Louise Radnofsky – immigrationcourtside.com

TRUMP WILL SUBMIT D.O.A. ELITIST PROPOSAL TO REPLACE REFUGEES & FAMILY IMMIGRANTS WITH SO-CALLED “MERIT BASED” IMMIGRANTS — Likely To Please Neither Dems Nor GOP Nativists!

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-to-launch-fresh-immigration-overhaul-bid-11557956429?emailToken=e91bcce392c236a27eb93bec537f274d3Xya4bEDbDZFodGbWxJ/4u0NUXuEAvnPgbSb156wwi6WWZEFlWQFJx37NiRp5fBg1aDR4xXis2M/73eDEh0S7VsigposAuJSIWJu7s2zRoE%3D&reflink=article_email_share

Louise Radnofsky and Natalie Andrews report for the WSJ:

WASHINGTON—President Trump will make a fresh bid Thursday to remake U.S. immigration policy, propos-ing an expansion of skills-based visas offset by new restrictions on family members’ immigration—a proposal likely to ignite a dispute over issues that divide political parties and the country.

Mr. Trump is set to unveil an immigration plan devised in part by son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner that incorpo-rates several ideas that have been gaining currency in Republican circles.

Chief among them: a bill crafted by conservative Republicans that would establish a visa system prioritizing immigrants based on criteria such as education, English-language ability and high-paying job offers.

The proposal also would eliminate the diversity-visa lottery long derided by Mr. Trump as well as immigra-tion routes for family members such as siblings. Moreover, it would limit the number of refugees offered permanent residency to 50,000 a year.

. . . .

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

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

More Trump “smoke and mirrors.” No, it isn’t about “diversity” as one Trump toady falsely claims. Trump eliminates the current diversity visas.

It’s largely about the (likely false) assumption by Trump and others in the GOP that they have cleverly defined “merit” in a restrictive way that will bring in more white, English-speaking, highly-educated individuals from Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. and fewer Africans, Hispanics, Haitians, and Syrians, etc.

Contrary to nativist expectations when the basic current system was enacted in 1965, “immigrants of color” have dramatically increased their share of legal immigration over the past half-century. That has led to a diverse, talented, innovative, dynamic, successful yet “less white” America. According to nativist stereotypes, dumping on family members and refugees and increasing skill, educational, and English-language requirements will result in a “whiter” (that is “more meritorious”) immigrant population going forward.

However, like the nativists of 1965, Trump and his nativists might be surprised by the likely results of their own stereotypical assumptions. Actually, English-speaking immigrants from Africa, Haiti, the Middle East, Mexico, and Venezuela are among the highest skilled and best educated.

Of course, Trump’s elitist proposal also ignores that some of our greatest needs for immigrants pertain to important, but less glamorous, occupations for which neither education nor instant English language skills are a requirement. To keep our economy moving, we actually need more qualified roofers, construction workers, agricultural workers, child care workers, health assistants, security guards, janitors, landscapers, and convenience store operators than we do rocket scientists.

And, no, Tom Cotton and David Purdue, there aren’t enough “American workers” available to fill all these positions, even at greatly increased wages (which, incidentally, your fat cat GOP business supporters have no intention of paying anyway)! How high would the wages have to be to make guys like Cotton and Purdue give up their legislative sinecures (where they do nothing except show up for a few judicial votes on far right candidates scheduled by McConnell) and lay roofs correctly in 100-degree heat?

Rather than working against market forces to artificially restrict the labor supply, those wanting to improve wages and working conditions for American workers should favor higher minimum wages, aggressive enforcement of wage and hour and OSHA laws, and more unions. But, the GOP hates all of those real solutions.

The proposal also ignores “Dreamers,” which is sure to be a sore point with the Democrats. On the other side, it fails to sharply (and mindlessly) slash overall legal immigration levels as demanded by GOP nativists. While this proposal does not directly target children or dump on refugees from the Northern Triangle based on race and nationality, the ever slimier Trump sycophant Lindsey Graham has introduced a bill that promises to do both.

Beyond the purely humanitarian considerations, refugees make huge contributions to our economy and society. So, why would we want to screw them over? Family immigrants arrive not only with skills, but with a “leg up”on adjustment and assimilation. So, why would we want to dump on them?

For the most part, this looks more like a Trump campaign backgrounder or a diversion from his endless stream of lies, unethical behavior, and downright stupid actions that are a constant threat to our national security. What it doesn’t look like is a serious bipartisan proposal to give America the robust, expanded, more realistic, market responsive legal immigration, asylum, and refugee systems we need to secure our borders from real dangers (which doesn’t include most asylum seekers and would-be workers) and move America forward in the 21st century. Without regime change and a sea change that would break the GOP’s minority hold on Congress through the Senate, immigration is likely to remain a mess.

PWS

05-17-19

RADNOFSKY, PETERSON, & ANDREWS: The WSJ’s “Terrific Trio” Takes You Behind The Detention Stats In The “Deal” – It’s Somewhere Between 45,278 & 58,000 In The GOP’s “New American Gulag!”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/border-deal-doesnt-put-detention-questions-to-bed-11550012005?emailToken=e4d9f2903df6925fba0d7795cbe27f54IMR8XuU2eAzPC6wGnaQDljiBDM2JV3QgNqW//jtaX6Ic4r6VRI/10Hmv9RbvuGDwx/GCWiy7mPkYWpOuzZko/5pWA5CLAdmZkvCwIyYeISU=&reflink=article_email_share

By

Louise Radnofsky,

Kristina Peterson and

Natalie Andrews

Feb. 12, 2019 5:53 p.m. ET

Democrats largely came up short in their quest to limit the detention of immigrants as part of a bipartisan border deal reached this week, but the arcane math left lawmakers citing different numbers and activists on both sides crying foul.

The dispute over funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention beds emerged as a late sticking point in the negotiations, and its resolution was key to the deal. Democrats wanted fewer beds and sought limits designed to prioritize the detention of criminals over other immigrants, such as people who overstayed their visas. Republicans wanted more beds and no constraints on which immigrants ICE can detain.

The complications arise in part from the way funding for ICE detention facilities is determined. The formula includes the agency’s average daily population of detained immigrants, but ICE has also moved money around to fund the beds.

In the last fiscal year, Congress funded ICE’s average daily population at 40,520. Under the agreement reached by Democrats and Republicans this week, the administration will get funding for an average daily population of 45,274 in the current fiscal year, congressional aides say. ICE currently holds over 49,000 people in custody.

Democrats have pointed to the possibility that the negotiated number means ICE will have to reduce detention to make the new average work. Republicans have countered that ICE has the ability to transfer money, as it has been doing, to maintain a higher level of beds. Democrats aren’t disputing that they can transfer money, though they note that money will have to come from another account.

The complexities led to varying takes on Capitol Hill, with lawmakers disagreeing on whether the deal increased or decreased the number of detention beds.

Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R., S.D.) estimated that once ICE has transferred money, it could fund up to “58,000 or thereabouts” beds. Sen. Mazie Hirono (D., Hawaii) argued the agreed-to number of beds was actually a reduction. “They are pretty much at 45,000 or so,” she said.

Rep. Mark Meadows (R., N.C.), a hard-liner on illegal immigration, made the GOP’s initial goal his baseline. Comparatively, “it’s less than that,” he said. “It’s about 7,000 beds less.”

Pro- and anti-immigration activists both saw problems with the deal. Sandra Cordero, director of Families Belong Together, said the deal would keep detention levels steady and was “funneling more money to agencies that ripped thousands of children from their parents’ arms.” Mark Krikorian, head of the Center for Immigration Studies, said the reduction in ICE detention capacity “more than cancels out any benefit from that small amount of extra fencing.

Others saw the result as more clear-cut.

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.), the Senate majority leader, claimed victory on the issue and applauded Democrats for abandoning what he called “extreme positions,” including “the idea that we should impose a hard, statutory cap on ICE detainees.”

Sen. Dick Durbin (D., Ill.), a member of the 17-lawmaker group that negotiated the border deal, said Tuesday the Democrats didn’t get everything they had hoped for on beds, a reflection of GOP control of the Senate and White House.

“We had hoped to not only stop the grand and glorious wall, paid for by Mexico, but also to deal with detention beds. I don’t know what the final wording is on this,” Mr. Durbin said, but “we wanted to address both, and it became more difficult when we realized the political reality.”

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

I recognize that the Dems couldn’t solve this problem in these particular negotiations. That’s particularly true because, as aptly noted by Senator Durbin, the GOP holds power in two of the three political entitles of government.

However, let’s not forget that “behind the numbers” are real human beings, not just objects like “beds” or “bed numbers” — terms used to dehumanize the victims and obscure the true nasty nature of DHS “civil” detention. Most of them are not serious criminals and there might not be an “actual suspected terrorist” in DHS detention today. Indeed, it would probably be “gross negligence” to entrust a real suspected terrorist to DHS detention. If given a reasonable chance to get a lawyer, understand the system, and prepare a case, the vast majority of those now detained would appear for their Immigration Hearings, particularly if given an opportunity to be released on ankle monitors or other “alternatives to detention.”

While in the “Gulag,” these individuals have their rights to fairness and Due Process impaired, suffer from substandard conditions (while private contractors who run much of DHS detention profit), and are often duressed into giving up valuable rights and opportunities to apply for relief and “taking removal” just to escape from the intentionally coercive situation that DHS creates.

Yes, a much more limited amount of detention, 15% to 25% of the current number of “beds” (actually humans held in the “Gulag”) might be necessary to protect us from the relatively small number of dangerous individuals and those likely to abscond.

Nevertheless, the “New American Gulag” as now constituted by Trump and enthusiastically supported by the GOP is both unnecessary and a total disgrace to our national reputation and humanity. So, the Dems should “keep at it” for the next budget cycle and continue educating the American public about the useless cruelty, intentional dehumanization, wasted taxpayer money, and questionable contractual arrangements involved in promoting this human rights abomination. It’s also a massive (and expensive) failure as a “deterrent” which, for the most part, is its real purpose.

It’s possible that the Article III Courts eventually will step in. As noted previously in this blog, the Administration appears headed for a “big time” loss on the constitutionality of indefinite detention in the 9^thCircuit. However, unless Chief Justice Roberts “gets religion” and joins the liberals, the Supremes are likely to sell out the Constitution on this one. After all, none of the “Conservative Justices” are in unconstitutional indefinite “civil” detention right now. But, life being what it is, they might not want to be so smugly tone-deaf about caving to the Executive on issues affecting life and liberty. Who knows, maybe someday someone they are related to, know personally, or love will be arbitrarily tossed in the Gulag and have the keys thrown away.

Whether it happens now or long after I’m gone, history will judge the GOP and their enablers harshly for this intentional and thinly disguised racially motivated degradation of humanity. It will have adverse consequences for our country and the world for many generations to come.

Therefore, it’s important to continue “making the record” and never letting the GOP off the hook for what they are doing (although, I will concede that the Dems have also gone through periods of infatuation with the idea of “detention as a deterrent.” Won’t work, never has, never will.)

And, this is from someone, me, who spent part of my earlier career defending, with mixed results, the “Legacy INS’s” right to detain individuals, sometimes indefinitely.

PWS

02-14-19

AOC & CO. ARE RIGHT TO SPEAK OUT ON INEFFECTIVE, INHUMANE, WASTEFUL, OFTEN ILLEGAL DHS POLICIES DRIVEN BY A WHITE NATIONALIST AGENDA – But, They Might Be Better Served By Holding Their Fire For Meaningful Oversight & The Next Budget Cycle – Like It Or Not, DHS Is Here & Isn’t Going Anywhere & We Do Need An Orderly System For Controlling Migration & Processing Refugees At Our Border!

https://www.wsj.com/articles/liberals-urge-democrats-to-take-a-hard-line-on-border-11549323945

Kristina Peterson & Louise Radnofsky report for the WSJ:

WASHINGTON—House Democratic leaders held firm through the five-week government shutdown that ended last month. Still, the party’s liberal wing is keeping up pressure on leadership as negotiations over a border-security deal heat up.

A group of liberal House Democrats and advocacy groups are urging Democrats in a bipartisan negotiating committee to refuse further funding for the Homeland Security Department, which oversees the border with Mexico. The group’s 17 lawmakers have less than two weeks to reach a deal before government funding expires again.

President Trump has said several times he is pessimistic lawmakers can reach a deal that he would accept, and he has threatened to take action to build his long-promised border wall on his own, including possibly declaring a national emergency.

Congressional leaders have been optimistic the group of House and Senate lawmakers can reach an agreement, but any bipartisan deal is unlikely to appease some in the party’s left wing.

A letter to House Democrats, written by freshman Democratic Reps. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, and signed by at least three others, criticizes Homeland Security for practices including prosecution and detention of immigrants.

The department and its frontline enforcement units—Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection—have become high-profile targets as they implement the Trump administration’s attempts to step up deportations and the zero-tolerance policy that last year resulted in family separations at the border.

“These agencies have promulgated an agenda driven by hate—not strategy,” the lawmakers wrote. They argue that the agencies’ ability to shift funds makes it impossible to prevent money from being used for policies that Democrats generally oppose.

Refusing funding for the agency housing the president’s top political priority isn’t going to draw Republican support, a House Democratic aide said, which the committee would need to produce a deal.

“It’s totally unrealistic,” Sen. Roy Blunt (R., Mo.), who is in the negotiating group, said of the Democratic letter. “That basically says you don’t want to secure the border.”

Democrats overall say they favor border security, just not Mr. Trump’s border wall, and immigration advocates said their task is to counter the president.

. . . .

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

Read the complete WSJ report from these “emerging stars on the immigration beat.”

There hasn’t been any meaningful oversight of DHS or the mess DOJ politicos have created at EOIR in two years. So, while there certainly should not be additional funding for DHS’s already overused and abused detention system, for now, Democrats should probably work with DHS as the “only game in town” on the Southern Border.

Over the next year, DHS and DOJ politicos should be required to testify and should be held accountable for the absolute, largely avoidable, chaos and inefficiency they have intentionally, incompetently, or maliciously created in immigration enforcement, our Immigration Courts, the refugee and asylum system, and the system for granting immigration benefits.

Then, based on the record, make rational, fact-based proposals for needed improvements in immigration enforcement, administration, and adjudication for the next budget cycle.

PWS

02-05-19

WELCOME A “NEW FACE ON THE STREET” — Louise Radnofsky Takes Over WSJ’s “Immigration Beat” — Trump’s War On America Mindlessly Trashes An Already Crippled Immigration System!

https://www.wsj.com/articles/shutdown-compounds-woes-for-immigration-system-11548702443?mod=mhp

Louise writes:

U.S. Shutdown Compounds Woes for Immigration System
The partial government shutdown that centered on border security appears to have left the nation’s strained immigration system in an even deeper hole than before.
By Louise Radnofsky
WASHINGTON—The partial government shutdown that centered on border security appears to have left the nation’s strained immigration system in an even deeper hole than before the five-week standoff.
A backlog at immigration courts, at more than 800,000 cases the day before the funding gap that

A backlog at immigration courts, at more than
800,000 cases the day before the funding gap that started Dec. 21, likely grew by around 20,000 for each
of the weeks the courts stopped hearing most cases. Litigation over immigrant-family separations and asylum claims by people crossing the border between official entry points stalled because Justice Department lawyers were furloughed.
E-Verify, the program that hard-liners favor because it bars hiring of illegal immigrant workers, was closed. Around 20,000 U.S. Border Patrol agents worked without pay for an agency already short of about 2,000 officers because of hiring issues and attrition.
“It’s chaos on top of disaster,” said Paul Wickham Schmidt, a retired immigration judge and former chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals. “It’s already a system bursting at the seams….We have a shutdown over border security and immigration, but they shut the mechanism that issues final deportations. How does that make sense?”
The Trump administration says the court delays allow illegal immigrants to stay in the U.S. even if they don’t have strong claims to do so. Immigrant advocates say the delays weaken the cases of immigrants who do have claims to stay, and leave them in limbo.
Before the shutdown, the administration tried to accelerate the court’s docket by imposing case- completion quotas on its 400 judges. The president also proposed adding 75 judges as part of an ultimately unsuccessful deal to end the shutdown. The shutdown effectively denied the government one year’s worth of work by 40 judges—with no new judges to show for it.
The active-case backlog was 809,041 at the end of November, said the Transactional Records Access

Clearinghouse at Syracuse University, which tracks court activity. Between Dec. 21 and Jan. 11, a period that included some days where the courts would have been closed for holidays anyway, 42,726 scheduled hearings had been canceled, TRAC said.
TRAC estimated that each subsequent week the courts were closed would result in approximately 20,000 canceled hearings. Susan Long, TRAC’s co-director, said it couldn’t calculate a total for the backlog now because current Freedom-of-Information requests about the number of cases in the system, including new ones added, went unanswered as the people handling them were furloughed.

RelatedTrump Skeptical He Would Accept Any Border Deal
Analysis: For Democrats, Shutdown Success Also Brings Danger
CBO: Shutdown Will Cost $3 Billion of Projected GDP Who’s Negotiating Border Security

E-Verify, the voluntary online system employers use to verify workers’ immigration status, was suspended through the shutdown. Employers couldn’t enroll, create new cases or view existing ones. The 300 E- Verify workers at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services were the only of the agency’s 17,973 employees to be furloughed because the program is funded through congressional appropriations; others, such as naturalizations, are funded through user fees.
Some supporters of tighter immigration restrictions say E-Verify is the federal government’s most important tool to curb illegal immigration because it makes it harder for illegal immigrants to work in the U.S.
Eric Ruark, director of research at NumbersUSA, a group advocating reduction of immigration both legal and illegal, said E-Verify is much more effective than border barriers, and his group has supported mandating its use for employers. “A wall is not at the top of our list,” he said.
E-Verify reported more than 40 million people were checked during the year ended Sept. 30, on requests from more than 266,000 employers, for an average of more than 750,000 cases a week. Citizenship and Immigration Services said employers were still required during the shutdown to obtain and submit information from new hires about their immigration status, even if they couldn’t immediately obtain a verification determination.
Customs and Border Protection required around 55,000 of its roughly 60,000 employees to work without pay through the shutdown, according to contingency planning documents drawn up by the Department of Homeland Security.
Meanwhile, Justice Department lawyers working on important litigation were furloughed, applied for stays, and courts agreed to postpone deadlines.

Lee Gelernt, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who is suing the administration in several cases, said he planned to use the government’s request for a pause against it in the case over asylum-seeking outside of ports of entry. “The administration told the Supreme Court—and the country—that the asylum ban was critical for our national security yet then asked that the case be stayed during the shutdown, leaving no doubt that the administration itself does not actually believe the asylum ban is a matter of national security,” he said.
A Justice Department spokeswoman, one of a handful working through the shutdown, said the government had been granted stays in some cases and denied in others. She said she couldn’t comment in detail because the majority of her co-workers were still furloughed.
Alicia A. Caldwell contributed to this article. Write to Louise Radnofsky at
louise.radnofsky@wsj.com

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

Welcome Louise, to “where the action is!” Glad to have you “on the beat.” We all look forward to reading much more of your timely reporting and incisive analysis.

This article shows what a complete hoax Trump’s $5.7 billion border wall “demand” is. Trump’s disrespect for the workers who are the only thing propping up his corrupt and incompetent Administration of grifters is breathtaking as is his contempt for rational immigration enforcement.

Trump’s “malicious incompetence” just cost our country $3 billion in unrecoverable losses! And, he’s certainly vindictive enough to do it again in less than three weeks. So, those who still care about our nation had better have a “Plan B” to thwart his renewed attack on democracy.

The Trump Administration is Kakistocracy in action.

PWS

01-26-19

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: