immigrationcourtside.com

Some Thought The World Would Test President Trump With An Early Crisis — But He Didn’t Wait — He Provoked An Entirely Avoidable One — With Our Friend, Ally, Neighbor, And Huge Trading Partner To The South!

http://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-little-mexican-war-1485477900

From today’s WSJ editorial:

“When Mr. Trump visited the Journal in November 2015, we asked if the U.S. should encourage political stability and economic growth in Mexico. “I don’t care about Mexico honestly, I really don’t care about Mexico,” he replied.

That’s obvious, but he should care—and he will have to—if Mexico regresses to its ways before its reformation began in the 1980s. For decades our southern neighbor was known for one-party government, anti-Americanism, hyperinflation and political turmoil.

With U.S. encouragement, Mexico began to reform its statist economic model and embrace global competition. Ahead of the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta), Mexico privatized thousands of state-owned companies and deregulated much of the economy. With Nafta it cut tariffs and opened to foreign investment. Mexican agricultural was especially hard-hit by U.S. competition, but its businesses became more efficient and Nafta helped the country rebound from the 1994 peso crisis.”

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

“I really don’t care about Mexico.” That really says it all about our President. But, maybe we should care, even if he doesn’t. What’s going to happen when he’s called upon to handle a real international crisis, not just one of his own making?

PWS

01/27/17

Optimists’ Corner: Human Dialogue Overcomes Political Divide At Busboys & Poets

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2017/01/24/not-race-not-gender-just-american-these-white-men-left-their-black-waitress-an-uplifting-note-and-a-450-tip/?postshare=4291485513678958&tid=ss_fb&utm_term=.b959856dabfa

Colby Ikowitz writes in the Washington Post:

“But she said the men left her with so much more. Their words were a reminder not to make assumptions. And that so many Americans want unity, regardless of their politics, and to not be afraid to connect with someone as human beings, she said.

“This definitely reshaped my perspective. Republican, Democrat, liberal are all subcategories to what we are experiencing,” she said. “It instills a lot of hope.”

For White, he said he wanted to show her that they probably have more in common than it would appear.

“As I sat there I thought about the entire weekend and I thought I don’t know her, she doesn’t know me, but if most Americans have a preconceived perception about people then we’re never going to get better,” he said.”

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

This “upbeat” take on today’s politics was forwarded to me by my ever optimistic friend, neighbor, and fellow dog walker Professor Alberto Benítez from GW Law. Teacher, role model, and steadfast advocate for social justice, human dignity, and understanding, Professor Benítez and his Clinic Students have been saving lives while doing good in the Arlington Immigration Court for many years. Lots of his alums are out there “making a difference every day” in Government, private practice, the NGO community, and academia.

One of the many great things the Professor has taught his student-attorneys is who really makes our justice system work at the “retail level:” of course, it is the dedicated, hard working, professional court staff who can tell you more about what the practice of law is actually about than almost any judge, prosecutor, or academic. When I worked at Dane County Legal Services after my first year at U.W. Law, my supervising attorney immediately took me over to the courthouse and introduced me to the folks in the Clerk’s Office. He said “These are the people who are going to make you or break you as a lawyer, so treat them well and they’ll show you the ropes.” It’s a lesson I never forgot.

Another great thing about Professor Benítez is his “Wisconsin connection” through his wonderful wife Janice, a native of the famous Fox River Valley metropolis of Oshkosh (by gosh, there really is such a place)!

PWS

01/27/17

USA Today: Cato Institute Says “America The Great” Hiding From Its Own Shadow — Chance Of American Being Killed By Vetted Refugee Terrorist: One in 36 Billion — You’d Probably Have A Better Chance Of Winning The Lottery 100X In A Row Or Being Killed By Your Own Lawnmower! — Trump To Bar Mexican-Made Lawnmowers Next?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/01/25/syrian-refugees-trump-extreme-vetting-column/97043442/

Stephen Yale-Loehr and Nicholas Logothetis write in USA Today:

“The Cato Institute calculates that the chance of being killed in a terrorist attack committed by a refugee is about one in 3.6 billion a year. By comparison, CATO found, your chance of being murdered by anyone is one in 14,000. The head of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services told Congress in September that not a single act of actual terrorist violence has been committed by a refugee “who has undergone our screening procedures” since 9/11.”

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

In a “fact-free parallel universe” who cares? We can’t easily solve the real problems of worldwide terrorism, so let’s all “kick the cat.”

PWS

01/26/17

Quartz: Trump’s War With Mexico — One Way Or The Other, U.S. Taxpayers Will Foot The Bill — Gonna Love Those $12 Avocados!

https://qz.com/896065/donald-trumps-plan-to-tax-mexican-imports-by-20-would-totally-backfire-and-american-consumers-would-foot-the-bill/

Economist Emily Oster writes in Quartz:

“So how does this relate to Mexico? In this case, the suppliers are the ones who should have an easy time finding a substitute for American purchasers. Mexican companies will likely to be able to shift their sales elsewhere. (China will love avocados!)

But since people in the US buy a lot of products from Mexico, there are not such easy swaps. So the prices to the consumer will go up, potentially by almost the entire tax.

The only thing that would be worse is a tariff on all imports.”

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

Let’s see. Mexico has oil and products to sell, but needs foreign investment and markets to offset the U.S.

China has investment capital and potential consumer markets up the wazoo, but has an insatiable appetite for oil and wants to establish a dominant economic and political position in the Pacific. The U.S. is unilaterally withdrawing from the Pacific market and leaving the field to China.

Mexico borders on the Pacific. Mexico needs a foreign partner to give it leverage against the U.S. China would love to build a friendly economic powerhouse on America’s southern border.

I’m only a retired judge, not an economist, but it sure looks to me like the Trump Administration is setting us up to be the “big loser” here.

Oh, yeah, the United States grows our own avocados. So who needs Mexico? But, if we actually succeed in barring Mexican workers from the U.S, who’s going to pick them, and at what price?

Mexicans and Mexican-Americans have been helping to support the U.S. economy for years with their hard work in essential jobs that other Americans don’t really want or can’t do as well. At the same time, they have served as convenient scapegoats for failed (mostly Republican-inspired) U.S. economic policies. Mexican workers, whether legal or undocumented, didn’t cause the mortgage crisis that led to the most recent U.S. recession.

Up until now, Mexican leaders have talked big, but essentially “bought into” Trump’s “we own you, whatcha going to do about it” attitude. At some point, however, they might work up the courage to get out of their historic dependency on the U.S., look around, and see that there is a “brave new world” out there — one that would like to do business with someone other than Donald Trump.

If so, those of Americans who can’t afford the $12 avocados might find themselves out there picking them. After all, Trump did promise to create new jobs; he just failed to mention what kind.

PWS

01/27/17

Politico: Haste Makes Waste — Acting First, Thinking Later, Might Come Back To Haunt Trump Administration!

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trumps-flashy-executive-actions-could-run-aground-234200

“Experts warned that the quick moves could hurt Trump down the line and cause him to eventually slow down.

The State Department exhaustively reviewed the Keystone XL pipeline over many years before Obama rejected it, but Trump didn’t call upon agency officials’ expertise, even though reviving the project could prove complicated. It isn’t clear how Trump’s memo, which invites TransCanada to reapply for a permit, might bear on the company’s $15 billion claim against the U.S. under the North American Free Trade Agreement.

“The notion you would do something like this on an issue impacting a claim against the U.S. government for $15 billion without getting a full briefing from people involved — that’s more than unusual, that’s reckless,” said Keith Benes, a former State Department lawyer who handled Keystone.

There’s also the issue of Trump’s sweeping orders on immigration Wednesday that came with big promises but little clarity on who will ultimately foot the bill. For example, building a wall along the Mexico border is likely to cost at least $20 billion, and tripling border enforcement agents will likely cost billions more.

Trump has promised that Mexico will reimburse the United States for the cost of constructing the wall, and the executive order included vague language about the financing of the additional agents.

“He needs money to do it,” said Theresa Cardinal Brown, director of immigration policy for the Bipartisan Policy Center. “You can’t shuffle money around even within a department. You have to go back to Congress.”

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

What’s reality, when you live in a parallel universe?

PWS

01/26/17

Opportunity Knocks: Amicus Invitation No. 17-01-26 AMICUS INVITATION (ATTEMPT TO TRANSPORT A NARCOTIC DRUG FOR SALE), DUE FEBRUARY 27, 2017

Amicus Invitation No. 17-01-26
AMICUS INVITATION (ATTEMPT TO TRANSPORT A NARCOTIC DRUG FOR SALE), DUE FEBRUARY 27, 2017

JANUARY 26, 2017

The Board of Immigration Appeals welcomes interested members of the public to file amicus curiae briefs discussing the below issue:

ISSUES PRESENTED:

(1) Whether, assuming that Arizona prohibits at least one narcotic drug that is not within the Federal controlled substances schedules and that its statute is not divisible, a conviction for attempt to transport a narcotic drug for sale under Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 13-3408(A)(7) and 13-3408(B)(7) is a crime involving moral turpitude. Please discuss in this regard Matter of Khourn, 21 I&N Dec. 1041 (BIA 1997), and Matter of Silva-Trevino, 26 I&N Dec. 826 (BIA 2016).
(2) Whether the respondent is removable under section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) or section 212(a)(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act based on a conviction for attempt to transport a narcotic drug for sale under Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 13-3408(A)(7) and 13- 3408(B)(7), in light of Mathis v. United States, ___U.S.___, 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016); Lopez-Valencia v. Lynch, 798 F.3d 863 (9th Cir. 2015); and Matter of Chairez, 26 I&N Dec. 819 (BIA 2016).

Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae: Members of the public who wish to appear as amicus curiae before the Board must submit a Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae (“Request to Appear”) pursuant to Chapter 2.10, Appendix B (Directory), and Appendix F (Sample Cover Page) of the Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual. The Request to Appear must explicitly identify that it is responding to Amicus Invitation No. 17-01-26. The decision to accept or deny a Request to Appear is within the sole discretion of the Board. Please see Chapter 2.10 of the Board Practice Manual.

Filing a Brief: Please file your amicus brief in conjunction with your Request to Appear pursuant to Chapter 2.10 of the Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual. The brief accompanying the Request to Appear must explicitly identify that it is responding to Amicus Invitation No. 17-01-26. An amicus curiae brief is helpful to the Board if it presents relevant legal arguments that the parties have not already addressed. However, an amicus brief must be limited to a legal discussion of the issue(s) presented. The decision to accept or deny an amicus brief is within the sole discretion of the Board. The Board will not consider a brief that exceeds the scope of the amicus invitation.

Request for Case Information: Additional information about the case may be available. Please contact the Amicus Clerk by phone or mail (see contact information below) for this information prior to filing your Request to Appear and brief.

Page Limit: The Board asks that amicus curiae briefs be limited to 30 double-spaced pages. 1

Deadline: Please file a Request to Appear and brief with the Clerk’s Office at the address below by February 27, 2017. Your request must be received at the Clerk’s Office within the prescribed time limit. Motions to extend the time for filing a Request to Appear and brief are disfavored. The briefs or extension request must be RECEIVED at the Board on or before the due date. It is not sufficient simply to mail the documents on time. We strongly urge the use of an overnight courier service to ensure the timely filing of your brief.

Service: Please mail three copies of your Request to Appear and brief to the Clerk’s Office at the address below. If the Clerk’s Office accepts your brief, it will then serve a copy on the parties and provide parties time to respond.

Joint Requests: The filing of parallel and identical or similarly worded briefs from multiple amici is disfavored. Rather, collaborating amici should submit a joint Request to Appear and brief. See generally Chapter 2.10 (Amicus Curiae).

Notice: A Request to Appear may be filed by an attorney, accredited representative, or an organization represented by an attorney registered to practice before the Board pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1292.1(f). A Request to Appear filed by a person specified under 8 U.S.C. § 1367(a)(1) will not be considered.

Attribution: Should the Board decide to publish a decision, the Board may, at its discretion, name up to three attorneys or representatives. If you wish a different set of three names or you have a preference on the order of the three names, please specify the three names in your Request to Appear and brief.

Clerk’s Office Contact and Filing Address:

To send by courier or overnight delivery service, or to deliver in person:

Amicus Clerk
Board of Immigration Appeals Clerk’s Office
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Church, VA 22041 703-605-1007

Business hours: Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Fee: A fee is not required for the filing of a Request to Appear and amicus brief.

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

Once again, kudos and thanks to the BIA for asking for public input on these “sure to be precedent” issues!

PWS

01/27/17

Quartz: President Trump’s Claim Of High Correlation Between Undocumented Migrants And Crime Appears Bogus

https://qz.com/895624/how-much-crime-is-committed-by-immigrants/

Annalisa Merelli writes in Quartz:

“In his Jan. 25 executive order titled “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,” [P]resident Donald Trump announced that the Secretary of Homeland Security will publish, among other things, a weekly list of crimes committed by undocumented immigrants.

This might suggest that people in the US illegally commit an unusually large number of crimes. There isn’t a register of crimes committed by this group of people, so it’s hard to show whether or not that’s the case. However, two data points suggest this group commits fewer crimes than people in the country legally. They are pointed out in a 2015 special report from the American Immigration Council.”

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

PWS

01/26/17

From “The Week:” Strange Bedfellows — If “Sanctuary Cities” & Migrants’ Advocates Defeat President Trump’s Policies In Court, They Might Owe A Huge Debt To Conservative Judges, Like The Late Justice Antonin Scalia!

http://theweek.com/articles/674498/how-conservative-judges-unintentionally-sabotaged-president-trumps-immigration-crackdown

Self-described “free-market progressive libertarian” Shikha Dalmia writes in The Week:

“But there’s another big cost that will hamstring this sanctuary city crackdown: If he can’t command local cooperation by threatening to cut funds, then President Trump also can’t de facto deputize local law enforcement agents. So he will have to cough up large sums of federal money to triple the size of the federal deportation force that would be required to eject millions of additional people.

And that will also mean bad optics, because without cooperative local authorities, President Trump will not be able to order ICE agents to whisk away all of these folks quietly in the dead of the night, shielded from media cameras. Instead, he’ll have to start raiding schools, neighborhoods, and workplaces, which will make for terrible publicity.

Whether Trump will go that far remains to be seen. But thanks primarily to the conservative justices on the Supreme Court, it’ll be very hard for him to do so. And that gives undocumented workers far more of a chance than if they had to depend only on the good intentions of local liberal politicians.

The irony is that these immigrants would be in much bigger trouble if Justice Sonia Sotomayor, along with her liberal colleague Ruth Bader Ginsburg, had prevailed in the ObamaCare ruling, as many liberals had hoped at the time. They were completely on board with ObamaCare’s efforts to use federal funds to strong-arm states.

So what’s the lesson? That standing up for bedrock checks and balances is a far better protector of vulnerable minorities than do-gooding liberal politics.”

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

I’ve written before that the Trump Administration might not get the anticipated “free pass” to bash migrants that they apparently anticipate from Republican appointees on the U.S. Courts of Appeals and a conservative majority Supreme Court. Leaving aside “hot button” or “litmus test” issues like abortion, doctrinal conservatives often have great Constitutional reservations about the unbridled use of Executive Power. Indeed, doctrinal conservatism at some point comes close to libertarianism, and libertarianism has some things in common with liberalism.

Thus, at some point in my career, I found myself sitting at a Cato Institute Seminar and nodding in agreement when none other than Grover Norquist described his essentially “free market” approach to migration and border enforcement issues.

In the end, the fact that independent Article III judges, conservative, liberal, middle of the roaders, Republicans, and Democrats, freed of political control, will deliberatively decide what the law requires could turn out to be a bigger problem for the Trump Administration than they had anticipated.

PWS

01/27/17

The Nation: Ivanka’s Husband, Beloved Son-In-Law, Trusted Advisor — Jared Kushner Probably Wouldn’t Here Under His Father-In-Law’s Restrictive Policies!

Read the moving story of Jared Kushner’s ancestors and how an eventual thaw in America’s anti-immigrant attitudes and rabidly anti-semitic policies saved the family.

https://www.thenation.com/article/nobody-wanted-to-take-us-in-the-story-of-jared-kushners-family-and-mine/

“Although the specific targets have changed, some of the language and much of the vitriol spewed at immigrants some 100 years ago wouldn’t be out of place at one of Trump’s “Make America Great Again” rallies, or tumbling from the mouth of his chosen national-security adviser or attorney general. Then, as now, hypernationalistic figures raged against religious minorities they deemed suspicious, scheming, and potentially disloyal. Then, as now, war abroad stirred up refugee phobias at home. And while there are differences, to be sure—while the past is never simple prelude—then, as is happening again now, the ugly rhetoric quickly gave way to ugly policy.”

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

So why don’t folks like Jared and Ivanka, who seem like decent people, have had the good fortune to live privileged lives in the United States, and have influence with the President, stand up for the vulnerable and less privileged? Why don’t they “just say no” to President Trump’s rekindling of the types of policies and attitudes that might have condemned Jared’s family to eternal agony with nowhere to turn for salvation and refuge?

PWS

01/27/17

Refugees Make America Great, And Make Each Of Us Better Human Beings — A Dissenting View From Trump Policies

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/26/opinions/lets-help-syrian-refugees-warmflash-opinion/index.html

“Having worked firsthand with refugees in my community, I think Donald Trump has it wrong – they love America,” Ora Warmflash writes on CNN:

“President Trump has said his refugee ban is necessary to protect our country, and his executive order reads, “We must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward our country and its founding principles.”
In addition to suspending the admission of refugees, he wants to cut in half the total number who could be admitted.
It’s easy to get lost in the global scope of the refugee crisis and the tough language of our new President’s insistence that we need tighter vetting. It’s too easy to forget the human reality of what it’s like to be — or to welcome — a family seeking solace and a new life.
One thing I know is this family is so grateful to be here. When my husband met them for the first time, just a few days after they arrived here, he asked them how they are adjusting. “We love America,” they said. Whenever we see them, every meeting starts and ends with kisses on each cheek and the words “thank you.”

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

PWS

01/26/17

Arlington Immigration Court “Chatter” — Local Immigration Attorney Says “New Sheriff In Town” — The End of “PD”

From today’s e-mail “chatter:”

“For all those who said ‘he doesn’t mean what he says’ or ‘it will not be that bad’ that is now officially bullshit. As of this afternoon all DHS Office of Chief Counsel prosecutors have been instructed not to exercise prosecutorial discretion in removal cases. The most recent executive order from the White House lists as enforcement priorities for removal those who have been CHARGED with a criminal offense whether that offense is resolved or not. In immigration offices and courts throughout the US ‘there’s a new Sheriff in town’ is driving denials and deprivation of rights. We have closed our doors to refugees and now will embark on an interior campaign against immigrants. And it is day 6.”

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

Sad, but predictable, based on yesterday’s Interior Enforcement Executive Order. While it lasted, prosecutorial discretion (“PD”) was one of the best and smartest policies ever applied by immigration prosecutors.

It was a “quadruple winner:” prosecutors got low priority cases off their overcrowded dockets; overtaxed Immigration Courts could concentrate on more important cases; respondents with equities, good records, who had lived productive lives, and paid taxes got (limited, but potentially life-saving) humanitarian relief that the courts could not offer; and communities, employers, and families in the United States got to retain individuals who were contributing to our country in large and small ways.

But, as I’ve indicated before, sometimes philosophical roadblocks (including bias and prejudice) blind folks to their own self interest. And, I’m NOT talking about the DHS Counsel here; their hands are tied and clearly nobody asked them before the politicos changed the policies. They are just the “messengers” for policies that they don’t necessarily endorse.

PWS

01/26/17

Grossman Law LLC Analyzes Impact Of Exec Orders On Migrants, Families!

Trump’s Executive Orders on Immigration
Yesterday, January 25, 2017, President Trump signed two Executive Orders on immigration, demonstrating that he will take a hard-line, no compromise, and enforcement only approach to handling our nation’s already broken immigration system. Through these Orders, the Trump Administration communicated the following priorities:
Border Wall: The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) must immediately begin planning, designing, and constructing a physical wall along the nearly 2000-mile southern border. The U.S. (not Mexico) will pay for this wall at an estimated price tag of $6.5 million per mile. This is an unconscionable expenditure at a time when statistics show that the southern border is more secure than ever and illegal border crossings are at a 40-year low!

Increased Detention of Asylum Seekers and immigrants at the southern border: DHS is authorized to hire an additional 5000 Border Patrol Agents and build new detention facilities. DHS will no longer release asylum seekers on bond or electronic monitoring; instead, asylum-seekers will remain in jail while their cases are pending, and will have to gather evidence, prepare legal arguments, and present their cases while in detention. Not only will this be expensive ($125 per adult per day, or in the case of family detention, $343 per person per day), but it is inhumane. An estimated 88% of Central American women, children, and families crossing the Southern border have valid asylum claims. Subjecting them to prolonged detention further traumatizes them and violates this country’s proud tradition of welcoming those fleeing persecution.

Revised Removal Priorities: DHS is authorized to hire up to 10,000 additional immigration officers who will prioritize for removal individuals convicted of any criminal offense whatsoever, no matter how minor or insignificant. They will also prioritize for removal individuals who have open charges pending against them, even if they have not been found guilty by a judge or jury, and individuals who have never been charged or convicted of a crime, but whom an immigration officer believes may have committed a criminal act or may otherwise pose a risk to public safety or national security. This vague and overbroad policy opens the door for rampant constitutional and civil rights violations. It also has the potential to expose both federal and deputized state and local agencies to frequent and protracted litigation.

Relatedly, the President has also Deputized State and Local Law Enforcement Officials to act as immigrant agents in apprehending, investigating, and detaining immigrants. Local jurisdictions currently have no legal obligation to assist with civil immigration enforcement, as immigration enforcement is the responsibility of the federal government alone. Forcing local police to act as immigration agents strains their already limited resources and reduces their ability to respond to and investigate crime. Importantly, this policy also deters immigrants who are victims of crime from coming forward and reporting criminal activity. By alienating our immigrant neighbors and over-taxing local police, this policy will make our communities even less safe.

Sanctuary Cities: President Trump pledges to end “sanctuary cities” (jurisdictions which protect the identity of non-criminal immigrant members of the community by refusing to share information about those individuals with federal immigration authorities). He has promised to end “sanctuary cities” by denying them Federal grants and funding. This move, too, jeopardizes the safety of all Americans. It undermines community policing efforts that encourage everyone to work with the police to prevent and solve crime. When immigrants distrust and fear local law enforcement, victims and key witnesses refuse to come forward out of fear of deportation.

Without a doubt, the impact of these directives will be substantial. Grossman Law is concerned that the President’s priorities skirt the long-established due process rights of all individuals, including immigrants, within our borders. Additionally, the attack on “sanctuary cities” will have the negative impact of further dividing our nation and the potential of increasing crime in our largest cities. Our nation’s history, prosperity and growth has been closely aligned with the prosperity and growth of immigrants. The executive orders, in large part, will work to destroy this proud history, and will have the consequence of instilling fear, rather than hope, into the hearts of deserving immigrants. This is “un-American” and misguided policy. Grossman Law will closely monitor the implementation of these Orders and will provide ongoing advice and counsel to our clients, and will continue organizing to ensure the protection of rights for all.

Grossman Law, LLC
4922 Fairmont Avenue, Suite 200
Bethesda, Maryland 20814
Phone: (240) 403-0913
Website: www.GrossmanLawLLC.com

Like us on FacebookFollow us on TwitterView on Instagram
Find us on Google+Find us on Yelp
Grossman Law, LLC, 4922 Fairmont Ave., Suite 200, Bethesda, MD 20814
SafeUnsubscribe™ jennings12@aol.com
Forward this email | Update Profile | About our service provider
Sent by team@grossmanlawllc.com in collaboration with
Constant Contact
Try it free today

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

PWS

01/26/17

Sanctuary Wars: The Republic, And Its Cities, Strike Back!

Immigration beat reporter Beth Fertig of WNYC/NPR reports:

“There is no single definition of a sanctuary city, and policies vary tremendously across the country. But in New York City, immigration agents are not allowed in the jails. When immigrants without legal status are arrested, they can only be detained or turned over to federal agents for deportation if there’s a warrant and they’ve been convicted of a violent crime. A 2014 local law spells out nearly 170 different offenses that meet that definition. They include various forms of assault, arson and sex crimes.

Council Speaker Melissa Mark Viverito said these limits make sense.

“If you’re committing a nonviolent offense but you’re otherwise contributing positively to the city, why should you be torn apart from your family?”

Police Commissioner James O’Neill and Mayor Bill de Blasio joined the argument Wednesday, saying that immigrants will be less likely to cooperate with law enforcement if they’re afraid of deportation. “We build trust,” said O’Neill. “I wouldn’t want to do anything to put that at risk.”

Trump’s order changes enforcement priorities, too. In addition to aliens convicted of criminal offenses, the Department of Homeland security will also prioritize those who have been “charged with any criminal offense, where such charge has not been resolved.”

Avideh Moussavian, a policy attorney with the National Immigration Law Center, warned that this policy could lead to “gross infractions of due process protections.”

She said people could become enforcement priorities if “they have been merely charged with an offense, even if their charge is pending and turns out later to be dismissed.”

From a practical standpoint, it would be very difficult to deport more immigrants. The nation’s immigration courts have a tremendous backlog of cases. Judges who handle immigration cases estimate there are 75 vacancies among their ranks, and Trump has imposed a federal hiring freeze. However, the executive order means that the freeze on judges could be lifted in the name of national security.”

Read Beth’s complete article, including comments from Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute in favor of the President’s crackdown at:

http://www.wnyc.org/story/why-sanctuary-city-dispute-about-safety/

Mollie Reilly, Deputy Politics Editor, and her colleagues write on HuffPost:

“Independent of the ultimate legality of the executive order, politicians from those sanctuary cities say they aren’t budging, and legal advocacy groups are gearing up for the coming legal fight.
The president is “in for one hell of a fight,” California state Sen. Scott Weiner (D), who represents San Francisco, said in a statement.
Boston Mayor Marty Walsh (D) said his city “will not retreat one inch” from its policy against holding undocumented immigrants it otherwise would not hold based on requests from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Seattle Mayor Ed Murray said his city “will not be intimidated by the authoritarian message coming from this administration.” San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee (D) said “nothing has changed” in his city, noting the lack of specifics in Trump’s order.
“We are going to fight this, and cities and states around the country are going to fight this,” New York Mayor Bill de Blasio (D) said at a press conference Wednesday.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) already began hinting at a legal challenge, releasing a statement that Trump lacks the constitutional authority for his executive order and that he will do “everything in [his] power” to push back if the president does not rescind it.
Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson (D) also warned of potential legal challenges to come, saying in a statement that the order “raises significant legal issues that my office will be investigating closely to protect the constitutional and human rights of the people of our state.”
There’s no exact definition of “sanctuary city.” Places like San Francisco and New York use the term broadly to refer to their immigrant-friendly policies, but more generally the term is applied to cities and counties that do not reflexively honor all of Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s requests for cooperation. Many of these localities do work with ICE to detain and hand over immigrants suspected or convicted of serious crimes, but they often release low-priority immigrants requested by ICE if they have no other reason to hold them.
“The reason that many local law enforcement officers don’t honor detainers is because courts have said that they violate the Constitution, and if they violate the Constitution, the localities are on the hook financially,” said Cesar Cuauhtemoc Garcia Hernandez, a law professor at the University of Denver who teaches on the intersection of criminal law and immigration.
Just on Tuesday, a federal court in Rhode Island joined several others that have ruled in recent years that certain ICE detainers can violate people’s constitutional rights ― even those of U.S. citizens.
But Trump’s executive order seems to overlook this legal reality, and instead frames sanctuary cities with the alarmist rhetoric he used on the campaign trail.”

Read Mollie & co.’s complete report here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-sanctuary-cities_us_

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

PWS

01/26/17

Fox News: Text Of President Trump’s Executive Order On Interior Enforcement!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/25/text-trump-executive-order-on-enhancing-public-safety-in-interior-united-states.html

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

Wow! Incredibly broad! Probably easier to determine what isn’t a priority (offhand, I’d say something like “undocumented migrants already in the United States who have lived lives completely free from any run-ins with the law” — and, there are definitely quite a few of those) than what is!

Unlike the Border Enforcement Executive Order, which specifically requires detention of arriving migrants with very narrow, case-by-case, exceptions, this order does not specifically direct immigration officials to detain all interior removal “priorities.” But, it certainly is implicit in the President’s Order that all of the stated removal priorities “present a significant threat to national security and public safety.” That’s probably going to result in at least a de facto “presumption of detention” in all priority cases. And, regulations, precedents, or other directives from the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General could specifically establish such a presumption.

So, everyone arriving at the border without documentation is a priority and will be thrown in detention. And, everyone in the interior who is undocumented and has ever been arrested, charged, or committed any crime, no matter how minor, and regardless of whether convicted, will also be prioritized, and most of them will be thrown in detention.

Consequently, almost everybody in Immigration Court will be a “Detained Priority” or an “Enforcement Priority” of some type. That’s going to mean yet another massive re-shuffling of dockets.

And, since almost everyone will be detained, there will be even more excruciating pressure on already stressed and overwhelmed U.S. Immigration Judges to “move” these cases, without much regard to due process, because detention will be costing a fortune (and the Supremes well might place a limit on the duration of “pre-hearing” detention).

In that case, why would anybody interested in being a “real” judge who isn’t already in the system and not eligible to retire, want the Immigration Judge’s job? Yes, I’m sure that there will be many lawyers out there who need jobs and will apply. But, they are likely to be those who see being a “judge” in the Executive Branch under such circumstances as a law enforcement position, rather than a chance to be an impartial “umpire,” scholar, or dispenser of balanced and deliberative due process.

Perhaps, the initiative will be a huge enforcement success; the Article III Courts will sign on and basically dispense with any semblance of “normal” due process for migrants, thus allowing them essentially to be railroaded out of the U.S. Obviously, that’s what the Administration is counting on.

Alternatively, however, the Article III Courts might “dig in” and insist on scrupulously fair hearings, thereby essentially grinding all enforcement to a halt and forcing massive “re-dos” of already “expedited” and “prioritized” cases. In that event, the initiative will turn out to be a colossal and incredibly expensive failure.

I suspect that the Supremes will have to sort this out in the fairly near future. In the past, a Supreme Court with the late Justice Antonin Scalia sitting frequently vindicated the rights of migrants against attempted Government overreaching by Administrations of both parties. So, it’s by no means a “given” that a Supreme Court with a disciple of Justice Scalia as the new Justice would necessarily endorse all aspects of the President’s enforcement initiatives. We’ll just have to wait and see.

And, surprisingly, particularly to those who think that this is a “great” idea, the answer may affect the due process rights of more than just migrants. You never know when you yourself might be in need of a little due process. It often happens to those who least expect it.

Meanwhile, “back at the ranch,” not only is it a great time not to be a refugee, but it’s a really great time to be retired from the USG (and, the U.S. Immigration Court, in particular).

PWS

01/25/17

Vox Reports More Harsh Executive Actions On Migration May Be In The Offing!

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/25/14390106/leaked-drafts-trump-immigrants-executive-order

“On Tuesday, Vox was given six documents that purported to be draft executive orders under consideration by the Trump administration. The source noted that “all of these documents are still going through formal review” in the Executive Office of the President and “have not yet been cleared by [the Department of Justice or the Office of Legal Counsel].”

We were not, at the time, able to verify the authenticity of the documents and did not feel it would be reasonable to publish or report on them.

But on Wednesday afternoon, Trump signed two executive orders on immigration that word-for-word matched the drafts we’d received. Given that our source had early access to two documents that were proven accurate, and that all the orders closely align with Trump’s stated policies on the campaign trail, we are reporting on the remaining four.

The source cautioned that “there are substantive comments on several of these drafts from multiple elements of NSC staff” and “if previous processes remain the norm, there [are] likely to be some substantive revisions.” It is possible these orders will emerge with substantial changes, or even be scrapped altogether.

We sent the White House PDFs of the documents and left voicemails with aides, but did not receive a response.

The two orders released today by the Trump administration, and delivered yesterday by our source, start the process of building President Trump’s famous “wall,” and make it easier for immigration agents to arrest, detain, and deport unauthorized immigrants at the border and in the US. Those policies are explained in detail here.

The four remaining draft orders obtained by Vox focus on immigration, terrorism, and refugee policy. They wouldn’t ban all Muslim immigration to the US, breaking a Trump promise from early in his campaign, but they would temporarily ban entries from seven majority-Muslim countries and bar all refugees from coming to the US for several months. They would make it harder for immigrants to come to the US to work, make it easier to deport them if they use public services, and put an end to the Obama administration program that protected young “DREAMer” immigrants from deportation.

In all, the combined documents would represent one of the harshest crackdowns on immigrants — both those here and those who want to come here — in memory.”

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

See the full Vox story at the link for details on each of the “draft” orders.

PWS

01/25/17

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: