"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt and Dr. Alicia Triche, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
ONEONTA, N.Y.—Raphael and Ngongo Joseph have been refugees for more than 20 years, but they are thinking this small college town in upstate New York will be home for the foreseeable future.
They arrived this summer from Central Africa, displaced by ethnic conflict and back to back civil wars in Burundi and the Congo. Their new home is an upstairs apartment near the Susquehanna River, where they said people have been friendly.
“We were empty-handed,” Raphael, who goes by Joseph, said in Swahili. “We came to an apartment filled with our needs.”
Ngongo works at Hartwick College, one of two schools whose students account for about half of the 12,500 residents in this former railroad hub.
Joseph and Ngongo’s settlement is an early test of a new federal program called Welcome Corps under which grass-roots groups are able to sponsor the resettlement of refugees. It, by extension, could lead to a more dispersed refugee resettlement effort that could change the character of small—and sometimes shrinking—communities like Oneonta.
But they are arriving at a time and in a region where immigration has become controversial. More than 140,000 migrants have come to New York City in the past 18 months, overwhelming its shelter system and prompting officials to begin busing asylum seekers to hotels in upstate communities, often over the objection of local officials.
. . . .
Newcomers are often painted with a broad brush, officials said, though they arrive through very different streams. The refugee-admissions program is a highly regulated system under which refugees living at camps across the globe can be nominated to come to the U.S., though they must undergo years of security and medical vetting before being allowed to move. It is entirely separate from the asylum system, which handles people after they have made it onto U.S. soil.
“We need them as much as they need us,” said Mark Wolff, a French language professor who has assisted the couple. “If you talk about immigration in the abstract, it can be scary. But when you meet people like Ngongo and Joseph you just want to help them.”
. . . .
*************************
Read the complete article at the link.
Yes, I know that refugees coming from abroad are screened and processed differently from refugees applying for asylum in the U.S! Yet, the basic principle is the same: Help them in an orderly, rational way to get to places where they will be welcomed, can find food and shelter, and where their skills can best be used or developed. And, from a legal standpoint, refugees stand in the same position, whether they come directly from overseas or are processed in the U.S. or at our borders!
The “delays” in the overseas refugee program could be minimized with some creative problem solving when dealing with asylum applicants. That’s why experts have long urged the USG to invest in ”reception centers” for asylum seekers rather than prisons, walls, prosecutions, and other expensive, inhumane, “deterrence” measures that make the humanitarian situation worse, not better! It’s going to take some “fresh thinking,” “new blood,” and more dynamic expert leadership to stop repeating and doubling down on past mistakes and address the humanitarian reality in practical ways that recognize opportunity and minimize fear and repression.
Rational resettlement, along with a better, more timely, asylum processing system staffed with humanitarian experts, would be a far better investment for our nation than more schemes for expensive, cruel, counterproductive, likely illegal, and ultimately futile, “deterrence.” It’s a shame that our leaders and legislators are so short-sighted and driven by fear, restrictionist myths, and false narratives about migration.
Although the U.S. economy is doing well, one thing that could enable even greater expansion is affordable housing for workers and their families. Why not harness the power of immigrant innovators and refugees (of all types) to address this need for the benefit of all U.S. workers and their communities? Create visible success stories showing and realizing the opportunities and benefit to the U.S. of welcoming refugees and asylees!
FALLS CHURCH, VA – The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) today announced the appointment of Katharine E. Clark as a Board Member of EOIR’s Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
The BIA is the highest administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws, having nationwide jurisdiction to hear appeals of decisions by adjudicators, including Immigration Judges.
Biographical information follows:
Katharine E. Clark, Appellate Immigration Judge
Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Katharine E. Clark as an Appellate Immigration Judge in August 2023. Judge Clark earned a Bachelor of Arts, magna cum laude, in 2003 from Brown University and a Juris Doctorate in 2006 from Georgetown University Law Center. From 2022 to 2023, and 2007 to 2018, she served as a senior litigation counsel and trial attorney at the Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, Department of Justice. From 2019 to 2021, she was a managing attorney at Ayuda in Silver Spring, Maryland, where she also handled cases on a pro bono basis. From 2018 to 2019, she was counsel for the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. From 2006 to 2007, she served as a Judicial Law Clerk at the Boston Immigration Court, entering on duty through the Attorney General’s Honors Program. Judge Clark is a member of the Maryland State Bar and the Pennsylvania State Bar.
— EOIR —
*****************************
Proud to say Judge Clark is a graduate of not only Georgetown Law (where I am an Adjunct), but one of many distinguished alums of the Legacy Arlington Immigraton Court Internship Program, established by my good friend and colleague Retired U.S. Immigraton Judge Mario Christopher Grant. I later inherited the “Mentor Judge” position upon Judge Grant’s retirement. Judge Clark is the first, hopefully of many, of those we mentored to be appointed to the BIA.
I am also a member of the Advisory Board at AYUDA, where Judge Clark worked as a supervisory attorney from 2019-21.
Judge Clark’s experiences give her an exceptionally broad, varied perspective. She has seen the system from the inside, at EOIR, as an NGO advocate assisting those struggling to deal with EOIR’s dysfunction and institutional unfairness, as an OIL attorney defending EOIR’s work, and as a legislative aide attempting to address the system’s many shortcomings.
She is well positioned to help the BIA and EOIR move beyond the flawed decision-making, unrealistic guidance, and backlog-building “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” that has plagued the Immigration Court System over the past two decades. Hopefully she will be a force in returning EOIR to it’s proper (though long-abandoned) vision of: Through teamwork and innovation, becoming the world’s best administrative tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all!
It’s far away from that now! But, there are some judges at EOIR like Judge Clark qualified and capable of leading a “due process renaissance” at the beleaguered tribunals. Whether and to what extent they will be able to do so remains to be seen.
Congratulations again and good luck to Judge Clark!
Here’s a report from Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase of the Round Table:
Hi all: As you know, our group filed an amicus brief in East Bay Sanctuary v. Garland, challenging the new rules at the border that would make most of those unable to get an online appointment through an app ineligible to apply for asylum.
District Court Judge Jon Tigar just issued the attached order granting summary judgment to plaintiffs and denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
From Judge Tigar’s order:
“Congress granted the agencies authority to impose additional conditions on asylum eligibility, but only those consistent with section 1158…Two of the conditions imposed by the Rule have been previously found to be inconsistent with Section 1158…
The Court concludes that the Rule is contrary to law because it presumes ineligible for asylum noncitizens who enter between ports of entry, using a manner of entry that Congress expressly intended should not affect access to asylum. The Rule is also contrary to law because it presumes ineligible for asylum noncitizens who fail to apply for protection in a transit country, despite Congress’s clear intent that such a factor should only limit access to asylum where the transit country actually presents a safe option.”
The order is stayed for 14 days to allow the government to appeal.
Our group has once again helped make a difference in providing fairness and due process. Congrats to all.
**********************
Congrats to the plaintiffs and to my Round Table colleagues!
This was basically a blowout for the plaintiffs on all issues! The USG argument essentially was that complying with the law would be too difficult and/or politically unpopular. Therefore, they have chosen to violate the law and to use rather transparent pretexts (actually misrepresentations about the bogus “presumption”) to evade it.
Really, folks, how do we have a Dem AG who 1) approves such complete legal nonsense; 2) advances essentially frivolous and disingenuous arguments in an attempt to defend the indefensible; and 3) can’t make the legal system for asylum work in a fair and legal manner at EOIR or DHS?
How immoral and intellectually dishonest are Garland’s arguments. Here’s one of my favorite passages from Judge Tigar’s opinion:
While they wait for an adjudication, applicants for asylum must remain in Mexico, where migrants are generally at heightened risk of violence by both state and non-state actors.
See, e.g., PC 32446–68 (2022 State Department report noting credible reports of gender-based violence against migrants; reports of migrants being tortured by migration authorities; “numerous instances” of armed groups targeting migrants for kidnapping, extortion, and homicide; and that asylum seekers and migrants were vulnerable to forced labor); PC 22839–42 (NGO report documenting violent crimes against 13,480 migrants in Mexico, by both state and non-state actors, between January 2021 and December 2022); PC 76248–87 (table of crimes summarized in preceding report); PC 21752–58 (2022 NGO report discussing gender-based violence in northern Mexico border cities, including against LGBTQI+ and Black migrants); PC 21610–11 (2022 NGO report concerning gender-based violence against Venezuelan women and LGBTIQ+ migrants in southern Mexico).16
16 In addition to these examples, the record is replete with additional documentation of the extraordinary risk of violence many migrants face in Mexico. See, e.g., PC 22129–30 (2023 news report documenting instances of kidnapping of asylum seekers in northern Mexico); PC 23247–50 (2022 news report quoting Chihuahua state police chief stating that “organized criminal gangs are financing their operations through migrant trafficking”); PC 23082 (2023 NGO report discussing treatment of migrants and asylum seekers); PC 20937–43 (2021 NGO report documenting kidnapping and extortion of Venezuelan migrants in Mexico); PC 29740–29744 (2021 NGO report documenting instances of rape, kidnapping, and other violence experienced by migrant women in Mexico); PC 75946–48 (2022 NGO report documenting violence against migrants in Mexico); AR 4881 (2022 NGO report noting that asylum seekers from Central America have been pursued across the border and found in southern Mexico by their persecutors).
Only somebody who avoids the border, has never represented asylum seekers there, and is impervious to facts and reality could make such outlandish arguments in favor of an outrageously deficient and illegal “policy.” Sounds like something out of the “Stephen Miller Playbook!”Why is it coming from a Dem AG?
Justice Alito gets acquainted with billionaires he hardly knew while holding salmon he never previously met and NOT drinking $1,000 per bottle wine. His “fish story” in the WSJ is a real whopper! Photo: Pro PublicaJay Kuo American Author, Producer, CEO of The Social Edge PHOTO: Facebook
Jay Kuo writes in Substack:
In some ways it was bound to happen. For months the public focus has been on Justice Clarence Thomas. Per excellent reporting by ProPublica, Thomas had secretly accepted myriad unreported gifts from billionaire-with-an-archvillain’s-name Harlan Crow: lavish private flights, luxury trips, years of private tuition for a family member, and money for the sale and renovation of his mother’s home (where she still lives rent free). With all that rotting out in the open, it was naturally time to look at the records and practices of other justices who seem to operate outside ethical rules.
This time in the barrel belongs to Justice Samuel Alito, the author and possible leaker of the Dobbs decision that struck down 50 years of federal abortion rights protections under Roe v. Wade. Like Justice Thomas, Alito has been cozy with his own billionaire, hedge fund owner Paul Singer. According to a new blockbuster report from ProPublica by the same team of reporters who brought us the corrupt tales of Justice Thomas, billionaire Singer flew Alito to Alaska on a private plane for a salmon fishing retreat back in 2008.
These billionaires sure like making friends with Supreme Court justices.
As with Thomas and Crow, Alito never disclosed the trip or his relationship with Singer, even though Singer had many cases that regularly came before the Court for review. This included a doozy in which Alito joined the majority in handing Singer’s company an outcome worth $2.4 billion. More on that below.
This controversy is further unique because Alito, seeking to get out ahead of the story, went to his buddies at the Wall Street Journal Opinions department and got them to publish an OpEd written by him entitled “ProPublica Misleads Its Readers.” It purported to “respond” to the ProPublica report hours before it was published. It is awkward and frankly embarrassing to see a justice opine on something he hasn’t even read, all in the hopes of saving his own petard.
Alito’s stated rationales for why he didn’t report the trip, along with his downplaying of his relationship with Singer, are unconvincing and in many ways ludicrous. More on that below, too. But his words do nothing to change the fact that we now have two sitting justices who are trying to explain away apparent efforts to buy influence with the Court.
As Ronald Reagan once put it, if you’re explaining, you’re losing.
Let’s look at the basic facts uncovered in the ProPublica reporting, and then at Alito’s lame responses in his OpEd. If Chief Justice John Roberts thought the scrutiny and collapsing public faith in the High Court had subsided, he thought wrong.
. . . .
**************************
Read Jay’s full op-Ed at the link.
Alito’s “defense” explained in plain English:
Here’s the deal. I’m only a humble Supreme’s Justice, so I didn’t really understand Federal ethics law. Rather than wasting time getting an opinion from an impartial expert, I looked at what others (defined as “my GOP judicial cronies Clarence Thomas and the late Antonin Scalia”) were doing. I reasonably concluded that since the wine I was served at dinner cost less than $1,000 a bottle, there was no problem.
Moreover, please understand that I hardly knew the guy who offered me the $100,000 trip on his private jet. That’s why I found it necessary to take a vacant seat on his private jet, to keep it from going to waste.
Since that put me in Alaska anyway, I figured why not get in a couple of days of salmon fishing with some GOP fat cat donors while roughing it in $1,000/night rustic accommodations like most Alaskans live in. It put me more in touch with the average billionaire and allowed me to empathize with their dire predicament in a socialist society.
Moreover, I’m a busy guy. How could I possibly know or predict that some of these random billionaires would have business before our Court or would have their financial interests materially affected by our rulings?
Would the “woke crowd” at Pro Publica be raising a stink if I had taken the same trip with homeless folks or asylum applicants being flown to Alaska by Gov. DeSantis or Gov. Abbott. I doubt it! Clearly, the liberal media’s double standard is being applied here.
These outrageous charges against me and GOP billionaires I hardly know are just more proof that under Democrats, America has become hostile territory for billionaires. No “reasonable person” (defined as a “GOP Judge who hobnobs with billionaires they hardly know”) would see an “appearance of impropriety” here!
How many “average American reasonable persons” other than me find themselves harassed by the press just for weekending with random billionaires in Alaska? None! Has there ever been a clearer case of media bullying?
As I always say, ignorance of the law is no excuse when applied to poor criminal defendants or unrepresented immigrants who can’t understand the complexities and illogic of our immigration laws. But, I’m not a criminal defendant nor am I a migrant, who, in my view, isn’t a “person” at all under our Constitution. Let them eat cake or drink $1,000 bottles of wine. Moreover, bad judgement is not a crime nor is it a legal disqualification from being a Justice and continuing to pass final, un-reviewable judgement on others.
Finally, I want to say that I am being persecuted by far left journalists who are threatening to publish facts in an article I’ve not yet read. They gave me a chance to respond in advance, but I stonewalled it in favor of an op-ed that was immediately run by my buddies over at the WSJ editorial board. That’s what any “reasonable person” would do when falsely accused of accepting favors from billionaires they hardly know.
Let’s look at this another way.Immigration Judge X accepts a $100,000 private plane ride and a couple of days of salmon fishing and uber-expensive dinners at an exclusive, $1,000 per night fishing camp in Alaska. Judge X claims that he barely knew the guy who offered him the trip, but merely went to keep an otherwise vacant seat on the private plane from going unused. Judge X was later shocked to learn that his benefactor’s spouse had a removal case pending before Judge X, which Judge X later heard and decided in the spouse’s favor.
Raise your hand 🙋🏼♀️if you think Judge X would still have a job after these facts surfaced! Would Judge X get a chance to “rebut the allegations in advance” in the WSJ?
Think that there is “equal justice for all” in America?
Alicia A. Caldwell Immigration Reporter Wall Street JournalAngel of Death Artist: Evelyn De Morgan 1880 Public Realm The Angel of Death (“AOD”) comes for another asylum seeker at the border. Biden border policies have created “full employment” for the AOD!
Santiago Perez & Alicia Caldwell report for the WSJ:
EAGLE PASS, Texas—Local officials keep a refrigerated truck to hold the bodies of migrants who drown in the currents of the Rio Grande while trying to cross the border into the U.S.
Across the river, families having picnics or walking along the waterfront promenade of Piedras Negras, Mexico, say they sometimes see bodies floating by or bobbing among the reeds under a bridge. “We had times when we received four or five bodies a week,” said Hugo González, owner of Funerarias González in Piedras Negras. “At one point, there were a lot of corpses and there was nowhere to put them. We just didn’t have enough refrigerators at the funeral home.”
A spike in deaths along the most dangerous stretches of the U.S.-Mexico border reflects the escalating number of migrants seeking to cross into the U.S. from troubled home countries. At the same time, U.S. immigration policies are allowing fewer of them legal entry. Many migrants have turned to human smugglers and WhatsApp messages to help them navigate more lightly patrolled—and treacherous—sections of the border to enter illegally, U.S. officials said.
. . . .
***************************
Those with WSJ access can read the full article at the link. Those without can register for a limited number of free articles.
Remarkably, the existing law provides a legal framework for encouraging refugees to apply in or near their native countries and also for legal asylum seekers to apply in an orderly fashion at legal ports of entry. It also, for better or worse, provides DHS with an “expedited removal” process for those at the border who can’t establish a “credible fear” of persecution after initial proper screening by a trained expert Asylum Officer. This process does not require full Immigration Court hearings.
Sadly, the Trump and now the Biden Administrations have chosen to avoid or evade these existing legal tools for granting refuge in a timely and orderly fashion. Instead, encouraged by nativists, they have chosen to employ extralegal “gimmicks” like Title 42 to close down the legal avenues for seeking asylum at ports of entry.
Those who are allowed into the system face a series of the Government’s intentionally-imposed hurdles. These include: impeding access to representation; punitive imprisonment in substandard conditions in obscure places; deficient technology used as a “gatekeeper;” poorly-qualified adjudicators who lack expertise and “real life” experience assisting asylum seekers; unduly restrictive interpretations of what are supposed to be generous, protection-oriented asylum laws; a mismanaged and backlogged system that moves either too fast too slow for due process, but never “just right;” random scheduling and politicized resettlement; lack of adequate notice of the legal requirements they are supposed to meet.
Tragically, while Administrations and nativists disingenuously claim the opposite, this “dual lack” of competence and integrity has essentially left control of refuge in the U.S. to extra-governmental actors — basically smugglers, cartels, and other organized criminal enterprises. With legal avenues for seeking protection cut off or unduly restricted, refugees who need protection will resort to extralegal methods to save themselves and their families.
In addition to “empowering the bad guys to run the system,” the Government’s short-sighted approach actually dilutes border enforcement. That’s because it improperly and unnecessarily “lumps in” refugees and legal asylum seekers with individuals and groups actually seeking to enter for purposes unrelated to seeking legal protection under our laws.
It’s little wonder that despite questionable claims of lower numbers, the most obvious empirical effect of years of bad border policies and inept administration of the law has been to increase the number of border deaths, as related in the above article.
It would be nice to think that some day, our nation will have leaders who actually value human lives, rather than just viewing human rights as a “throwaway line” — subservient to their desire to amass and maintain political power. Until then, more will needlessly die.☠️🤮
The temporary stay doesn’t address the merits. It just allows the full Court to consider the the State GOP AG’s frivolous challenge to reinstitution of the rule of law at the Southern border which was set to take effect on Wednesday, Dec. 22.
Frivolous as the challenge might be, it’s unclear how the current GOP-dominated Supremes will react to this latest right-wing abuse of our legal system and war on human rights and the rule of law!
It’s been over 30 years since Congress enacted the most recent set of comprehensive immigration reforms: the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and the Immigration Act of 1990. These bipartisan yet hotly contested bills passed only after a debate spanning five presidential administrations, eight congressional sessions, and painful compromises by all parties. Even then, both bills died on the House floor before being resurrected at the 11th hour.
Can lessons learned during the last round of reform be applied to future debates? Charles Kamasaki, author of “Immigration Reform: The Corpse That Will Not Die” (Mandel Vilar Press, 2019), thinks so. The book provides a history of how the 1980s-era reforms were enacted, along with a summary of developments since then. It concludes with seven lessons that advocates and lawmakers should consider in advancing future immigration reform.
Join us for a discussion with Mr. Kamasaki, Cornell Law School professor Steve Yale-Loehr, and Wall Street Journal immigration reporter Michelle Hackman about the prospects for immigration reform legislation in 2023.
This webinar is cosponsored by the Cornell Migrations Initiative, the Cornell Law School Immigration Law and Policy Research Program, and Catholic Charities of Tompkins and Tioga Counties.
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?
Join author Ali Noorani, CEO of the National Immigration Forum, for a virtual discussion on Wednesday April 27 from 1-2 pm ET about his newest book, “Crossing Borders: The Reconciliation of a Nation of Immigrants,” with Cornell immigration law professor Stephen Yale-Loehr and Wall Street Journal reporter Michelle Hackman. Based on interviews in Honduras, Mexico, Eastern Europe, and communities across the U.S., Mr. Noorani’s book presents the complexities of migration through the stories of families fleeing violence and poverty, the government, and nongovernmental organizations helping or hindering their progress, and the U.S. communities receiving them. Going beyond highly charged partisan debates, the panel will offer real insights and actionable strategies for restoring the dignity of both immigrants and the United States itself.
Another all-star 🌟 panel featuring some of the “best in the business!” Think how much better immigration and human rights policies could be if folks like this were “on the inside” formulating and directing USG policy rather than commenting from the outside. I’ll bet the Immigration Courts, the border, and our asylum and refugee systems would all be on a much better trajectory!
WASHINGTON—The Biden administration plans to end its use of Title 42, a Trump-era pandemic border policy that allows the government to immediately turn away migrants at the southern border, by the end of May, according to a draft of the order reviewed by The Wall Street Journal and officials familiar with the matter.
. . . .
************
I’ll believe it when it happens! Seven weeks is plenty of time for the Administration to develop another self-generated “crisis” that, in turn, can be used as an excuse to continue violating the law. And, some politicos of both parties are already pushing to keep sending asylum seekers to death with no due process because they think it will prove popular with certain voters. Once you start violating the law and avoiding the consequences it’s hard to stop!
Since the Administration doesn’t appear to have much of a plan in mind, it will be largely up to pro bono lawyers and human rights/racial justice NGOs to get folks down to the border to represent and advise asylum applicants. That might be the only way to instill some order, discipline, and legality into what otherwise appears to be another “designed to fail” effort by the USG.
In immigration and human rights, competence to run the system in accordance with law remains a largely untapped resource in the private/NGO/academic sector! Using the same “enforcement only” bureaucrats whose “deter, detain, and deport” approach to asylum has failed in the past to produce and maintain a fair, efficient, due process oriented system is likely to be yet another “fool’s errand” with humanity and our nation’s values hanging in the balance.
131 Federal Judges Broke the Law by Hearing Cases Where They Had a Financial Interest
The judges failed to recuse themselves from 685 lawsuits from 2010 to 2018 involving firms in which they or their family held shares, a Wall Street Journal investigation found
By James V. Grimaldi, Coulter Jones and Joe Palazzolo
Sept. 28, 2021 9:07 am ET
More than 130 federal judges have violated U.S. law and judicial ethics by overseeing court cases involving companies in which they or their family owned stock.
A Wall Street Journal investigation found that judges have improperly failed to disqualify themselves from 685 court cases around the nation since 2010. The jurists were appointed by nearly every president from Lyndon Johnson to Donald Trump.
About two-thirds of federal district judges disclosed holdings of individual stocks, and nearly one of every five who did heard at least one case involving those stocks.
Alerted to the violations by the Journal, 56 of the judges have directed court clerks to notify parties in 329 lawsuits that they should have recused themselves. That means new judges might be assigned, potentially upending rulings.
When judges participated in such cases, about two-thirds of their rulings on motions that were contested came down in favor of their or their family’s financial interests.
. . . .
******************
Read the full article at the link.
This is seriously bad stuff that should never have happened.
Admittedly, Federal conflict of interest rules can be both complicated and annoying. But, complicated legal issues are these judges’ “specialty.” “Ignorance is no excuse” is a common judicial cliche!
Even at EOIR, judges got decent training in these types of ethical requirements, including examples that covered the types of conflicts uncovered by the WSJ; they were fairly rare at EOIR given the subject matter at issue in most cases and the relatively modest financial circumstances of most Immigration Judges, many of whom were career civil servants.
Other types of potential conflicts or “appearance” issues did arise more frequently at EOIR. We were advised “When in doubt, sit it out!”
Obviously, the Administrative Office for U.S. Courts (“AOUSC”) isn’t doing its job here! It appears that using the same public information available to the WSJ reporters, the AOUSC could have not only discovered these conflicts much earlier (perhaps before decisions were rendered) but also set up an automated system for discovering potential conflicts in advance. Jones Day had such a system when I was there three decades ago!
Chief Justice John Roberts must insist that all Article III Judges take their ethical obligations more seriously and that they become thoroughly familiar with the requirements applicable to them. And, he should demand that the AOUSC provide the necessary training and monitor compliance with an automated conflicts identification system!
WASHINGTON—President Biden is set to sign an executive order keeping the refugee admissions cap for this year at a record-low 15,000, but eliminating Trump administration restrictions on which types of refugees qualify under that cap.
. . . .
**********************
Read Michelle’s full article at the link.
Administrations come, Administrations go. One constant: Human rights remain at the very bottom of the political “to do” list! It’s always a tough time to be a refugee. But, maybe even worse when you thought that, finally, there was a little hope on the horizon!
Sad times for some very vulnerable people and their tireless advocates.☠️😥
Dead Refugee Child Washes Ashore in Turkey — Every once and awhile, a dramatic picture makes us stop and think about the plight of refugees. BUT, NEVER FOR LONG! PHOTO: independent.co.uk
Elizabeth Gibson Attorney, NY Legal Assistance Group Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
COVID-19 & Closures
Note: Policies are rapidly changing, so please verify information with the government and colleagues.
EOIR Status Overview & EOIR Court Status Map/List: Hearings in non-detained cases at courts without an announced date are postponed through, and including, March 19, 2021. There is no announced date for reopening NYC non-detained at this time.
DHS: Beginning on February 19, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will begin phase one of a program to restore safe and orderly processing at the southwest border. DHS will begin processing people who had been forced to “remain in Mexico” under the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP). Approximately 25,000 individuals in MPP continue to have active cases.
Spectrum: The Biden administration officially rescinded the “no blanks” policy by updating guidance on the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services website in late January, a spokesperson confirmed to Spectrum News this week.
NBC: The White House is expected to select Michelle Brané of the Women’s Refugee Commission as the executive director of the task force to reunite migrant families separated by the Trump administration, three sources familiar with the decision tell NBC News.
WSJ: Business groups and immigrant advocates say they are worried that a ban imposed last year on most forms of legal immigration in response to the Covid-19 pandemic could stick even as President Biden undoes many of his predecessor’s other immigration policies.
Guardian: US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) deported at least 72 people to Haiti [last] Monday, including a two-month-old baby and 21 other children, as the Biden administration made clear it would press on with expulsions of newly-arrived migrants, pending a review of immigration policy.
Guardian: At least 11 migrant women were dropped off in Mexican border towns without birth certificates for their days-old US citizen newborns since March of last year, an investigation by the Fuller Project and the Guardian has found.
MJ: Many of the examples of “death while waiting” that Kocher’s question prompted can’t be directly attributed to the immigration system or the United States government. Motorcycle accidents and terminal illnesses are to blame. These fatalities are not accounted for in immigration statistics. But they evoke a concept known in the social studies field as “slow violence,” a kind of structural harm that happens “gradually and out of sight” and is often hard to assign to a specific perpetrator.
TRAC: The latest available case-by-case Immigrant Court records show that immigration cases that were completed in the first four months of FY 2021 took nearly twice as long from beginning to end as cases completed in the first four months of FY 2020. Cases that were completed between the beginning of October 2020 and the end of January 2021 took, on average, 859 days compared to 436 days over the same period a year before.
NPR: In an attempt to recruit lawmakers to their cause, FAIR targeted delegations from states that were projected to lose House seats if the apportionment counts were altered to leave out unauthorized immigrants. FAIR emphasized that if successful, the lawsuit would not hurt states’ bottom lines. Unauthorized immigrants would still be counted in the census numbers used to guide the distribution of federal grants to states, just not in the counts for dividing up House seats and electoral votes.
Guardian: That sudden spike is still relatively modest compared to huge figures from fiscal year 2019, when Border Patrol apprehended more than 76,000 unaccompanied children, a trend that reached its zenith that spring.
Law360: Foreign students studying in the United States will be able to return to the U.S. automatically, despite President Joe Biden’s across-the-board travel restrictions, under a set of new exemptions laid out by the U.S. Department of State on Wednesday.
NYT: The border with Mexico extends well beyond the desert. Tighter enforcement on land has driven record numbers of migrants to attempt dangerous crossings by water.
CityLimits: Both Mario and Fernando say that on the vaccination day, the county jail doctor did not give information about the vaccine. “They didn’t inform me of anything. They just gave me a piece of paper [the vaccination card], with my ID number and my name. They didn’t even say what kind of vaccine it was,” says Fernando.
A district court extended for another 14 days the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) enjoining the government from executing a 100-day pause on the removal of individuals already subject to a final Order of Removal, as outlined in the 1/20/21 DHS memo. (State of Texas v. USA, et al., 2/8/21) AILA Doc. No. 21012634
The court issued an order staying the district court’s ruling that had enjoined the government from expelling unaccompanied children (UACs) from the U.S.-Mexico border without a hearing or asylum interview under Title 42’s public health provisions. (P.J.E.S. v. Pekoske, 1/29/21) AILA Doc. No. 21021231
Unpublished BIA decision reopens proceedings sua sponte for DACA recipient who was married to a U.S. citizen and the beneficiary of an approved visa petition. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Sanabria Rosales, 6/17/20) AILA Doc. No. 21021000
Unpublished BIA decision reopens proceedings sua sponte for respondent with TPS to adjust status under Ramirez v. Brown, 852 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 2017). Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Rivas, 6/16/20) AILA Doc. No. 21020803
Unpublished BIA decision rescinds in absentia order of deportation because signature on return receipt for Order to Show Cause did not belong to respondent or a responsible person at his address. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Ramirez Flores, 6/16/20) AILA Doc. No. 21020804
Unpublished BIA decision reopens proceedings sua sponte to let respondent adjust status based on approved visa petition filed by U.S. citizen child who is active member of the military. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Oh, 6/23/20) AILA Doc. No. 21021001
Where petitioner had filed a motion to reopen and remand his case to the IJ in light of his placement by USCIS on the U visa waiting list, the court held that the BIA abused its discretion in denying the motion by failing to follow its own precedents. (Granados Benitez v. Wilkinson, 1/28/21) AILA Doc. No. 21021130
Law360: In a first-of-its-kind ruling, the First Circuit found that searches of cellphones and other electronic devices at the U.S. border do not require a warrant or probable cause and can be used to search for contraband.
Granting in part the petition for review, the court found to be unreasonable the BIA’s determination that the petitioner’s proposed particular social group (PSG) of “former Salvadoran MS-13 members” lacked particularity, and thus remanded his withholding claim. (Amaya v. Rosen, 1/25/21) AILA Doc. No. 21021131
The court held that a noncitizen who entered the United States without being “inspected and admitted or paroled” may not have their status adjusted to that of lawful permanent resident (LPR) by virtue of obtaining Temporary Protected Status (TPS). (Solorzano v. Mayorkas, 2/3/21) AILA Doc. No. 21021034
The court held that the petitioner’s conviction for the use of an unauthorized social security number in violation of 42 USC §408(a)(7)(B) was a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT), such that the petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal. (Munoz-Rivera v. Wilkinson, 1/27/21) AILA Doc. No. 21021133
The court held that petitioner’s credible testimony about her attempted gang rape in India was sufficient to establish past persecution, and that the BIA erred in imposing evidentiary requirements of ongoing injury or treatment beyond the attempted sexual assault. (Kaur v. Wilkinson, 1/29/21) AILA Doc. No. 21021134
Advance copy of USCIS notice extending Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) and work authorization for eligible Liberians through 6/30/22, pursuant to the memo issued by President Biden on 1/20/21. The notice will be published in the Federal Register on 2/16/21. AILA Doc. No. 21021233
Executive order issued 2/10/21 imposing sanctions on those determined to have contributed to instability in Burma, including, among other things, suspending the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of such persons. (86 FR 9429, 2/12/21) AILA Doc. No. 21021235
A number of the “Top Stories” have been covered separately on Courtside.
One that hasn’t is Michelle Hackman’s article in the WSJ about the predictable stupidity of the Trump regime’s “work visa ban.” Part of the White Nationalist restrictionist agenda, it was rolled out by Stephen Miller on the bogus pretext of “protecting American labor” during the pandemic.
However, as Michelle points out, it did nothing of the sort. What it did do, as many of us had projected, was create hardship for American employers, diminish the economy, create hardship for the potential workers and their families, but all without creating any meaningful job opportunities for American workers.
Just another of the many examples of how bad policies, based on nationalist myths, racism, and xenophobia rather than facts and realities, have many far reaching adverse effects for American and beyond.
I anticipate that at some point, the Biden Administration will resume regular issuance of work visas. When, however, is a different question.
Here’s an array of reports on how America under the Trump regime has joined the ranks of dictatorships, torturers, child abusers, persecutors, and human rights criminals!
Eugene Robinson Opinion Columnist Washington Post Source: WashPost Website
Eugene Robinson @ WashPost:
What kind of people are we? As a society, are we so decadent and insecure that we show “toughness” by deliberately being cruel to innocent children? Is this what our nation has come to? Or are we better than that?
This election demands we answer those questions. The choice between President Trump and Joe Biden is not just political. It is also moral. And perhaps nothing more starkly illustrates the moral dimension of that decision than the Trump administration’s policy of kidnapping children at the southern U.S. border, ripping them away from their families — and doing so for no reason other than to demonstrate Trump’s warped vision of American strength.
We learned this week that some of those separations will probably be permanent. As NBC News first reported, 545 boys and girls taken as many as three years ago — the children of would-be immigrants and asylum seekers, mostly from Central America — have not been reunited with their parents and may never see their families again.
These are not among the nearly 3,000 families separated at the border in 2018, when children were kept in cages like animals or shipped away to facilities across the country, hundreds or thousands of miles from the border. We now know, thanks to the American Civil Liberties Union and other pro bono lawyers, that an additional 1,500 children were torn away from their families beginning in 2017, when the Trump administration conducted a trial run of the separation policy.
Please think about that. The shocking scenes we saw two years ago did not result from a sudden spasm of presidential anger. They didn’t stem from a Fox News segment Trump might have seen one evening. Rather, the administration rehearsed this form of cruelty.
What the administration did not plan for was how to reunite the children taken in 2017 with their families. Many of the parents were deported, and their children were placed in shelters around the country, then ostensibly released to parents or guardians, placements that the ACLU is still trying to confirm.
[Our Democracy in Peril: A series on the damage Trump has caused — and the danger he would pose in a second term]
The ACLU and other organizations have sent investigators to towns and villages in Central America in an attempt to find the kidnapped children’s families — an effort complicated not just by time and distance, but also by the covid-19 pandemic. Parents of 545 children have not been found, the ACLU reported this week.
Disturbingly, the Department of Homeland Security suggested that some of the parents declined to get their children back so they could remain in the United States. Keep in mind that most of these families were seeking asylum from deadly violence in their home countries. The Trump administration changed immigration guidelines to make it unlikely that the families would ultimately be allowed to stay in the United States, but federal law gives them the right to apply for asylum and to have their cases heard. They did nothing wrong. They should never have been asked to choose between parenting their children and getting them to safety — not by their home countries, and not by the United States.
Trump’s racism and xenophobia have been hallmarks of his presidency from the beginning, so perhaps it should be no surprise that he would preside over such an outrage. But he didn’t do this by himself. He had plenty of help.
Former attorney general Jeff Sessions seized an opportunity to make his rabid antipathy toward Hispanic immigration into policy. White House senior adviser Stephen Miller, a former Sessions aide in the Senate, was the architect of Trump’s “zero tolerance” immigration policy. Then-White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly said in 2018 that the children taken would be “taken care of — put into foster care or whatever.” Former homeland security secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said last year that she regretted that “information flow and coordination to quickly reunite the families was clearly not in place” — but not the separations themselves.
President Donald Trump’s administration started and carried out a policy that took more than 4,000 children from their parents, at least 545 of whom are still split apart years later. But at Thursday’s debate, the president insisted that he did nothing wrong at all ― blaming his Democratic predecessors and even insisting the kids are doing fine.
“They are so well taken care of,” Trump said of the children taken from their parents by his administration. “They’re in facilities that were so clean.”
Trump’s first term was marked by a full-out assault on immigration, both legal and unauthorized. The most dramatic was his “zero tolerance” policy on unauthorized border-crossing, used in a 2017 pilot program and expanded more broadly in 2018, that led to criminal prosecution of parents and locking up their kids separately. Splitting up families was intentional and calculated, according to multiple reports.
Thanks to mass public outrage and a court order, Trump was forced to stop his family separation policy. Most families were reunited, but the American Civil Liberties Union, which was part of the lawsuit against the government that stopped the policy, said this week that at least 545 kids are still away from their parents.
“Their kids were ripped from their arms and separated,” Democratic nominee Joe Biden said during the debate. “And now they cannot find over 500 sets of those parents and those kids are alone. Nowhere to go. Nowhere to go. It’s criminal.”
Washington Post Columnist Ruth Marcus, moderates a panel discussion about chronic poverty with Education Secretary John B. King and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, during the National Association of Counties at the Washington Marriott Wardman Park, in Washington, DC, on Tuesday, Feb. 23, 2016. U.S. Department of Agriculture photo by Lance Cheung.
Ruth Marcus @ WashPost:
545.
That is the number of children still separated from their families by the Trump administration — separated deliberately, cruelly and recklessly. They might never be reunited with their parents again. Even if they are, the damage is unimaginable and irreparable.
545.
Even one would be too many. Each one represents a unique tragedy. Imagine being ripped from your parents, or having your child taken from you. Imagine the desperation that the parents feel, the trauma inflicted on their children.
545.
That number represents an indelible stain on President Trump and every individual in his administration who implemented this policy, flawed at the conception and typically, gruesomely incompetent in the execution. It is, perhaps in the technical sense but surely in the broader one, a crime against humanity. It is torture.
545.
That number — I will stop repeating it, yet it cannot be repeated enough — represents a moral challenge and responsibility for the next administration. If Joe Biden is elected president, he must devote the maximum resources of the federal government to fixing this disaster. The United States broke these families; it must do whatever it takes to help them heal.
Nothing like that would happen in a second Trump term, because Trump himself doesn’t care. He doesn’t grasp the horror that he oversaw. He doesn’t comprehend the policy, and he is incapable of feeling the pain it inflicted.
Those truths could not have been clearer cut than during Thursday night’s debate.
Moderator Kristen Welker of NBC News asked the president a simple question: “How will these families ever be reunited?”
First, Trump misstated the situation: “Their children are brought here by coyotes and lots of bad people, cartels, and they’re brought here, and they used to use them to get into our country.”
No. These are children separated from their families, not separated from smugglers. They are children brought by their parents in desperate search of a better life, desperate enough that they would take the risk of the dangerous journey.
Then Trump pivoted to the irrelevant: “We now have as strong a border as we’ve ever had. We’re over 400 miles of brand new wall. You see the numbers. And we let people in, but they have to come in legally.”
Welker persisted: “But how will you reunite these kids with their families, Mr. President?”
Trump responded by pointing his finger at his predecessor: “Let me just tell you, they built cages. You know, they used to say I built the cages, and then they had a picture in a certain newspaper and it was a picture of these horrible cages and they said look at these cages, President Trump built them, and then it was determined they were built in 2014. That was him.”
This is typical Trumpian deflection, bluster undergirded by ignorance. The “cages” are ugly but irrelevant to the topic at hand: the deliberately cruel plan to deter border-crossing by separating children from parents. That was a Trump administration special, implemented with callous sloppiness and so extreme that even the Trump administration abandoned it.
Welker, for the third time: “Do you have a plan to reunite the kids with their families?”
At which point Trump made clear that he did not: “We’re trying very hard, but a lot of these kids come out without the parents, they come over through cartels and through coyotes and through gangs.” The children, he added later, “are so well taken care of, they’re in facilities that were so clean.”
The third and final presidential debate gave Donald Trump and Joe Biden the opportunity to make their final pitch to the American people before the 2020 election. For the Democratic nominee, that meant driving home the point that he believes in science, that he’ll take the COVID-19 pandemic seriously, that climate change is real, and that systemic racism must be dealt with. For Trump, it meant making it clear that in addition to being a science-denying, QAnon-promoting dimwit, he’s also an actual monster who thinks separating small children from their parents, in some cases permanently, is absolutely fine.
Asked by moderated Kristen Welker about the news that parents of 545 children separated at the border—60 of whom are under the age of five—cannot be located, Trump defended the policy and gave no explanation for how the government plans to find these people and reunite their families. “Children are brought here by coyotes and lots of bad people, cartels, and they’re brought here and they used to use them to get into our country,” Trump said, which is objectively false, as they are brought here by their parents, which is why it’s called the family separation policy. “We now have as strong a border as we’ve ever had. We’re over 400 miles of brand new wall. You see the numbers and we let people in but they have to come in legally.”
Noting that Trump hadn’t answered the question, Welker pressed: “But how will you unite these kids with their families?”
“They built cages, they used to say I built cages…that was him,” Trump said, pointing to Biden and referring to the fact that the Obama administration did build temporary enclosures but failing, naturally, to mention that his predecessor did not separate families.
“Do you have a plan to reunite the kids with their parents?” Welker asked a third time. Again, Trump responded by claiming that the children “come without the parents, they come over through cartels and through coyotes and through gangs.”
At this point, Joe Biden was given a chance to weigh in and used his time to describe the policy implemented by Trump as the horror show all non-sociopaths know it to be. “Parents, their kids were ripped from their arms and they were separated and now they cannot find over 500 sets of those parents and those kids are alone, nowhere to go. It’s criminal.”
Then Trump interjected with what he apparently believed was an important point that would cast his administration in a much more favorable light and perhaps might even win it some awards or sainthood by the Catholic church. “Kristen, I will say this,” he told the moderator, of the children stolen from their parents. “They’re so well taken care of. They’re in facilities that are so clean.
With regard to that claim, NBC News reporter Jacob Soboroff weighed in on that after the debate, telling Rachel Maddow: “I was one of the reporters I guess the president mentioned, they invited me to go to the epicenter of this policy…what I saw was little children sitting on concrete floors, covered by mylar blankets, supervised by security contractors in a watchtower, it makes me sick every time I recall it. And Physicians for Human Rights…called this torture…the American Academy of Pediatrics called this state-sanctioned child abuse, and the president of the United States I guess interprets that as children being well taken care of.”
Jacob Soboroff NBC Correspondent Jacob Soboroff at the ABC News Democratic Debate National Constitution Center. Philadelphia, PA. Creative Commons License
Here’s a video from NBC New’sJacob Soboroff, who has actually been inside “Trump’s Kiddie Gulag.” Surprise spoiler: It’s not “nice.” More like “torture” and “child abuse.”
There is neither moral nor legal justification for what the Trump regime has done to asylum seekers and other migrants over the past four years as part of their racist, White Nationalist, nativist agenda. But, we can show that we’re a better country than his horrible vision by voting him and all of his enablers out of office! Vote ‘Em out, vote ‘Em out!
WASHINGTON—Rep. Steve King (R., Iowa), who was stripped of committee assignments last year for questioning what was wrong with white supremacy in the U.S., lost his bid for a 10th term after Republicans abandoned his campaign and endorsed a primary challenger.
Randy Feenstra, a state legislator, had 45.8% of the vote with 36 of 39 counties reporting, according to Iowa’s secretary of state. He was positioned to win a five-way primary, the Associated Press projected, and easily clear a 35% threshold that under state law allows him to avoid a state convention choosing the nominee. Mr. Feenstra will compete against Democrat J.D. Scholten, a former professional baseball player who also tried to win the seat in 2018.
Mr. King, whose district is home to giant meat-processing facilities with a large immigrant workforce, has a history of criticizing immigrants.
In 2013, Mr. King, the only Iowa Republican in the House, compared Hispanic immigrants to drug mules, saying that “for every one who’s a valedictorian, there’s another 100 out there that, they weigh 130 pounds and they’ve got calves the size of cantaloupes because they’re hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert.” That triggered a rebuke from then-House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio), who said that “what he said does not reflect the values of the American people or the Republican Party.”
. . . .
*********************
Read the rest of Siobhan’s article at the link.
Probably the best news of the week.
In 21 years on the immigration bench, at both the trial and appellate levels, I saw first-hand the amazing, essential, and largely unheralded contributions of immigrants (both documented and undocumented) to our society, at all levels. King’s racist rhetoric was so outrageously and demonstrably unfair and untrue!
As the essential workers who have basically kept America afloat during the pandemic, many at risk of their own health and safety, have shown, it is long past time for us to “lose” the Trump/Miller White Nationalist nonsense, stop caging kids and returning asylum seekers to danger, and integrate the millions of law abiding undocumented residents into our society. The “Dred Scottification of the other” by Trump, which has been disgracefully enabled by a tone-deaf Supreme Court and feckless Congress, needs to end! Removal of King is a small, but significant, step.
Thanks again to Siobhan for giving this story the clear and timely reporting it deserves.
