely terrible. Unfair and biased. He is only here to deny asylum cases regardless of what the person has been through. Completely misstates the facts, doesn’t know the law so goes after credibility (using those misstated facts) as an excuse to say there’s no past persecution. Absolute disgrace.”
“Worst judge ever. The clerks at the Immigration Court told the private bar attorneys that they have NEVER seen this judge approve an asylum case. Not one. They have running bets and jokes about him, but he never grants. He writes the denial during the trial instead of listening to the person testify. He is insulting and rude and not at all compassionate about trauma.”
“This is the worst immigration judge in Arlington, hands down. He’s even worse than O’Brien, and O’Brien is an former hate-group director.”
“Terrible immigration judge. Had his mind made up well before our hearing. Came in with a prewritten denial that misstated the law. Was rude and dismissive about my client’s trauma.”
Wow! Worse than O’Brien. That’s quite an achievement.
GOP Court Packing
Fact is, the overt politicization, “weaponization,” and “dumbing down” of the Immigration Courts goes back nearly two decades to AG John Ashcroft and the Bush II Administration. Ashcroft reduced the size of the BIA as a gimmick to “purge” the supposedly “liberal” judges — those, including me, who voted to uphold the legal rights of migrants against government overreach. In other words, our “transgression” was to stand up for due process and the individual rights of immigrants — actually “our job” as properly defined.
And, the downward spiral has continued. The DOJ Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) actually confirmed some of the Bush II improper Immigration Judge hires. But, they avoided dealing with the “BIA purge” that got the ball rolling downhill at EOIR! The GOP has been much more skillful than Dems in reshaping the Immigration Courts to their liking.
During the Trump Administration, putting clearly unqualified IJs who were some of rudest highest denying in America on the BIA was certainly “packing” and “stacking” EOIR against legitimate asylum seekers. Again, however, the OIG failed to “seal the deal” regarding this outrageous conduct that has undermined our entire justice system, fed uncontrollable backlog, and cost human lives that should and could have been saved.
Trump’s “court packing scheme” was no “small potatoes” matter, even if some in the Biden Administration are willfully blind to the continuing human rights and due process disaster at EOIR.
Removing two of the most glaringly unqualified Barr appointees in Arlington is a very modest step by AG Garland in the right direction. But, it’s going to take more, much more, decisive action to clean out the unqualified and the deadwood, bring in true expertise and judicial quality, and restore even a modicum of legitimacy and integrity at EOIR.
Reactionaries’ Predictably Absurdist Reaction
Meanwhile, even this long overdue, well justified, and all too minimal change at EOIR produced totally absurdist reactions from O’Brien and fellow nativists (including some still “hiding out in plain sight” at DOJ) which were picked up by the Washington Times (of course). Don’t believe a word of it!
The removal of guys like O’Brien and White — who never had any business being placed in “quasi-judicial” positions where they exercised life or death authority over refugees of color whose humanity and legal rights they refused to recognize, is just a beginning. The ethical, competence, and judicial attitude rot at EOIR goes much deeper.
Garland has been dilatory in “cleaning house” at EOIR. Vulnerable individuals who were wrongly rejected rather than properly protected have needlessly suffered, and probably even died, as a result. Poor Immigration Judging and lack of effective, correct, courageous, positive asylum guidance by the BIA has helped fuel a human rights disaster and rule of law collapse at the border!
Perhaps, at long last, Garland has slowly started fixing the unconscionable and unnecessary dysfunction andintentionally ingrained institutional bias at EOIR. But, I’ll believe it when I see it!
Keep Up The Pressure
In the meantime, it’s critical that NDPA members: 1) keep applying for EOIR judgeships; and 2) ratchet up the pressure and demand the removal of all unqualified Immigration Judges and Appellate Immigration Judges who are undermining sound scholarship, due process, fundamental fairness, and human dignity at EOIR!
Human rights matter! Individual rights matter! Immigrants’ rights matter! Good judges matter!
Today, we are surrounded by too many bad judges, at all levels of our justice system, who reject the first three in favor of warped far-right ideologies, dangerous myths, and disregard for human dignity. The existential battle to get good judges into our system has begun. And, Immigration Courts are the primary theater of action!
There are plenty of similar cases out there in the EOIR backlog and waiting at the border for the Administration to start following asylum law!(Others have been unlawfully and immorally returned to persecution without meaningful opportunities to present their claims.)
These types of cases could be identified, represented, and timely granted by a “better EOIR” led by a “better BIA.” These are the decisions that should be binding precedents. Practical, positive legal guidance shows how to “build on” gender-based and family-based asylum to grant more protection, encourage good preparation and presentation on both sides, rein in “never asylum judges,” and to clear dockets of cases of individuals who deserve to be on their way to green cards, citizenship, and full participation in our society.
A fair, consistent, timely application of asylum and refugee laws would establish that many of those wrongly characterized as “law violators” are, in fact, legal immigrants. And, that’s something our country needs!
What if the “powers that be” would “institutionalize” this type of judicial performance rather than the “denial factory/good enough for government work” culture that continues to operate widely at EOIR under Garland? Wouldn’t that be the type of “good government” that Biden and Harris promised, but have yet to deliver, particularly on immigration?
Personal note:Judge Balasquide was the widely respected ICE Chief Counsel in Arlington when I arrived at the Arlington Immigration Court in 2003. He was initiallyappointed as a Immigration Judge in New York in July 2006 by then AG Alberto Gonzalez. I always enjoyed working with Judge Balasquide during my time in Arlington. (He actually appeared before me in court on a few occasions.)
Hope to see you there! Our ever-amazing Moderator/Organizer/Inspiration Chelsea Queen, 4th Year Doctoral Student @ UTEP & Applied Work Member-at-Large of the SPSSI Graduate Student Committee, promises to 1) keep us “on track;” and 2) involve the audience in the dialogue.
The question I get asked the most as someone who went from being a Republican to a Democrat is: “What’s the biggest difference between the two parties?”
The answer: Every impulse Democrats have is defensive and every impulse Republicans have is offensive.
A report in the Washington Post this week showed these dynamics at play perfectly between Democrats and Republicans on the House Jan. 6 select committee. As the Post described, Democratic Rep. Stephanie Murphy (Fla.) insisted that the committee focus less on former President Trump and more on the security and intelligence failures that allowed the attack on the Capitol. In response, Republican Vice Chair Liz Cheney (Wyo.) argued that the committee should keep its focus on the former president.
This is the best illustration I have come across that demonstrates how different Republicans and Democrats approach things on a tactical and, I’d say, cellular level.
When Republicans have the reins of power, they do not hesitate to go after the very top. From Barack Obama’s birth certificate to Hillary Clinton’s emails and potentially Hunter Biden’s laptop, the GOP is unapologetic about pursuing witch hunts for political gain.
Democrats, on the other hand, are always pursuing lines of legitimate oversight reluctantly. At times, it feels like they are apologizing for doing the right thing.
I think back to Trump’s first impeachment and the hesitant posture displayed by the Democrats during those proceedings. It was almost as if they were forced into it, regretted that it came to this, and moved as fast as possible to get it over with.
Democrats controlled the House majority but never forced Trump administration officials with firsthand knowledge of the events that were at the center of the impeachment inquiry to testify, such as John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney or Rick Perry, and the Republican-controlled Senate predictably torpedoed any effort to compel them to testify.
History repeated itself during Trump’s second impeachment as firsthand witnesses like Mike Pence, Mark Meadows, Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, Rudolph W. Giuliani, etc., were never called to testify. Hillary Clinton, of course, was grilled by the Republican-led Benghazi committee for more than 11 hours.
It’s almost as if Democrats believe there is some prize awaiting them for showing what they would characterize as restraint. There isn’t.
. . . .
*********************
Read the complete article at the link.
This has been obvious in the Dems’ feckless approach to Immigration, and particularly the Immigration Courts, over the years.
Without enacting any significant legislation, the GOP instituted an overtly racist/nativist/restrictionist program. They negated existing laws, scorned the Constitution, abrogated log-standing international agreements, and aggressively and blatantly stacked the Federal Judiciary at all levels with far-right zealots. And they have gotten away with it!
Yet, even after successfully running on programs promising a restoration of the rule of law and the Constitution in immigration and human rights, Dems have been from feckless, to timid, to complicit in the GOP’s vile programs.
The GOP did not hesitate to “stack” the Immigration Court system at all levels with questionably qualified judges who lacked perspective, expertise, and a commitment to due process. The result was a dramatic plunge in the grant rates for asylum seekers, even though conditions in the primary sending countries have continued to worsen dramatically over the years.
No justification for what the GOP did, and no hesitation or self-doubts about doing it! Amid tons of criticism, they just plowed ahead and did it! They “played to the most extreme elements of their base” — nobody else! They weren’t scared to take extreme actions that most polls showed the majority of American’s didn’t favor!
By contrast, the Dems approach to immigration and human rights policy is a complete mess. And, worst of all, the Immigration Courts and EOIR remain largely as the Trump regime left them. Indeed, the backlog is growing at an astounding rate, as Garland flails and fails to bring on board the “best and brightest” judges and intellectual leaders to reform EOIR into the due-process oriented “model judiciary” that it was once intended to be!
“Petitioner Giscard Nkenglefac, a native and citizen of Cameroon, applied for admission into the United States on May 9, 2018. The immigration judge (“IJ”), Agnelis Reese, denied Nkenglefac’s application for relief from removal and ordered him removed to Cameroon after determining that Nkenglefac was not credible. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) subsequently affirmed the IJ’s determination, and Nkenglefac was removed to Cameroon. Nkenglefac now petitions for review of the BIA’s dismissal of his appeal from the IJ’s denial of application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Nkenglefac challenges the IJ’s reliance on his U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) and asylum credible fear interviews that were not entered into the hearing record of the removal proceeding, nor, indeed, raised in that hearing at all, to make an adverse credibility finding. … Nkenglefac argues that the IJ erred as a matter of law by drawing negative credibility inferences from summaries of his CBP and credible fear interviews because neither interview was submitted into the record during his proceeding, much less adverted to. Nkenglefac also argues that he did not waive this argument because he could not have raised the issue before the IJ given that he had no notice the IJ would rely on these documents prior to issuance of her decision. … [A]t no point during the hearing before the IJ was Nkenglefac provided with the opportunity to explain any apparent inconsistencies or dispute the accuracy of the records in question, or cross examine the individuals who prepared the interview summaries, much less object to their introduction, or offer views on weight to be given to the evidence. Inspection of the hearing record confirms that Nkenglefac was not given the opportunity to explain perceived inconsistencies in the government summaries of his prior uncounseled interviews.5 Indeed, the voluminous testimonial record, including extensive government cross-examination and IJ direct inquiry, gives no indication that Nkenglefac had previously made any inconsistent statements, yet the IJ, three months later, determined that “inconsistencies and omissions . . . undermine critical parts of Respondent’s claim” to such an extent that the court denied “Respondent’s application based on lack of credibility.” … The BIA majority—affirming the IJ’s decision—also determined that Nkenglefac’s argument regarding the absence of the CBP and credible fear interviews from the record was “waived” because “the [trial] transcript reflects that [Nkenglefac’s] former counsel never requested that these records . . . be made a part of the record.” However, we fail to understand why Nkenglefac’s counsel should have introduced these government summaries into the record to anticipate and explain later-perceived inconsistencies when they were never identified, referenced, or discussed. It is also worth noting that there is no evidence—beyond the statement of the BIA majority—that Nkenglefac’s counsel failed to preserve this issue on appeal. The issue was discussed at length in Nkenglefac’s appeal brief to the BIA and again in his brief to this court. Furthermore, this observation stands in contravention to existing BIA law that “an adverse credibility determination should not be based on inconsistencies that take an alien by surprise.” Matter of Y-I-M-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 724, 726-29 (BIA 2019) (quote at 726). Notably, the Government’s brief on appeal does not argue that Nkenglefac has waived this argument. … We GRANT the petition for review and REMAND this case to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
[Hats waaaayyyy off to Homero López, Jr., who reports that he is in touch with his client and is hopeful of bringing him back to the USA. Audio of the oral argument is here.]
Once again, credibility, the problematic issue in this case, is not a profound legal concept. It’s supposedly the “bread and butter of Immigration Judging.” Yet, both the IJs and the BIA continue to often get it wrong. Perhaps “dead wrong” in the cases of asylum seekers! Why isn’t this fundamental flaw at the all-important “retail level” of our justice system receiving the necessary attention and corrections from Garland and the Biden Administration?
As one “Courtside Commenter” said:
I think this is the IJ who retired with a 100% asylum denial rate [actually it was 99.4%, denying 155 of 156 claims she “heard” — but didn’t listen to — over a career that lasted far too long]!And Cameroon is now a TPS country.
This decision is proof perfect of EOIR’s deportation assembly line approach.And I’ve mentioned a number of times the alarming problems with CBP arrival statements noted by the US Commission for International Religious Freedom, an internal government component, which has repeatedly flagged the fact that the resulting “statements” are not the verbatim transcripts they appear to be, and often contain questions that were never actually asked of the respondent.
As pointed out in the above comment, Cameroon is now a TPS country. Additionally, one of the “five top nationalities” that came before this “asylum denial machine” were asylum seekers from Eritrea. Although they found no success with her, the EOIR statistics for FY 2022 show that that every “merits decision” on Eritrean asylum was granted. There were exactly ZERO, “0” merits denials. Seehttps://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1107366/download.
Thankfully, Judge Reese has retired. But the endemic problems she symbolized, the lack of effective appellate review, and disdain for due process for asylum seekers by the BIA remain overarching problems that Garland has stubbornly failed to effectively address.
Additionally, in another “under the radar yet highly significant problem,” Garland’s OIL within the USDOJ Civil Division continues to “defend the indefensible” coming out of the BIA. This wastes Government and private sector litigation resources, not to mention precious Article III Court time. It also turns due process and immigrant justice in the U.S. into a random game of chance.
Obviously, there is a severe lack of leadership all over the USDOJ under Garland. Moving toward the “halfway point” in the Biden Administration, there still is no appointed and confirmed Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division!
Luke Vargas: Coming up, the Biden administration is enlisting citizens, businesses, and nonprofit groups to sponsor Ukrainian refugees in the US. Could it become a new model for helping those fleeing conflict? We’ll have that story after the break. Several weeks ago, the Biden administration introduced a new sponsorship program for Ukrainian refugees. It’s called Uniting for Ukraine, and it expedites the admissions process for Ukrainians once they’ve found a US citizen or group to sponsor them. In the first 10 days, the program received more than 14,500 applications. So, could private sponsorship become a regular feature of the US Refugee Admissions Program? Wall Street Journal immigration reporter, Michelle Hackman, says the government could use all the help it can get, especially after America’s official resettlement system was overwhelmed by more than 76,000 Afghans last year. And Michelle joins us now with more. Hi, Michelle.
Michelle Hackman: Hi. Good to be here.
Luke Vargas: It’s great to have you. So, how is this program different from how refugees are normally admitted to the United States?
Michelle Hackman: Yeah. It’s an interesting trade-off. Refugees typically come through what we call the Refugee Admissions Program, and that is a process that can take years. The most common situation is you have people living in a refugee camp, let’s say in Africa or in somewhere in Southeast Asia, and they apply to the US, they have to go through a refugee interview. They have to be vetted to make sure they have no ties to terrorism or anything like that. And that takes two or three years. They go through medical checks. In exchange, when they come, they get two things, they get a green card and they get a lot of assistance from government and non-government organizations, including help finding a home, help finding a job, temporary access to Medicaid, and food stamps, and English lessons, and all this suite of benefits that you need to adjust to America after living in a really precarious situation.
Luke Vargas: But that is not how this system works for these refugees resettled from Ukraine is it?
Michelle Hackman: That’s right. So, the trade-off that’s being made here is that system obviously has a lot of benefits, but Ukrainians don’t have two or three years. They need homes right now. And so, the US is turning to a different mechanism to allow people in that’s called humanitarian parole, in case any of our listeners have heard that term. And so, the benefit of that is it gets Ukrainians here really quick, maybe a week to get that approval. But on the flip side, it means that they get none of those benefits. They get none of the resettlement support from the government and they don’t get green cards.
Luke Vargas: I understand that under this program, refugees from Ukraine aren’t guaranteed any long term legal status and that humanitarian parole, you mentioned only holds for two years. What exactly happens after that?
Michelle Hackman: Right. And that’s a reason that this program has gotten a lot of criticism from Ukrainian and refugee groups. A lot of Ukrainians probably feel like they don’t have a home to return to in Ukraine. Their city was destroyed. Their apartment building was destroyed, whatever it may be. Or other people may feel like, oh my gosh, if I move to America, and I find a job, and my kids start going to school, I can’t uproot myself again in two years. I just have to have some peace and dignity. But for those people, it’s honestly going to be difficult because as I said, they have these two-year grants of permission. A lot of people are going to be eligible for a really similar program called temporary protected status, which has been granted to Ukrainians and will almost certainly be extended by the Biden administration. But temporary programs are difficult. Republicans are not really in favor of them. If a Republican administration gets elected, they’ll almost certainly come to an end. And there isn’t a direct pathway for these people to get a green card. The main way that you can do it is if you have a parent, sibling, or child, who’s an American citizen, or if you find an employer who’s willing to sponsor you for a green card, which is quite costly, but those are limited options for people.
Luke Vargas: Okay. And yet, despite those potential pitfalls, you report that the Biden administration is looking at this program to see if they could use it as a model that could be scaled up. How exactly would that work?
Michelle Hackman: Yeah, it’s interesting. There are two aspects. There is the temporary nature of the program. And then there is the private sponsorship, which I would suggest you could separate out. And the Biden administration is looking at doing just that. They’re looking at creating a broader private sponsorship model. So, exactly how strangers in America are taking in Ukrainians, they don’t know. They’re trying to get more Americans to step up and do that with more refugees, but the idea would be once they launch that program, which they’re hoping to do by the end of this year, that those people that they’re sponsoring would be coming through the regular refugee program. So, that means those people arriving would get a green card. As permanent residents would get government healthcare, and food stamps, and things like that. But the adjustment to America piece of things, what I was talking about, finding a home, enrolling in school, that would be handled by your private sponsor. And that might be a church, or a synagogue, or a private volunteer organization, or whatever it may be.
Luke Vargas: That was Wall Street Journal immigration reporter, Michelle Hackman. Michelle, thanks so much.
Michelle Hackman: Thank you.
*************************************
Read and listen to the complete interview of Michelle by Luke Vargas, along with other items, at the link above.
My take:
The Trump Administration destroyed U.S. legal refugee programs;
The Biden Administration pledged to rebuild them;
The Biden Administration failed to keep its promise;
Caught flatfooted by the Ukrainian war, the Biden Administration has created a “band-aid” approach that will result in uncertainty and problems down the line;
Why doesn’t the Administration just make the legal refugee system work?
What about all those refugees who have been waiting at the Southern Border for justice, humanity, and legality, but finding none?
