🎥🎞📺NEW NETFLIX DOCUMENTARY SERIES SHOWS DHS’S CRUEL, MISGUIDED, WASTEFUL ENFORCEMENT UNDER TRUMP — Not Surprisingly, The Regime Wants To Suppress The Truth — At Least Until After The Election — Caitlin Dickerson @ NY Times Reports

Caitlin Dickerson
National Immigration Reporter
NY Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/us/trump-immigration-nation-netflix.html?unlocked_article_code=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACEIPuonUktbfq4hkT1UZACbIRp87tACDnb3Oxbk9iWX3MCmST3NExvgUBI7F_UrRa65id50zwzGfDpdnAYMYecZTnKVZLlA_DE6huIeFk5AIZC4_-Ni-B21ompyQB-x9rG6wYCywI-khgeXkskqLPTO-XaCM1WYzZ1ow-esTfl-h2nQJz6bBA7Q1joE4haF9c8g8ETQQZyCKvu3qDQF-PbiFbRLc7woxXYJJSG2Z3I7cu_9bLlIkWR-RR2h_4G0-9NpWJNoSWa7_JBUmc8b06q4DCJCm1elPvSY5zqibk_nysQ&smid=em-share

Caitlin reports:

In early 2017, as Immigration and Customs Enforcement prepared to carry out the hard-line agenda on which President Trump had campaigned, agency leaders jumped at the chance to let two filmmakers give a behind-the-scenes look at the process.

But as the documentary neared completion in recent months, the administration fought mightily to keep it from being released until after the 2020 election. After granting rare access to parts of the country’s powerful immigration enforcement machinery that are usually invisible to the public, administration officials threatened legal action and sought to block parts of it from seeing the light of day.

Some of the contentious scenes include ICE officers lying to immigrants to gain access to their homes and mocking them after taking them into custody. One shows an officer illegally picking the lock to an apartment building during a raid.

At town hall meetings captured on camera, agency spokesmen reassured the public that the organization’s focus was on arresting and deporting immigrants who had committed serious crimes. But the filmmakers observed numerous occasions in which officers expressed satisfaction after being told by supervisors to arrest as many people as possible, even those without criminal records.

“Start taking collaterals, man,” a supervisor in New York said over a speakerphone to an officer who was making street arrests as the filmmakers listened in. “I don’t care what you do, but bring at least two people,” he said.

The filmmakers, Christina Clusiau and Shaul Schwarz, who are a couple, turned drafts of their six-part project called “Immigration Nation” over to ICE leadership in keeping with a contract they had signed with the agency. What they encountered next resembled what happened to Mary L. Trump, the president’s niece, who was eventually sued in an unsuccessful attempt to stop her from publishing a memoir that revealed embarrassing details about the president and his associates.

Suddenly, Ms. Clusiau and Mr. Schwarz say, the official who oversaw the agency’s television and film department, with whom they had worked closely over nearly three years of filming, became combative.

The filmmakers discussed their conversations on the condition that the officials they dealt with not be named out of fear that it would escalate their conflict with the agency.

. . . .

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

Read Caitlin’s full article at the link.

The multi-part documentary begins airing on Netflix on August 3. You can watch the trailer at this link:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjj05eA9eXqAhXagnIEHR5UBd4QwqsBMAJ6BAgKEAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DX_xVKy58Yuw&usg=AOvVaw3B6_C_v-0f__UPQyLHJ-fy

See firsthand how your tax dollars are being largely wasted on cruel, unnecessary terrorizing of ethnic communities and populating the “New American Gulag” — “enforcement” that in too many cases actually harms our economy and our society and certainly diminishes both our integrity and humanity as a nation.

Catlin’s concluding paragraphs are worth keeping in mind:

The filmmakers said they came away with some empathy for the ICE officers, but became convinced that the entire system was harmful to immigrants and their families.

The problem, they said, was summarized in the first episode by Becca Heller, the director of the International Refugee Assistance Project.

“Is a government agency evil? No. Is every single person inside ICE evil? No,” Ms. Heller told the filmmakers. “The brilliance of the system is that their job has been siphoned off in such a way that maybe what they see day to day seems justified, but when you add it up, all of the people just doing their job, it becomes this crazy terrorizing system.”

We have all been harmed by Trump’s racist-driven “weaponization” of DHS and the Immigration Courts, and that includes the DHS employees and the Immigration Court employees who are caught up in this grotesque, often illegal, and overall immoral abuse of government authority and resources.

We should also be concerned about the First Amendment implications of Trump’s attempts to misuse Government authority to manipulate the election in his favor by, once again, suppressing truth in reporting. Thank goodness we have courageous journalists like Caitlin and these filmmakers to keep exposing the ugly truth about the Trump/Miller/Wolf/Barr ongoing White Nationalist immigration charade.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-24-20

🤮👎🏻☠️CHILD ABUSERS ON THE LOOSE — Rosenstein & Sessions Still At Large Even As Those Whose Lives Were Destroyed By Their Unconstitutional Actions Continue To Suffer Irreparable Harm — A Complete Institutional Meltdown Across All Three Branches Leaves U.S. As A Major Human Rights Abuser! — How Low Will We Go Before We Finally Say “No” To Racist Abuses! — “The family separations that followed are seen today by experts as one of the gravest domestic human rights violations to have occurred under the Trump administration.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jul/23/child-separation-migrants-prosecutors-rod-rosenstein?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

From The Guardian:

Revealed: Rod Rosenstein advised there was no age limit on child separations

Former deputy attorney general’s 2018 conference call with US prosecutors in border states shocked some participants, Guardian learns

Stephanie Kirchgaessner in Washington

Published:

06:00 Thursday, 23 July 2020

Follow Stephanie Kirchgaessner

Rod Rosenstein, the former deputy attorney general, advised US attorneys implementing the 2018 zero-tolerance policy that there could be no blanket ban on prosecuting migrant parents who had children under the age of five, the Guardian has learned.

The comments on a conference call in May 2018 privately shocked some border state prosecutors because, in effect, it meant that no child was too young to be separated from its parents under the policy, which called for all migrants entering the US illegally to face criminal prosecution.

‘Suddenly they started gassing us’: Cuban migrants tell of shocking attack at Ice prison

The family separations that followed are seen today by experts as one of the gravest domestic human rights violations to have occurred under the Trump administration.

The policy was in place for six weeks and resulted in the separation of 2,814 children from their parents and guardians, about 105 of whom were under the age of five and 1,033 under 10.

Rosenstein issued his guidance to US attorneys from states on the Mexican border about two weeks after the then attorney general, Jeff Sessions, issued an order that there would be an “escalated effort” to prosecute all illegal entries into the US along the southern border, according to sources familiar with the matter who spoke to the Guardian under the condition of anonymity.

Previously, under the Obama administration, most families who crossed the border illegally were detained together if they were arrested or were released pending an immigration trial, but were only separated if authorities deemed children to be in danger.

There were questions among the border state US attorneys at that time about how the zero-tolerance policy would be implemented and the conference call with Rosenstein sought to address those issues.

On the call, one US attorney, John Bash of the western district of Texas, said he had declined to prosecute several cases that had been referred to him by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that involved children under the age of five.

In response, sources familiar with the matter said Rosenstein told the US attorneys that they could not decline to prosecute cases based on the age of the children who would be separated from their parents because there was “no categorical exemption” under the order.

During the call, Rosenstein was also asked whether prosecutors could decline to prosecute parents with children who only spoke indigenous languages, meaning they were unable to communicate in English or Spanish, or those whose children had intellectual disabilities. Rosenstein said that prosecutors could opt to decline to prosecute individuals with children under those two circumstances on a case-by-case basis, sources said.

The comments were met with shock by some of the US attorneys, sources said, because there was concern that children who were under the age of five would not know their own names or their parents’ names and that it posed a risk of children potentially getting lost in the system.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of the article at the link.

What does this say about firms like King & Spaulding who offer employment and “cover” to human rights abusers like Rosenstein? Why is serving a racist, neo-Nazi, would-be authoritarian regime considered “OK” by “big law” and other supposedly “legitimate” employers? Where’s the outrage?

If human lives and human dignity matter, why is Rosenstein on anyone’s payroll? Why is he still licensed to practice law?

On the bright side: Unapologetic White Nationalist racist “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions is finally off the public dole, hopefully for good.

PWS

07-23-20

PWS

07-23-20

👍IT’S A START, BUT STILL A LONG, LONG WAY TO GO: House-Passed Bill To Begin Removing The Stain Of Trump’s White Nationalism Is Also A Long-Overdue Exposure & Put Down Of Roberts’ Court’s Abject Failure To Stand For Equal Justice For All & Against Trump’s Overtly Unconstitutional Bigotry & “Dred Scottificaton” Of The Other!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/07/23/house-votes-remove-moral-stain-trumps-immigration-policies/

Jason Rezaian writes in WashPost:

In 2016, presidential candidate Donald Trump pledged sweeping changes to immigration policy. As president, Trump has succeeded — despite a broad public outcry and many legal roadblocks — in implementing many of his proposed restrictions through a series of executive orders.

Now Congress is pushing back. On Wednesday the House passed the No Ban Act, legislation introduced last year by Sen Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.). The act aims to repeal Trump’s ban on arrivals from majority-Muslim countries and prevent future presidents from issuing discriminatory bans on foreign nationals or followers of specific religions.

“Throughout the history of the U.S., we’ve had a series of tragic nativist chapters in our history,” Coons told me this week. “Did I think we’d be facing another one? No. But when Donald Trump announced his candidacy, I remember thinking I am so glad I live in a country where a man like this couldn’t be president. I was wrong, and we’ve seen how damaging that has been.”

In recent months, the novel coronavirus pandemic, the associated economic downturn, and protests over police killings of African Americans have diverted public attention from Trump’s immigration policies. But they must not be forgotten.

Trump’s plans for an immigration ban have inspired widespread outrage. Some dismissed Trump’s words as empty threats, noting that they were probably unconstitutional. But Trump pressed ahead as soon as he took office.

The first iteration of what became known as the Muslim ban halted entry into the United States of citizens from seven countries, five of which are majority-Muslim.

Since then we’ve watched as immigration officials have separated kids from their parents in detention centers, with at least one of them dying in custody. The images of children in cages provoked an intense backlash and could end up costing Trump at the polls — to the extent that his policies have led his own voters, especially college-educated white Republican women, to question his xenophobic and racist policies.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of Jason’s op-ed at the above link.

Somewhat like Sen. Coons, I originally thought that there would be some institutional integrity and moral courage even among the more conservative members of our Judiciary, particularly among the Supremes. After all, there have been at least a few times in our history when judges across the ideological and political spectrum have stood together against the evils of racism, religious bigotry, and hate.

It’s not like Trump, Miller, Bannon, Sessions, Ross, and their hate-mongering cronies were ever particularly subtle about their invidious intent (although, to be fair, I was at the very beginning willing to give Sessions “the benefit of the doubt,” until I saw that his assurances to the Senate were lies under oath in the face of the deep moral corruption and bigotry that infected his whole being).

Boy was I wrong! Right from the git go, even with the advantage of clear evidence of invidious intent, ridiculously transparent and overtly dishonest “pretexts,” (some publicly contradicted by Trump in mid-stream) and the vast majority of lower Federal Court Judges pointing the way with cogent opinions standing up to the Trump charade and endless parade of hate, the Supremes majority tanked. Where the rights of “the other” particularly Muslims and persons color are concerned, they fully embraced Trump’s unconstitutional and tyrannical program of hate and bias thinly disguised as legitimate exercises of Executive Power. They became willing “Dred Scottifiers!”

Perhaps just as seriously, the Supremes’ “normalized” demonstrable lies, false narratives, and dishonesty as attributes that were to be expected and tolerated from our Chief Executive. What a crock! Ordinary persons are held to basic standards of honesty and candor when dealing with the Government and with Government tribunals. But the President is above it all. While, later on, the Supremes fecklessly claimed that “nobody is above the law,” their actions have shown a disturbing and intellectually dishonest unwillingness to require Trump and his regime to comply with the basics of the rule of law and to act with even a minimal level of candor and honesty.

We can’t vote the “JR Five” out of their lifetime sinecures. But, our democracy does enable us to take the actions necessary to insure that folks like the “JR Five” and other Federal Judges who embrace racism, bigotry, and political corruption over the “equal justice and real due process for all persons” required by our Constitution are not selected to serve in the future in positions requiring legal experiences and moral qualifications that they so obviously lack.

Better judges for a better America. This November, vote like the future of humanity depends on it. Because it does!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-23-20

🤮👎☠️SCREWED: ICE, Advocates, Judge Conspiring To Sell Out Refugee Kids & Families To Illegal Racist Scheme Called “Binary Choice” To Disguise Invidious Intent!

Michelle Hackman
Immigration Reporter
Wall Street Journal

Alicia A. Caldwell
Immigration Reporter
Wall Street Journal

https://apple.news/A4SQ_qG_DSme90hH0KK4C4g

Michelle Hackman and Alicia Caldwell report for the WSJ:

WASHINGTON—The Trump administration is nearing a deal with some immigrant advocates that would present a choice to jailed parents fighting denial of asylum: let their children be released without them or remain detained together indefinitely, according to federal court filings and lawyers for the children.

The deal is being negotiated between U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and attorneys representing roughly 100 children in detention, a development that has divided the pro-immigrant advocacy community.

If enacted, the “binary choice” plan, as it is known, would realize a long-sought goal by the Trump administration not to release immigrant families seeking asylum together in the U.S. Many of these families report fleeing gang violence, poverty or corruption in Central American countries. The plan would allow parents to choose between releasing their children to relatives in the U.S. or long-term foster care, or keeping their families in detention, waiving rights given to the children under a 23-year-old court settlement.

That settlement, known as the Flores agreement, requires ICE to release migrant children in its custody, not entire families, though past administrations, including the Trump administration until last year, largely complied with it by releasing children together with their parents.

Most immigrant advocates oppose “binary choice,” arguing it is tantamount to a new family separation policy, akin to a policy the administration adopted briefly in 2018 to prosecute all adults crossing the border illegally. The policy resulted in children being taken away from those adults. The government halted those family separations after a broad bipartisan outcry, though it has been looking for other ways to deter migrant families from seeking asylum ever since.

“Asking a parent to choose between indefinite detention in a place where there is already a Covid outbreak and being separated from your child for an undetermined length of time, that is a coercive situation,” said Stephanie Alvarez-Jones, a staff attorney with Proyecto Dilley, which provides legal representation to families at the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas.

The lawyers working with ICE, who represent the children in continuing enforcement of the Flores agreement, say they are left with little choice and aim to protect the best interests of the migrant children.

“By negotiating, we’ve been able to substantially lessen the harshness of ICE’s proposal,” said Peter Schey, president of the Los Angeles-based Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, which has managed the Flores Agreement.

ICE declined to comment on the details of the case, citing the pending litigation.

. . . .

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

Those with full WSJ access can read the complete article at the link.

It’s not rocket science. “Binary choice” is nothing but a racist scam designed by Stephen Miller and other White Nationalists in the regime primarily to punish asylum seekers of color and their children for seeking legal protection, to traumatize and duress them into giving up potentially valid claims, to inflict lasting psychological harm on non-white populations, and to serve as an example and deterrent to others who might dare to exercise their legal rights in the face of tyranny by a racist Executive. All of the foregoing are in clear violation of the 5^th, 8^th, and 14^th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, not to mention our asylum statutes and international instruments to which we supposedly are party. You don’t need a law degree to figure that out.

Those who have engineered, furthered, and gone along to get along with these gross abuses of children and betrayals of the human rights and dignity of the most vulnerable among us will not escape the judgment of history. Sadly, that will be small consolation for the multitude of broken bodies, traumatized minds, and damaged souls that they leave in their ugly wake!

⁴²For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

⁴³I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

⁴⁴Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

⁴⁵Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

—— Matthew 25

Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-23-20

🏴‍☠️☠️⚰️👎🤮KAKISTOCRACY KORNER: Chase, Schmidt Rip Billy The Bigot’s Appointment Of Hate Grouper To Arlington “Bench” – Failed System Drops All Pretenses Of Fairness & Due Process As Feckless Congress & Complicit Article IIIs Flunk Constitutional Duties! –

https://www.law360.com/immigration/articles/1293543/ex-fair-research-director-among-46-new-immigration-judges

Hannah Albarazi
Federal Courts
Reporter
Law360

Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase
Jeffrey S. Chase Blog
Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Retired Immigration Judges

Ex-FAIR Research Director Among 46 New Immigration Judges

By Hannah Albarazi

. . . .

“It would be impossible for one to receive a fair hearing before Matthew O’Brien,” Jeffrey Chase, a New York City immigration lawyer and former immigration judge, told Law360. Chase said O’Brien has expressed a view of asylum law that is at odds with the controlling circuit case law that he would be tasked with applying from the bench.

Chase said O’Brien has “basically spouted propaganda for an organization openly hostile to immigration.”

His appointment, Chase said, shows that the Trump administration doesn’t want a fair and independent immigration court and is proof that the Executive Office for Immigration Review needs to be taken out of the control of the Department of Justice, an enforcement agency.

The administration “has repeatedly emphasized to classes of new immigration judges that they are above all employees of the attorney general, who does not believe most asylum seekers are deserving of protection,” Chase said.

These appointments could negatively impact the immigration courts for decades, Chase said.

Paul Wickham Schmidt, a retired U.S. immigration judge who chaired the Board of Immigration Appeals in the Clinton administration, also slammed the recent wave of appointments.

“The idea that these are the 46 best qualified individuals in America to discharge these awesome responsibilities in a fair, impartial and expert manner, in furtherance of due process of law and with recognition of the human rights and human dignity of the individuals whose lives are at stake, is beyond preposterous. It’s a fraud on American justice,” Schmidt told Law360.

Schmidt didn’t mince his words about O’Brien’s appointment either.

“As someone who has helped FAIR spread its racially biased, anti-immigrant, and anti-asylum propaganda and false narratives, O’Brien is not qualified to be a fair and impartial quasi-judicial decision maker as required by the due process clause of our Constitution,” Schmidt said.

. . . .

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

Those with Law360 access can read Hannah’s complete article at the link.

The U.S. Justice system, once the envy of free nations throughout the world, is disintegrating before our eyes. If there is no justice for those whose lives are at stake, there will be no justice for any of us in the Trump/Barr Third World kakistocracy.

Due Process Forever! Corrupt & Feckless Institutions Parodying Justice, Never!

PWS

07-21-20

DRED SCOTTIFICATION OF “THE OTHER” — Supremes’ Anti-Constitutional “De-Personification” Of Asylum Applicants of Color With Lives At Stake Shows Why America Is In A Constitutional & Racial Mess Right Now — Analysis of Thuraissigiam By Professor Elliott Young!

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/176454

Elliott Young is a professor of History at Lewis & Clark College and the author of a forthcoming book Forever Prisoners: How the United States Made the Largest Immigrant Detention System in the World (Oxford University Press).

. . . .

For more than one hundred years, the entry fiction has enabled the US government to deny immigrants due process protections that the 14th Amendment clearly indicates apply “to any person within its jurisdiction.” Although Justice Alito seems to restrict the ruling to people who entered the country within the previous 24 hours and within 25 yards of the border, the logic of the decision poses a more ominous threat to all immigrants who were not lawfully admitted.

As Justice Sotomayor writes in her dissent, “Taken to its extreme, a rule conditioning due process rights on lawful entry would permit Congress to constitutionally eliminate all procedural protections for any noncitizen the Government deems unlawfully admitted and summarily deport them no matter how many decades they have lived here, how settled and integrated they are in their communities, or how many members of their family are U. S. citizens or residents.”

It is this threat to more than 10 million immigrants living in the United States without authorization that makes the Thuraissigiam decision such a blow to the basic principles of freedom and justice. It would be odd for a country that imagines itself to be a beacon of hope for people around the world to deny basic constitutional protections to asylum seekers when they finally cross our threshold.

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

Read the full article at the link.

It’s not rocket science. The Constitution is clear. The “fog” here has to do with the disingenuous “reasoning” and legal gobbledygook cooked up by the majority Justices to deny Constitutional rights to people of color. Better judges for a better America! From voting rights to immigration, the current Supremes’ majority has too often undermined the right of all persons in America to equal justice under law. That’s exactly what institutionalized racism looks like.

Without major changes in all three branches of our failing Federal Government, equal justice for all in America will remain as much of an illusion as it has been since the inception of our nation. We have the power to do more than talk about equal justice — to start taking the necessary political action that will make it a reality. But, do we have the will and the moral courage to make it happen?

This November vote like your life and the life of our nation depend on it! Because they do!

PWS

07-21-20

🏴‍☠️☠️⚰️👎🏻KAKISTOCRACY GONE WILD: Billy The Bigot Adds 46 More To America’s Star Chambers — Long on Government Backgrounds, Particularly Prosecutorial — Short on Immigration Expertise or Reputations For Fairness & Scholarship — CONSPICUOUSLY ABSENT: Asylum, Human Rights Expertise & Experience Representing Humans Seeking Justice!

Here’s the list with bios:

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1295301/download

This list includes what appears to be a municipal traffic court judge and someone who spent the last four years working for a white nationalist hate group (per the SPLC).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mesbqxTSzEM

Due Process Forever! America’s Star Chambers, Never!☠️⚰️🤮

PWS

07-19-20

MATTER OF A-B- NEWS: Split DC Cir. Issues “Split Decision” in Grace v. Barr (formerly Grace v. Sessions, Grace v. Whitaker)

2-1 D.C. Circuit decision in Grace v. Barr, on the AG’s credible-fear rules.

Holding: We reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment with respect to the circularity rule and the statements regarding domestic- and gang-violence claims, vacate the injunction insofar as it pertains to those issues, and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. In all other respects, we affirm.

—

Marty Lederman

Georgetown University Law Center

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

Perhaps the key holdings in this 45-page majority decision are that:

The “condoned- or-completely-helpless standard” cannot replace the “unable or unwilling to control” standard in determining whether persecution by non-state-actors” (e.g., gangs) qualifies; and
The direction to apply “law of the Circuit where the credible fear interview took place” instead of “the interpretation most favorable to the applicant . . . when determining whether the applicant meets the credible fear standard” is arbitrary and capricious.

The full decision with dissent is at the above link.

Of course, with most asylum and immigration laws for arriving individuals basically (and quite illegally) “suspended” during the COVID-19 “crisis,” and the regime’s plans (also patently illegal) to repeal asylum law by regulation in process, the practical effects of this decision remain unclear.

PWS

07-17-20

⚖️CALLING OUT WHITE NATIONALIST JUDGING: In a Remarkable Opinion, 4th Cir. Chief Judge Roger Gregory Blasts Colleague’s Retrograde Views on Race, Judging, Policing, & Communities of Color!

U.S. v. Curry

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/184233A.P.pdf

GREGORY, Chief Judge, concurring:

Our decision today affirms that a central tenet of law nearly as old as this country—

namely, “[t]he right of the people to be secure . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures”—applies equally to all. U.S. Const. amend. IV. I join the majority Opinion in its entirety. However, I must say a few words in response to Judge Wilkinson’s dissent.

When I read the first line of Judge Wilkinson’s dissent I was heartened by the thought: well, at least he acknowledges that there are “two Americas.” But this glint of enlightenment was to serve as a “soap box” for his charge against the majority’s decision. It is understandable that such a pseudo-sociological platform was necessary as his assertions are bereft of any jurisprudential reasoning. More to the point, his recognition of a divided America is merely a preamble to the fallacy-laden exegesis of “predictive policing” that follows. Through his opinion, my colleague contributes to the volumes of work gifted by others who felt obliged to bear their burden to save minority or disadvantaged communities from themselves.

Of course, the story of two Americas of which Judge Wilkinson speaks is an ancient tale to some. See, e.g., Frederick Douglas, “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?” 1852. There’s a long history of black and brown communities feeling unsafe in police presence. See, e.g., James Baldwin, A Report from Occupied Territory, The Nation, July 11, 1966 (“[T]he police are simply the hired enemies of this population. . . . This is why those pious calls to ‘respect the law,’ always to be heard from prominent citizens each time the ghetto explodes, are so obscene.”). And at least “[s]ince Reconstruction, subordinated

communities have endeavored to harness the criminal justice system toward recognition 33

that their lives have worth.” Deborah Tuerkheimer, Criminal Justice and the Mattering of Lives, 116 Mich. L. Rev. 1145, 1146 (2018). Thus, just a few decades ago, laws designed to decrease violence in these communities were considered “a civil rights triumph.” James Forman, Locking Up our Own: Crime and Punishment in Black America 73 (2017). The thought being that our government had finally “promised to provide police protection to a community so long denied it.” Id. This increased protection, however, led to what has been described as “a central paradox of the African American experience: the simultaneous over- and under-policing of crime.” Id. at 35.

Judge Wilkinson chooses to focus largely on one dimension of this paradox, ignoring the details of the familiar perils of over-policing. See, e.g., Marie Gottschalk, Caught: The Prison State and the Lockdown of American Politics (2015); Michael Tonry, Punishing Race: A Continuing American Dilemma (2011); Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow (2010); Khalil Gibran Muhammad, The Condemnation of Blackness: Race, Crime, and the Making of Modern Urban America (2010); Ruth Wilson Gilmore, Golden Gulag (2007). Describing the hazard of “hot spot policing” as “the danger of overreaction,” Wilkinson Dis. Op. at 68, Judge Wilkinson mitigates the concerns of some that any encounter with an officer could turn fatal. See Utah v. Strieff, 136 S. Ct. 2056, 2070 (2016) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting) (describing “the talk” that black and brown parents frequently give to their children “all out of fear of how an officer with a gun will react to them”); see also United States v. Black, 707 F.3d 531, 541 (4th Cir. 2013) (“In certain communities that have been subject to overbearing or harassing police conduct, cautious parents may

counsel their children to be respective, compliant, and accommodating to police officers, 34

to do everything officers instruct them to do.”). In so doing, my dissenting colleague in turn presents a sordid view of under-policing, suggesting that our decision today will lead to “an America where gated communities will be safe enough and dispossessed communities will be left to fend increasingly for themselves.” Wilkinson Dis. Op. at 69.

But we know that many of our fellow citizens already feel insecure regardless of their location. In a society where some are considered dangerous even when they are in their living rooms eating ice cream, asleep in their beds, playing in the park, standing in the pulpit of their church, birdwatching, exercising in public, or walking home from a trip to the store to purchase a bag of Skittles, it is still within their own communities—even those deemed “dispossessed” or “disadvantaged”—that they feel the most secure. Permitting unconstitutional governmental intrusions into these communities in the name of protecting them presents a false dichotomy. My colleague insists on a Hobson’s choice for these communities: decide between their constitutional rights against unwarranted searches and seizures or forgo governmental protection that is readily afforded to other communities. But those inclined to shrug their shoulders at citizens who wave their Constitutions in the air during uncertainty must not forget “[h]istory teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.” Skinner v. Ry. Labor Executives’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602, 635 (1989) (Marshall, J., dissenting); cf. Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944). Indeed, it is in moments of insecurity that our constitutional bells ring the loudest.

Why even suppose that checking police power in these circumstances would lead to

some communities falling into a Hobbesian state of nature? It’s unclear. Judge Wilkinson 35

supports this slippery slope argument in a couple of mutually incompatible and individually questionable ways. He mentions Professor Rod K. Brunson’s work on policing to bolster the view that our decision here will further entrench the perception that police fail to serve those in disadvantaged communities. But Professor Brunson has long argued that this perception is largely created by aggressive policing strategies and discourteous treatment of members in their community. See, e.g., Rod K. Brunson, “Police Don’t Like Black People”: African-American Young Men’s Accumulated Police Experiences, 6(1) Criminology & Pub. Pol’y 71 (2007). Indeed, Professor Brunson has noted that “arrests and successful prosecutions are unlikely without cooperating witnesses.” Rod K. Brunson, Protests focus on Over-policing. But under-policing is also Deadly, Wash. Post, June 12, 2020. And those from disadvantaged communities “want a different kind of policing than the aggressive approaches they typically see—one that values their humanity.” Id.; see also Estate of Jones v. City of Martinsburg, W. Va., –– F.3d ––, 2020 WL 3053386, at *7 (4th Cir. 2020) (recognizing a “desperate need” for more and different police training).

From this perspective, the video of the present incident mimics the aggressive, discourteous, and ineffective policing that concern many. As the officers approached the scene seconds after gunshots rang out, the members of this community, including Curry, pointed them in the direction in which the perpetrator was likely to be found. Because, as Judge Diaz notes in his concurrence, it would have been difficult for the officers “to determine whether any firearm (which, of course, are generally lawful to possess) seized in the effort to identify the suspect was the source of the gunfire,” Judge Diaz Op. at 57,

one would think that the officers’ best hope for finding the shooter was to accept the 36

guidance offered by community members. See Black, 707 F.3d at 540 (“Being a felon in possession of a firearm is not the default status.”). That, of course, was not the case here. Cf. Miranda Fricker, Epistemic Injustice 4 (2007) (describing the notion of “testimonial injustice,” where a speaker suffers from deflated credibility owing to an identity prejudice on the hearer’s part). The officers ignored the assistance and the shooter got away. Like most citizens, it is likely that residents of the Creighton Court community do not want police officers to be tough on crime, or weak on crime—they want them to be smart on crime.

No doubt it is beyond the scope of our roles to explain to any institution what it means to be smart on crime. I will leave that to our clever colleagues in the chambers of City Council. But it is “emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177 (1803). Thus, “[i]n some circumstances . . . we must remind law enforcement that the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures,” and that those protections extend to all people in all communities. Black, 707 F.3d at 534. This is one of those circumstances.

Contrary to Judge Wilkinson’s suggestion, our decision today does not deliver “a gut-punch to predictive policing.” Wilkinson Dis. Op. at 71. As Judge Wilkinson notes, predictive policing programs “differ in their details,” but generally seek to use “smart policies” to “affirmatively prevent crime from happening, rather than just solve it.” Id. at 65; see also Andrew Guthrie Ferguson, Predictive Policing and Reasonable Suspicion, 62 Emory L.J. 259, 265 (2012) (“In simple terms, predictive policing involves computer

models that predict areas of future crime locations from past crime statistics and other 37

data.”). But see id. at 321 (“Predictive policing may well become an effective tool for law enforcement. Yet, the technology will also create tension for police in defending Fourth Amendment challenges by defendants.”); Andrew Guthrie Ferguson, Policing Predictive Policing, 94 Wash. U. L. Rev. 1113, 1149 (2017) (“More bluntly, the initial predictive policing projects have raised the question of whether this data-driven focus serves merely to enable, or even justify, a high-tech version of racial profiling.”). But, as with all policies, the devil is going to lie in those details. Nothing in the majority Opinion prevents the police from using, in good faith with constitutional principles, smart policies to identify where crimes may occur and accordingly dispatching officers to those neighborhoods. But it is how they, upon arrival, engage with the people in those neighborhoods that is important here. A suspicionless, investigatory stop was not warranted under the circumstances. Affirming our long-standing rules is nothing novel. If merely preventing crime was enough to pass constitutional muster, the authority of the Fourth Amendment would become moot.

Don’t get me wrong—I understand the frustrations and uncertainties that attend most discussions of how to abate crime. As a country, we are in a moment of reckoning. And the unpredictability of the future encourages us to want to hang on to those entities that make us feel secure. Still, “[t]he facts of this case give us cause to pause and ponder the slow systematic erosion of Fourth Amendment protections for a certain demographic.” Black, 707 F.3d at 542. The “lifelines a fragile community retains against physical harm and mental despair,” Wilkinson Dis. Op. at 70, must be the assurance that there truly is equal protection under law. Thus, “[i]n the words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., we are

[once again] reminded that ‘we are tied together in a single garment of destiny, caught in 38

an inescapable network of mutuality,’ [and] that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of others.” Black, 707 F.3d at 542. It is with these truths that I join my colleagues in the majority in ensuring that “the Fourth Amendment rights of all individuals are protected.” Id. (emphasis in original).

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

You can read the majority, Judge Wilkinson’s tone-deaf dissent, and all of the other opinions at the above link.

To be honest, Judge Wilkinson’s opinion sounded like Jeff Sessions’s racist blather about how African American communities didn’t really want the DOJ to interfere with police brutality because it protected them from crime. And, according to “Sessions’ theory,” more crime originated in communities of color so they of course disproportionally benefitted from “aggressive” (mostly White) police tactics. That’s how we got to George Floyd and the backlash against police violence directed at communities of color.

Well, at least the 4th Circuit allows spirited dissent. That’s unlike today’s BIA that papers over the festering issues of racism and injustice in today’s bias-driven immigration enforcement and legal perversion of human rights with fake unanimity and mindless “go along to get alongism.”

Institutional racism and “Dred Scottification” of the “other” unfortunately are deeply ingrained in our Federal Court System. It’s very clear in the Supremes’ majority’s enabling of the Trump/Miller race-driven White Nationalist Agenda under various transparent “pretexts,” mainly relating to clearly bogus national emergencies or fabricated national security concerns. It ran throughout the majority’s “greenlighting” of the “Travel (“Muslim”) Ban,” “Remain in Mexico” (“Let “em Die In Mexico”), “Expedited Removal (“Systematic Dismantling of Due Process For Asylum Applicants”), “The Wall,” “Public Charge” (“Let’s Terrorize Ethnic Communities”), and “Punishing Sanctuary Cities” (“Attacking Those Who Dare Stand Against ICE Abuses”), sometimes without even deigning to provide a rationale.

Obviously, due process for “persons” in the United States under the Fifth Amendment means little or nothing to Justices who view migrants as sub-human with lives not worth protecting or even caring about. For these unfortunates, “due process” means something that would be totally unacceptable if applied to the Justices themselves, their families, or to those (largely White) folks to whom they are willing to extend constitutional protections. Sound familiar? It should, for anyone who has ever visited the Holocaust Museum.

As the vile racism and overt White Nationalism of the Trump regime unfold in full ugliness and irrationality during the final stages of the 2020 campaign, the abject failure of Roberts and his colleagues to recognize and enforce the constitutional rights and humanity of every person in the U.S.(including those actually here or at our borders but “fictionalized” by disingenuous judges into “non-presence”) comes into full focus.

America needs and deserves better Federal Judges at all levels from the Supremes to the Immigration Courts. Judges who will cut through the many layers of historical BS and racism-covering gobbledygook and make equal justice for all a reality in America.

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” What if we finally had courts comprised of courageous, principled Justices and Judges who believed Dr. King’s words and acted accordingly, rather than merely mouthing them in ceremonies every January?

Due Process Forever! Complicit courts that cover for the Trump/Miller White Nationalist agenda, never!

PWS

07-16-20

☠️👎🏻🤮GOODBYE GONZO! — Notorious Racist, Bigot, Homophobe, Misogynist Loses GOP Primary — Blinded By The Fog of Hate, Gonzo Never Understood Trump’s Sole Overriding Concern — Eventually, His Failure To Put Shielding Trump’s Corruption First Made Him “the only monument to the Confederacy that Trump was eager to remove.” (Pema Levy @ Mother Jones)

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

Exclusive for Courtside

July 14, 2020

Back before the 2016 election, GOP backbench Jim Crow hate monger Senator Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions saw a kindred spirit who would help him realize his whitewashed, faux Christian view of America: Donald Trump. Becoming the first Senator to endorse Trump got Gonzo a ticket to the U.S. Attorney General’s Office, where he quickly established himself as probably the worst inhabitant after the Civil War and before Billy Barr ( a period that notably includes “John the Con” Mitchell).

During his tenure, Gonzo separated families, caged kids, targeted vulnerable Latino refugee women for abuse, illegally punished “sanctuary cities,” expanded the “New American Gulag,” diverted prosecutorial resources from real crimes to minor immigration violations, expanded the “New American Gulag,” advocated discrimination against the LGBTQ community under the guise of religious bigotry, encouraged police brutality against Black Americans, aided efforts to disenfranchise Black and Latino voters, spread false narratives about immigrant crime and asylum fraud, dissed private lawyers, stripped Immigration Judges of their authority to control their own dockets, multiplied the Immigration Court backlogs, illegally tried to terminate DACA while smearing Dreamers, spoke to hate groups, issued unethical “precedent decisions” while falsely claiming to be acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, interfered with asylum grants and judicial independence, put anti-due-process production quotas on Immigration Judges, attempted to dismantle congressionally mandated “know your rights” programs, to name just a few of his gross abuses of public office. Indeed, other than Stephen Miller and Trump himself, how many notorious child abusers get to walk free in America while their victims suffer lifetime trauma?

Despite never being the brightest bulb in the pack, his feeble attempt at “legal opinions” sometimes drawing ridicule from lower court judges, Gonzo is generally credited with doing more than any other Cabinet member to advance Trump’s agenda of hate and White Nationalist bigotry. He actually was dumb enough to believe that his unswerving dedication to a program of promoting the white race over people of color and Christians over all other religions would ingratiate him with Trump.

That would assume, however, that Trump had some guiding principle, however vile and disgusting, beyond himself. Sessions might be the only person in Washington who thought racism would trump self-protection. I’m not saying that Trump isn’t a committed racist — clearly he is. Just that his commitment to racism is subservient to his only real defining characteristic — narcissism. Just ask his niece, Mary.

Gonzo failed in the only thing that ever counted: Protecting Trump, his family, and his corrupt cronies from the Mueller investigation. It wasn’t, as some have inaccurately claimed, a show of ethics or dedication to the law.

Even Gonzo realized that participating in an investigation involving a campaign organization of which he was a member and therefore both a potential witness and target, would be an egregious ethical violation that could cost him his law license as well as a potential criminal act of perjury, given that he had testified under oath during his Senate confirmation that he intended to recuse himself. Apparently, that was on a day when Trump was too busy tweeting or playing golf to focus on the implications of that particular statement under oath by his nominee.

After Trump fired him, Gonzo’s political fortunes took a sharp downturn. A guy who polled 97% of the vote in running unopposed for the Senate in 2014, polled only 38% of the vote in overwhelmingly losing the GOP primary to former Auburn Football Coach Tommy Tuberville. Tommy, a “Trump loyalist” with extreme far-right views and no known qualifications for the job, is not much of an improvement over Sessions.

Perhaps the only good news is that Alabama currently has a very decent and competent U.S. Senator, Doug Jones (D), who represents all of the people of the state. Everybody should support Doug’s campaign to maintain decency and commitment to equal justice in Government.

For those who want a further retrospective on Sessions’s grotesque career of promoting a return to Jim Crow while on the public dole, I recommend the following articles from Mother Jones and the Advocate:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/07/jeff-sessions-ends-his-political-career-in-a-blaze-of-racism/

https://www.advocate.com/politics/2020/7/14/career-racist-homophobe-jeff-sessions-over

Goodbye and good riddance to one of America’s worst and most disgusting politicos not named Trump or Steve King.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-15-20

☠️👎DEATH PANEL: Billy The Bigot’s BIA Spends 34-Pages Stomping Every Aspect Of Claim By Victim Of Trump’s MPP — Matter of M-D-C-V-

https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMDAsInVyaSI6ImJwMjpjbGljayIsImJ1bGxldGluX2lkIjoiMjAyMDA3MTQuMjQzNjA1MjEiLCJ1cmwiOiJodHRwczovL3d3dy5qdXN0aWNlLmdvdi9lb2lyL3BhZ2UvZmlsZS8xMjkzOTcxL2Rvd25sb2FkIn0.GQ-40i9lJzne69mtiz5FLkL4ucpejz820EUlR2HEV7E/s/842922301/br/81011306761-l

Matter of M-D-C-V-, 28 I&N Dec. 18 (BIA 2020)

BIA HEADNOTE:

Under section 235(b)(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(C) (2018), an alien who is arriving on land from a contiguous foreign territory may be returned by the Department of Homeland Security to that country pursuant to the Migrant Protection Protocols, regardless of whether the alien arrives at or between a designated port of entry.

PANEL: Board Panel: MALPHRUS and CREPPY, Appellate Immigration Judges; MORRIS, Temporary Appellate Immigration Judge.

OPINION BY: Judge Malphrus

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

The deny, deny, deny message is very clear!

To keep what the BIA and the Administration are doing to our fellow humans in perspective, however, remember that:

Human Rights Watch studied the cases of more than 200 individuals who were returned to El Salvador by the Administration;
Of these, 138 were killed upon return;
Another 70 were “subjected to sexual violence, torture, and other harm, usually at the hands of gangs, or . . . went missing following their return;”

https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/02/11/its-1939-white-nationalist-america-is-failing-humanity-again-the-st-louis-replay-history-will-neither-forget-nor-forgive-us-for-wrongfully-sending-refugees-to-thei/

That’s a high kill/abuse rate. But, that’s exactly what human rights criminals like Stephen Miller “get off on.” “Death to the other!”

And, so far, the Supremes have obliged the White Nationalists’ program of “Dred Scottification” as long as it applies to “the others,” primarily persons of color, not deserving in the elitists’ view of being treated as “persons” under the law or as “human beings” under any laws. Eventually, however, posterity will have something to say about Trump, Miller, Roberts, McConnell, Barr, Wolf, Sessions, Pence, Alito and a host of others who have knowingly participated in these intentional degradations of humanity and furthering of White Supremacy!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-14-20

🤡SPOTLIGHTING CLOWN COURTS: HOUSE HOMES IN ON EOIR’S MALICIOUS INCOMPETENCE IN APPROPRIATIONS BILL REPORT! — “[T]ying an immigration judge’s performance to case completion threatens due process and affects judicial independence. Section 217 of the bill prohibits EOIR’s use of case completion quotas for immigration judge performance reviews.”

https://appropriations.house.gov/sites/democrats.appropriations.house.gov/files/July%209th%20report%20for%20circulation_0.pdf

The “EOIR Section” of the House Report follows:

EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

The Committee recommends $734,000,000 for the Executive Of- fice for Immigration Review (EOIR), of which $4,000,000 is from immigration examination fees. The recommendation is $61,034,000 above fiscal year 2020 and $148,872,000 below the request.

The recommendation includes $2,000,000 for EOIR’s portion of the development of the Unified Immigration Portal with the De- partment of Homeland Security (DHS) as well as increased funding for EOIR’s Information Technology (IT) modernization efforts, as requested. The recommendation also supports a level of funding that will allow for the continued hiring of immigration judges and teams. While the Committee recognizes EOIR has not requested any additional increase from its authorized position level from fis- cal year 2020, EOIR is currently well below this level and the Com-

SSpencer on DSK126QN23PROD with HEARING

VerDate Sep 11 2014

02:57 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 038847 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A847.XXX A847

63

mittee is concerned that proposed funding increases are for posi- tions who will not be on board in fiscal year 2021.

Legal Orientation Program (LOP).—For the LOP and related ac- tivities the recommendation includes $25,000,000, of which $4,000,000 is for the Immigration Court Helpdesk (ICH) program. The LOP improves the efficiency of court proceedings, reduces court costs, and helps ensure fairness and due process. The Committee directs the Department to continue LOP without interruption, in- cluding all component parts, including the Legal Orientation Pro- gram for Custodians of Unaccompanied Children (LOPC) and the ICH. The Committee directs the Department to brief the Com- mittee no later than 15 days after enactment of this Act on how EOIR is effectively implementing these programs, including the execution of funds and any changes to the management of the pro- gram. The recommended funding will allow for the expansion of LOP and ICH to provide services to additional individuals in immi- gration court proceedings. The Committee supports access to LOP and ICHs and looks forward to receiving EOIR’s evaluation of ex- panding this program to all detention facilities and immigration courts, as directed in House Report 116–101. The Committee is deeply concerned that EOIR plans to use fiscal year 2020 funds for the procurement of a web-based application that is still under de- velopment, but did not actively discuss these changes with the Committee. While the Committee understands the coronavirus pan- demic has impacted court operations and novel approaches may be necessary for continuity, it appears a portion of these specific funds may not be fully executed in fiscal year 2020 in support of the pro- gram to pursue a new operating procedure without additional de- tails on how this will impact the LOP program in future years. The Committee is concerned that plans for a web-based application will not adhere to congressional intent to expand this program to new locations and individuals. The Committee reminds EOIR that fund- ing for this program, in its ongoing, in-person format, is mandated by law, and any diversion of these funds from their intended pur- pose must be formally communicated and convincingly justified to the Committee, consistent with section 505 of this Act.

LOP Pilot.—The Committee further directs EOIR, in coordina- tion with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), to pilot the expansion of LOP to at least one CBP processing facility with an added focus on expanding this program to family units. The Com- mittee further directs EOIR, in coordination with DHS, to assess the feasibility of expanding this pilot program nationally, and to re- port findings to the Committee no later than 180 days after the conclusion of the pilot.

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) Pro Bono Project.—The Committee recognizes the critical work of the BIA Pro Bono Project in facilitating pro bono legal representation for indigent, vulnerable respondents whose cases are before the Board. The Committee urges the continuation of participation of pro bono firms and non- government organizations (NGOs) in the BIA Pro Bono Project to directly facilitate case screening and legal representation. EOIR shall report annually to the Committee on the number of cases re- ferred to NGOs and pro bono legal representatives, the number of EOIR Form E 26 appeals filed against pro se respondents and filed by pro se respondents and make the information publicly available.

SSpencer on DSK126QN23PROD with HEARING

VerDate Sep 11 2014

02:57 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 038847 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A847.XXX A847

64

Immigration case quotas.—The Committee remains concerned with the performance review standards that went into effect Octo- ber 1, 2018, which require immigration judges to complete a quota of 700 case completions per year to receive a satisfactory review. Although the Committee appreciates efforts to reduce the current backlog, tying an immigration judge’s performance to case comple- tion threatens due process and affects judicial independence. Sec- tion 217 of the bill prohibits EOIR’s use of case completion quotas for immigration judge performance reviews.

Judicial Independence and Case Management.—All courts re- quire judges to utilize case management tools in order to ensure ef- ficient use of the court’s time and resources. The Committee is con- cerned by recent Attorney General decisions that curtail the ability of immigration judges to utilize critical docket management tools, such as continuances and terminations, that enable efficient man- agement of the court’s dockets. The Committee supports the utiliza- tion of such tools to the fullest extent practicable and reaffirms its support for the authority of immigration judges to exercise inde- pendent judgment and discretion in their case decisions. Further, the Committee supports full and fair hearings for all who come be- fore the courts but remains concerned about decisions that ulti- mately keep asylum seekers, including those seeking relief from do- mestic violence, in detention for longer periods of time.

Video teleconferencing.—The Committee is frustrated by EOIR’s response to information requested in the Explanatory Statement accompanying the fiscal year 2020 Consolidated Appropriations Act regarding the publication of its policies for determining the use and dissemination of video teleconferencing (VTC) for individual merits hearings and tent court facilities. EOIR cites multiple policies on its website, but ultimately no central guidance on VTC appears to exist, outside of an interim policy document from 2004. The growth and dependence on VTC has developed since that time and it is concerning that EOIR does not have consistent rules governing the use of video teleconferencing, nor does it appear to have standards to ensure that the procedural and substantive due process of re- spondents in immigration court are protected. The Committee di- rects EOIR, within 90 days of enactment of this Act, to develop clear and consistent rules on the use of VTC hearings, including when the use of video teleconferencing is appropriate, and to de- velop rules for utilizing VTC hearings for particularly vulnerable groups such as unaccompanied minors, individuals with medical or mental health problems, and those subject to the Migrant Protec- tion Protocols (MPP) program. The Committee also directs EOIR to provide these newly developed policies to the Committee, and to make these policies publicly available.

Rocket Dockets.—The Committee is troubled by recent reports of changes in EOIR practices that expedite case processing and place unaccompanied children in so called ‘‘rocket dockets’’’ commencing their cases through VTC within days of their arrival in the United States. This practice is a shift from former precedent, and it lacks recognition that cases involving unaccompanied children are dif- ferent than detained adults. Immigration court proceedings must be tailored to the circumstances of individual cases in order to pre- serve due process and fundamental fairness, in particular for mi- nors. The Committee is equally troubled by reports that EOIR in-

SSpencer on DSK126QN23PROD with HEARING

VerDate Sep 11 2014

02:57 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 038847 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A847.XXX A847

65

tends to expand this expedited case processing for cases involving unaccompanied children, with little knowledge about how this proc- ess impacts children, their opportunity to find counsel, or the chal- lenges with communicating with children of varying ages.

EOIR is directed to report to the Committee no later than 30 days after enactment of this Act on the number of cases involving unaccompanied children that had a Master Calendar hearing scheduled within 30 days of their Notice to Appear (NTA), the loca- tion of these cases, including whether VTC was utilized for the hearing, whether the child had counsel, and the outcome of the pro- ceedings. Further, the Committee notes that EOIR has not commu- nicated with the Committee on this change in practice and is con- cerned that EOIR is piloting and expanding a new program that has not been explicitly authorized by Congress.

Tent Court Proceedings.—The Committee is concerned that the creation of new immigration hearing facilities, often referred to as ‘‘tent courts’’’, along the border, where judges appear via video tele- conferencing (VTC). The Committee is concerned that these new fa- cilities threaten the public nature of immigration court pro- ceedings. The Committee directs EOIR to provide a report within 60 days of the enactment of this Act that provides details on EOIR’s involvement in the creation and operation of such immigra- tion hearing facilities, as well as information detailing how EOIR schedules judges for hearings and a list of judges hearing cases in these facilities. EOIR shall also post to its website information on attorney access at those facilities, as well as policies regarding pub- lic and media access.

Migrant Protection Protocol (MPP) Statistics Publication.—With- in 60 days of enactment of this Act, and quarterly thereafter, EOIR is directed to publish on its public website: (1) the number of MPP Notices to Appear (NTA) received and completed, (2) the number of continuances or adjournments in non-MPP cases due to an immi- gration judge being reassigned to hear MPP cases, (3) the number of MPP hearings that occurred via VTC, and (4) the number of im- migration judges assigned to hear MPP cases. EOIR is also di- rected to publish the number of MPP hearings delayed as a result of the coronavirus pandemic, as well as the average length of delay. EOIR is further directed to publish all workload-related data cur- rently included on its Workload and Adjudication Statistics website page in separate MPP and non-MPP formats.

EOIR is also directed to develop a plan to begin tracking the ap- pearance rate of individuals placed into removal proceedings, bro- ken out into MPP and non-MPP cases, calculated by determining the percent of individuals who have attended all scheduled hear- ings in any given quarter, regardless of whether the hearing re- sulted in a completion. The Committee directs EOIR to report on its plans no later than 180 days after enactment of this Act.

Interpreters.—The recommendation includes the requested fund- ing increase for interpretation services. While the Committee recog- nizes that increasing numbers of respondents in immigration courts require the use of interpretation and the ballooning costs as- sociated with these interpretation services, the Committee directs EOIR to pursue cost efficient measures to ensure appropriate lan- guage access for all respondents, including indigenous language speakers, and further directs EOIR to submit a report to the Com-

SSpencer on DSK126QN23PROD with HEARING

VerDate Sep 11 2014

02:57 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 038847 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A847.XXX A847

66

mittee, no later than 90 days after enactment of this Act, outlining steps taken to reduce costs. The Committee eagerly awaits EOIR’s quarterly reports highlighting any continuances or adjournments for reasons related to interpretation as well as EOIR’s joint report with DHS on shared interpretation resources as directed in House Report 116–101.

Legal Representation.—The Committee is concerned with the low rate of representation in immigration court, and the recommenda- tion provides $15,000,000 in State and Local Law Enforcement As- sistance for competitive grants to qualified non-profit organizations for a pilot program to increase representation.

Immigration judges.—The Committee directs EOIR to continue to hire the most qualified immigration judges and BIA members from a diverse pool of candidates to ensure the adjudication process is impartial and consistent with due process. The Committee is dis- turbed by recent reports of politicized hiring processes for immigra- tion judges. The Committee directs EOIR to continue to submit monthly reports on performance and immigration judge hiring as directed in the fiscal year 2020 Explanatory Statement and is di- rected to include additional information on the status of hiring other positions that make up the immigration judge teams such as attorneys and paralegals. Finally, the Committee is concerned about a recent Department of Justice petition sent to the Federal Labor Relations Authority requesting the decertification of the Na- tional Association of Immigration Judges. The Committee recog- nizes the importance of our nation’s immigration judges and their ability to unionize.

Immigration Efficiency.—EOIR is encouraged to collaborate with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to explore efficiencies with regard to the co-location of DHS and DOJ components with immigration related responsibilities, including immigration courts, DHS asylum officers, medical care practitioners, and both CBP and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) immigration officers.

Alternatives to Detention (ATD) Program.—The Committee is concerned that many individuals enrolled in ICE’s ATD program will be terminated from the program before their cases are fully re- solved. Getting timely resolution of these cases is complicated by the historic volume of pending cases on EOIR’s non-detained docket schedule. The Committee recognizes the ATD program is managed by ICE, and that EOIR currently lacks information about who is enrolled. However, the Committee also recognizes that the longer an individual remains on ATD while their case is pending before EOIR, the more expensive the ATD program is per enrollee, and the less effective the ATD program is. Prioritizing ATD enrollees’ cases as if they were on the detained docket could potentially in- crease the effectiveness of the program, lower the cost per enrollee, and support more individuals in the program overall. The Com- mittee directs EOIR, in coordination with ICE, to develop an anal- ysis of alternatives to improve the timeliness of resolving cases be- fore EOIR for individuals in the ATD program, and further to con- sider as one such alternative the classification of ATD enrollees as part of the detained docket for purposes of case prioritization. EOIR is directed to brief the Committee on their findings not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

SSpencer on DSK126QN23PROD with HEARING

VerDate Sep 11 2014

02:57 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 038847 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A847.XXX A847

67

Court Operations during COVID–19.—The Committee under- stands that the novel coronavirus pandemic has forced the majority of Federal Government agencies to alter their normal operating procedures, and changes to court operations is no exception. How- ever, the Committee is frustrated that EOIR relied largely on Twit- ter to communicate its operational status. Many that were travel- ling, especially from Mexico, to appear at immigration court hear- ings, did not receive the updated information that the courts were closed. Even prior to the pandemic, the Committee was troubled by reports concerning the timeliness and receipt of hearing notices, as some were undeliverable as addressed and thus returned to immi- gration courts, and attempts to change addresses with the immi- gration court were often unsuccessful due to current backlogs. As of March 31, 2020, in absentia removal orders were already on the precipice of reaching the total number for all of fiscal year 2019. The Committee is concerned that the pandemic has exacerbated an already confusing process, resulting in an exponential increase in the number of removal orders for respondents who simply did not have the information to appear in court. Therefore, the Committee directs EOIR to submit a report to the Committee, within 90 days of enactment of this Act, that details the specific steps EOIR has taken since March 2020 to accommodate respondents who have missed court appearances due to COVID–19, and steps EOIR has taken to ensure respondents have a centralized mechanism to elec- tronically file an EOIR Form–33 in order to change their address remotely with EOIR, in addition to the current use of paper filings.

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

Report language from un-enacted appropriations bills doesn’t have any legal effect. But, it does show that at least on the Democratic side, legislators are beginning to penetrate the various smoke screens that DOJ and EOIR management have used to disguise their gross mismanagement and attacks on due process and to deflect blame to the victims: primarily respondents, their attorneys including pro bono groups, and in many cases their own judges and court staff. It also shows that contrary to DOJ/EOIR propaganda, pro bono programs and Legal Orientation Programs play an essential role in due process.

Let’s be very clear. This “fix-it list” will be ignored by the scofflaw kakistocracy firmly committed to a program of unfairness to migrants, hostility to pro bono organizations, worst practices, demeaning their own employees, not serving the public, and returning asylum seekers to mayhem, torture, and death without due process. However, it is a useful “to do” list for those future judicial leaders and administrators committed to judicial independence and restoring and improving due process and fundamental fairness for all in our Immigration Courts.

Hopefully, in the future, with some needed regime change this will result in an independent Article I Immigration Court replacing the unmitigated legal and management mess that has become EOIR under DOJ control.

Due Process Forever! Clown Courts Never!

PWS

07-14-20

🏴‍☠️🤡KAKISTOCRACY KORNER: Experienced Immigration Judges Flee America’s Star Chambers At Record Numbers As Trump Regime’s Malicious Incompetence Triples Backlog With Twice The Number Of Judges On Bench, According To Latest TRAC Report!

🏴‍☠️🤡KAKISTOCRACY KORNER: Experienced Immigration Judges Flee America’s Star Chambers At Record Numbers As Trump Regime’s Malicious Incompetence Triples Backlog With Twice The Number Of Judges On Bench, According To Latest TRAC Report!

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse

More Immigration Judges Leaving the Bench

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The latest judge-by-judge data from the Immigration Courts indicate that more judges are resigning and retiring. Turnover is the highest since records began in FY 1997 over two decades ago. These results are based on detailed records obtained by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) from the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) which administers the Courts.

During FY 2019 a record number of 35 judges left the bench. This is up from the previous record set in FY 2017 when 20 judges left the bench, and 27 judges left in FY 2018.

With elevated hiring plus the record number of judges leaving the bench more cases are being heard by judges with quite limited experience as immigration judges.

Currently one of every three (32%) judges have only held their position since FY 2019. Half (48%) of the judges serving today were appointed in the last two and a half years. And nearly two-thirds (64%) were appointed since FY 2017.

While the Court is losing many of its most experienced judges, the backlog of cases continues to balloon. It is now almost three times the level when President Trump assumed office.

Update on Disappearing Immigration Court Records

Records continue to disappear in the latest data release for updated court records through the end of June 2020. The report provides the latest statement from EOIR Chief Management Officer Kate Sheehey about this matter.

To read the full report on Immigration Judges leaving the bench as well as the Sheehey statement, go to:

https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/617/

TRAC’s free web query tools which track Immigration Court proceedings have also been updated through June 2020. For an index to the full list of TRAC’s immigration tools and their latest update go to:

https://trac.syr.edu/imm/tools/

If you want to be sure to receive a notification whenever updated data become available, sign up at:

https://tracfed.syr.edu/cgi-bin/tracuser.pl?pub=1

Follow us on Twitter at:

https://twitter.com/tracreports

or like us on Facebook:

https://facebook.com/tracreports

TRAC is self-supporting and depends on foundation grants, individual contributions and subscription fees for the funding needed to obtain, analyze and publish the data we collect on the activities of the US Federal government. To help support TRAC’s ongoing efforts, go to:

https://trac.syr.edu/cgi-bin/sponsor/sponsor.pl

David Burnham and Susan B. Long, co-directors
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
Syracuse University
Suite 360, Newhouse II
Syracuse, NY 13244-2100
315-443-3563
trac@syr.edu
https://trac.syr.edu

The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse is a nonpartisan joint research center of the Whitman School of Management (https://whitman.syr.edu) and the Newhouse School of Public Communications (https://newhouse.syr.edu) at Syracuse University. If you know someone who would like to sign up to receive occasional email announcements and press releases, they may go to https://trac.syr.edu and click on the E-mail Alerts link at the bottom of the page. If you do not wish to receive future email announcements and wish to be removed from our list, please send an email to trac@syr.edu with REMOVE as the subject.

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

Look folks, I’m not disputing that Susan B. Long and David Burnham of TRAC are smart people. I’m even willing to speculate that they are smarter than most of the folks still in so-called public service (that largely isn’t any more) in all three branches of our failing Government.

But, are they really that much smarter than Supreme Court Justices, Article III Federal Judges, and Legislators who have let this grotesquely unconstitutional, dysfunctional, and deadly Star Chamber masquerading as a “court system” right here on American soil unfold and continue its daily abuses right under their complicit noses? Or, do we have too many individuals in public office lacking both the human decency and moral courage to stand up against institutionalized racism, unnecessarily cruelty, corruption, and pure stupidity, all of which very clearly are prohibited by both the due process and equal protection clauses of our Constitution, not to mention the 13th and 15th Amendments. It’s not rocket science!

Enough with the Congressional and Court-enabled “Dred Scottification” of the other! That’s how we ended up with things like the “Chinese Exclusion Act” and “Jim Crow” and why we have an institutionalized racism problem now.

Instead of standing up for equal justice for all under the Constitution, the Supremes and Congress often have willingly been part of the problem — using the law knowingly and intentionally to undermine constitutionally required equal justice for all and an end to racism. And, we can see those same attitudes today, specifically in the Supremes’ ridiculously wrong, intellectually dishonest, and cowardly decisions “greenlighting” various parts of White Nationalist Stephen Miller’s bogus program of dehumanizing asylum seekers and immigrants of color. This is not acceptable performance from Justices of our highest Court!

We need better, more courageous, and more intellectually honest public officers in all three branches who are willing to stand up for individual rights, human lives, and the common good over bogus right wing legal doctrines and inhumanity cloaked in legal gobbledygook. It won’t happen overnight. But, a better America starts with throwing a totally corrupt, cruel, and maliciously incompetent President and his GOP enablers out of every public office at every level of government this November.

This November, vote like your life depends on it! Because it does!

PWS

07-14-20

🛡⚔️⚖️ROUND TABLE RIPS REGIME’S FRAUDULENT PROPOSED REGS ELIMINATING ASYLUM IN 36-PAGE COMMENTARY — “The proposed rules are impermissibly arbitrary and capricious. They attempt to overcome, as opposed to interpret, the clear meaning of our asylum statutes.”

Knightess of the Round Table

Asylum Ban Reg Comments_July 2020_FINAL

INTRODUCTION

In their introduction, the proposed regulations misstate the Congressional intent behind our asylum laws.2 Since 1980, our nation’s asylum laws are neither an expression of foreign policy nor an assertion of the right to protect resources or citizens. It is for this reason that the notice of proposed rulemaking must cite a case from 1972 that did not address asylum at all in order to find support for its claim.

The intent of Congress in enacting the 1980 Refugee Act was to bring our country’s asylum laws into accordance with our international treaty obligations, specifically by eliminating the above- stated biases from such determinations. For the past 40 years, our laws require us to grant asylum to all who qualify regardless of foreign policy or other concerns. Furthermore, the international treaties were intentionally left broad enough in their language to allow adjudicators flexibility to provide protection in response to whatever types of harm creative persecutors might de- vise. In choosing to adopt the precise language of those treaties, Congress adopted the same flexibility. See e.g. Murray v. The Schooner Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. 64 (1804), pursuant to which national statutes should be interpreted in such a way as to not conflict with international laws.

The proposed rules are impermissibly arbitrary and capricious. They attempt to overcome, as opposed to interpret, the clear meaning of our asylum statutes. Rather than interpret the views of Congress, the proposed rules seek to replace them in furtherance of the strongly anti-immigrant views of the administration they serve.3 And that they seek to do so in an election year, for political gain, is clear.

In attempting to stifle clear Congressional intent in service of its own political motives, the ad- ministration has proposed rules that are ultra vires to the statute.

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

Read our full comment at the above link.

Special thanks to the following Round Table Team that took the lead in drafting this comment (listed alphabetically):

Judge Jeffrey Chase

Judge Bruce Einhorn

Judge Rebecca Jamil

Judge Carol King

Judge Lory Diana Rosenberg

Judge Ilyce Shugall

Due Process Forever! Crimes Against Humanity, Never!

PWS

07-14-20

🏴‍☠️TRUMP REGIME’S CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: IMMIGRATION SUPERSTAR LINDSAY MUIR HARRIS & ONE OF HER ASYLEE CLIENTS SPEAK OUT AGAINST MILLER’S NEO-NAZI PROPOSAL TO BAR ASYLUM! — “My husband and I may not be alive today and our daughter would have been married off as the third wife of a man in his fifties by the time she was twelve.”

https://msmagazine.com/2020/07/13/an-american-mother-on-asylum-trumps-new-rules-would-have-rewritten-my-story/

An American Mother on Asylum: Trump’s New Rules Would Have Rewritten My Story

7/13/2020 by NENE BAH and LINDSAY M. HARRIS

Asylum is not a perfect solution for families like mine, who are fleeing human rights abuses. Starting all over again in another country is not easy.

We have, at times, struggled to survive. I have worked night shifts in a factory, as a janitor for a public school system, and in retail. I have worked hard to provide for my family.

Today, I am a U.S. citizen and my children are in college. My daughter can’t make up her mind about which major to choose. Above all, we are safe from physical harm and threats to my daughter’s safety and my own that we fled in our home country.

But, if the new asylum rules proposed by the Trump administration are put into practice, others like me will not have the same protection. They will be returned to danger.

This is my story.

I fled my home country in West Africa in 2010. My husband and I had a happy life and after university I worked as a high school biology teacher.

Things became too dangerous for us to stay, however, when family and community members came after us, insisting that my young daughter be subjected to female genital cutting and early forced marriage to a much older man.

Wanting to protect my child from what I myself had endured when I was young, I decided to take a stand. My husband and I were united in our opposition to female genital cutting, which is very common in our country, especially for girls between 5 and 9 years old. Given my traumatic and painful experience and how it has affected me throughout my life, we did everything we could to protect our daughter.

This antagonized our community and families, and we both endured numerous threats, physical attacks, and beatings, in an attempt by our family to convince us to let her be cut. We lived in constant fear of my daughter being kidnapped and cut.

At one point, an extended family member who insisted that we agree to let our daughter be cut ran over my husband, causing him to suffer brain damage and severe injuries. The authorities refused to intervene in what they saw as “family matters,” and the law against female genital cutting is not enforced in my country. To protect our child, I knew we had to leave.

I had visited the United States before and knew it would be a safe place to raise our family. There was no way to apply for asylum outside the U.S., so I obtained tourist visas for us. There are no direct flights from my home country to the United States, so we stopped in North Africa for a brief layover, before arriving in the U.S.

Soon after arrival, I found a lawyer, to help me with my case: Lindsay Harris, with the Tahirih Justice Center. I was lucky to find a lawyer, but the process of applying for asylum was extremely challenging—although Lindsay spoke French, one of the languages I speak comfortably, we had to complete all of the paperwork in English. I had to re-tell my story time and time again and eventually before an asylum officer.

I realize now that I was actually lucky because I had my asylum interview in 2011, and my case was granted only six months later that same year. Now, asylum seekers often wait several years before an interview, and the U.S. government just made the waiting period longer. During those six months, I lived with the constant anxiety of being sent back to my country where my daughter would be cut and our lives were in danger.

When we were granted asylum, we were finally able to live in safety and peace. My daughter was able to focus on school and have a happy childhood.

My heart sank earlier this month when I learned that other women and girls may not have the same access to safety that we did. The Trump administration wants to make major changes to the rules for asylum law. If these rules were in effect when I sought asylum in 2011, I would not have been granted.

The more I learn about these policy changes, the more stunned and saddened I am. It’s staggering to think that under these new rules, gender-based violence would not count—as if it’s not important enough to matter.

In my country, and many countries around the world, women are subjected to specific forms of harm based on their gender: gender-specific violence. Men simply are not at risk of female genital cutting and generally not child or forced marriage.

Under the new rules, what happened between my family and community members would be considered just a “private dispute”—despite the strong evidence then and now to show that my government would not intervene in what they see as family issues, even where serious physical harm and death are involved.

Part of my asylum claim was that I was targeted because of my feminist political opinion: I believe women and girls have the right to decide what happens to their own bodies. These new rules would prevent those claims too.

It’s unbelievable that things like taking a non-direct flight, as my family did—which had nothing to do with how much we needed protection or whether or not we were telling the truth—could bar someone from being granted asylum protection. That stop, briefly, at another airport in North Africa, would have undermined our entire claim for protection. My husband and I may not be alive today and our daughter would have been married off as the third wife of a man in his fifties by the time she was twelve.

It angers me that the government wants to create all of these new bars to asylum, leaving some asylum seekers with access only to something called “withholding of removal.”

For me, this would have meant separation from my husband and children—who would not have also been granted that protection as my derivatives or who would each have to have their own asylum claim—never being able to travel outside the U.S., never being able to become a lawful permanent resident or a citizen, and continually renewing a work permit and reporting to a deportation officer on a routine basis. We would be living in limbo.

Take Action

The public can comment on the proposed rules to change asylum until July 15, 2020.

It is painful and frightening for me to speak out, but I have chosen to do so.

I want to ensure that the women who come after me, seeking protection for themselves and their daughters, will not find that the United States has closed its doors and shut its eyes to human rights abuses and persecution against women and girls.

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

These proposals have been developed and promoted by neo-Nazi racist xenophobe Stephen Miller. They are totally outrageous and illegal. Many entitled to our nation’s protection have already been maimed, tortured, raped, or died as a result of our nation’s failure to stand up against this arrogant human rights abuser on our public payroll.

The humanity of every American is diminished by Miller’s White Nationalist hate agenda and the corrupt regime that employs him.

PWS

07-14-20

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Better judges for a better America. This November, vote like the future of humanity depends on it. Because it does!

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

—— Matthew 25

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Ex-FAIR Research Director Among 46 New Immigration Judges

Due Process Forever! Corrupt & Feckless Institutions Parodying Justice, Never!

Related posts:

This November vote like your life and the life of our nation depend on it! Because they do!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! America’s Star Chambers, Never!☠️⚰️🤮

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Complicit courts that cover for the Trump/Miller White Nationalist agenda, never!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Clown Courts Never!

Related posts:

More Immigration Judges Leaving the Bench

Update on Disappearing Immigration Court Records

This November, vote like your life depends on it! Because it does!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Crimes Against Humanity, Never!

Related posts:

Related posts: