immigrationcourtside.com

Read Political Satire From Andy Borowitz: “Nation with Crumbling Bridges and Roads Excited to Build Giant Wall”

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/nation-with-crumbling-bridges-and-roads-excited-to-build-giant-wall

“WASHINGTON ()—As America’s bridges, roads, and other infrastructure dangerously deteriorate from decades of neglect, there is a mounting sense of urgency that it is time to build a giant wall.

Across the U.S., whose rail system is a rickety antique plagued by deadly accidents, Americans are increasingly recognizing that building a wall with Mexico, and possibly another one with Canada, should be the country’s top priority.

Harland Dorrinson, the executive director of a Washington-based think tank called the Center for Responsible Immigration, believes that most Americans favor the building of border walls over extravagant pet projects like structurally sound freeway overpasses.

“The estimated cost of a border wall with Mexico is five billion dollars,” he said. “We could easily blow the same amount of money on infrastructure repairs and have nothing to show for it but functioning highways.”

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

Will the incoming Trump Administration sound the death knell for political satirists like Andy Horowitz? It’s getting pretty hard to tell the difference among “satire,” “fake news,” “made up facts,” and what passes for “truth” these days.

After all, we do actually have a a group of so-called “fiscal conservatives” in Congress lining up to throw perhaps as much as eight billion dollars (almost like “real money”) at a project that most immigration experts, whether “hardliners” or “softliners,” agree is a waste of time and money and won’t solve the problems of border security and immigration enforcement. These same legislators can’t, or won’t, come up with the money to fund things like health care, the safety net, public education, our infrastructure, or government salaries.

And, for those of us who are, probably naively, hoping that soon to be Attorney General Jeff Sessions would take his new, broader responsibilities to our country seriously, rethink some of his ill-advised anti-immigrant positions, and at least occasionally act as the “adult in the room” — counseling prudence and moderation — there is some, perhaps not unexpected, bad news.

According to the article below from today’s Washington Post, Sessions and his closest advisers apparently are working behind the scenes to “egg on” the Administration and Congress to throw taxpayer money at this futile, and nationally embarrassing, project. Could we fix the current mess in the U.S. Immigration Courts — which Sessions will run — for eight billion dollars? You bet we could!

We could build a first-class, independent, due process oriented court system that would be a source of national pride and would live up to its currently unfulfilled vision of “through teamwork and innovation be the world’s best tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” And, there would be plenty left over from the eight billion dollars to spend on thoughtful immigration and border enforcement if that’s what Sessions and others in the Administration and Congress really want. It should be a classic “win-win.” But, will it happen? Only time will tell. But, the early signs aren’t very promising.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hill-republicans-embrace-building-of-border-wall-despite-cost/2017/01/06/06f29b18-d432-11e6-9cb0-54ab630851e8_story.html?utm_term=.fac057dfce36

PWS

01/07/16

Can “Globalists” and “Nationalists” Bridge Their Gap And Find Some Middle Ground For The Common Good?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/we-arent-the-world-1483728161

“Above all, globalists should not equate concern for cultural norms and national borders with xenophobia. Large majorities of Americans, for example, welcome immigrants so long as they adopt American values, learn English, bring useful skills and wait their turn. Australia’s low tolerance for illegal immigration helps to maintain public support for high levels of legal entrants.

“We’ve created this false dichotomy that if you’re not for open borders, you’re racist,” says Avik Roy, president of the conservative Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity and a former adviser to Republican presidential candidates. “There is some sort of middle ground between a nationalist and globalist approach,” Mr. Roy argues.

Even as committed a globalist as Mr. Obama has come to acknowledge this. Democrats, he told Rolling Stone the day after the election, must recognize that “for the majority of the American people, borders mean something.”

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

This very interesting and thought provoking article by Greg Ip from the Wall Street Journal points out that the old “left – right” political struggles have been replaced by a contest between “globalism” and “nationalism” that often crosses some of the traditional political boundaries between left and right.

It also echoes some of the themes about the need to “understand where the other guys are coming from” rather than just “demonizing the opposition” that have been raised in previous blogs and comments by Thomas “Mink” Felhofer and Nolan Rappaport.

The world is definitely changing, and many of the “old norms” are breaking down. The challenge is how to find some stability in the middle that doesn’t sacrifice or run across strongly held views or principles.

When I was the Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals, I found one of the difficulties in reaching “consensus positions” is that, unlike a “compromise,” a “consensus” requires both ends of the spectrum to nominally support, or at least refrain from public disagreement with, the result. That’s a challenge when judges, or anyone else, have worked in the area for many years and have strong views tied to their underlying principles. For better or worse, on many occasions, the best we could do was “agree to disagree” and move on to the next case. That’s at best a “compromise” — “you win” this time but we’ll preserve our objections for the future — rather than a “consensus.” But, at least the results were very transparent and arguments for and against carefully developed for future debate.

PWS

01/07/17

First “Refugee Ball” To Be Held In DC on January 17, 2017!

http://www.asylumist.com/2017/01/06/the-refugee-ball-why-we-celebrate/

“Here, though, I want to talk about what we are celebrating, and why. The “reason for the season,” as it were. The Ball takes place a day after the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday. Dr. King famously said, the “arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” Of course, the arc does not bend by itself. People have to work hard to push it in the right direction.

One purpose of the Ball is to celebrate the people who help bend the arc by assisting refugees and asylum seekers: Lawyers, doctors, social workers, activists, students, and advocates.

But more than those of us who are helping refugees and asylum seekers, the purpose of the Ball is to celebrate the refugees and asylum seekers themselves; people who have worked and sacrificed and struggled for justice. Attending the Ball will be activists for democracy and peace and women’s rights, journalists who have stood up for free speech against tyrants, advocates for gay and lesbian rights, members of religious minorities who have risked their lives for their faith, members of oppressed ethnic minorities and oppressed nationalities, interpreters and aid workers who have stood shoulder-to-shoulder with our own country’s soldiers and diplomats in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. These people—asylum seekers and refugees—have risked their careers, their property, and their lives in order to help bend the arc of the moral universe towards justice.”

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

For complete information on the Refugee Ball and how you can attend and support it, go over to The Asylumist on the above link.

PWS

01/07/17

Post Editorial Decries GOP’s Unprovoked Attack On Civil Service Merit System!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-resurrected-house-rule-threatens-open-season-on-the-civil-service/2017/01/06/89881132-d448-11e6-a783-cd3fa950f2fd_story.html?utm_term=.a8262ed56f2c

“The move follows efforts by President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team to identify employees in the Energy Department who work on climate change and jobs in the State Department devoted to gay and women’s rights. The combination of events underscores the inherent danger. Competence and performance — not adherence to ideology — should be the basis for federal employment. That is why the civil service replaced the system of political spoils.

If members of Congress don’t like particular programs — Mr. Griffith is apparently peeved by a federal program that pays for the care of wild horses on federal land in the West — they can choose not to appropriate funds to implement them. If they want to change civil-service rules to target poor performance or reward good work, they have that power too. If they are incapable of properly exercising these constitutional authorities, maybe it is their salaries that should be slashed to $1.”

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

In the previous blog posting, http://wp.me/p8eeJm-5v Jason Dzubow (“The Asylumist”) noted the falling morale and apprehension among civil servants involved in immigration enforcement and adjudication. He urged them to to remain at their posts and continue working for the ideals of fair and competent administration of some very difficult laws and overall “good government.”

But, as noted here and in my previous blog, http://wp.me/p8eeJm-4O these could be challenging times for the dedicated public servants whose hard work keeps our immigration system afloat and our Government functioning, in light of the unbridled hostility toward our own Government shown by the GOP at both the Congressional and Administration levels.

I agree with Jason. I hope that the numerous great folks that I came in contact with during my many years of public service “hang in there” and continue to strive to “do the right thing” every day. But, that’s easy for me to say from my current vantage point as a retiree. It’s much harder for those who are actually trying to get the job done with neither support nor appreciation from those who should be most grateful.

As an Immigration Judge at both the trial and appellate levels, I was often struck with how the fundamental difference between the countries people were fleeing and the United States was honest, reliable government committed to the common good. In most repressive countries, the government at all levels was staffed by political cronies or supporters of the ruler who viewed their government positions as a license to extort, steal, abuse, and even sometimes kill, those “on the outs” with the powers the be. Many applicants were skeptical of all governments, including our own. The concept that government officials would treat them fairly and listen to their claims with an open mind, rather than just seeking to carry out a political or personal agenda, simply wasn’t in their sphere of experience.

The Federal Civil Service isn’t perfect. It can and should be improved. But, it remains one of the “crown jewels” of our democratic republic. The hostility of some of those who comprise the political arms of our government to the concept and operation of a merit-based, nonpartisan, nonpolitical Civil Service should be of deep concern to all of us.

PWS

01/07/16

The Asylumist (Jason Dzubow) Urges Public Servants In Immigration Enforcement And Adjudication To “Stay” — “You Are Exactly The Type of Person We Need!”

In his “Open Letter” to Feds, Dzubow writes:

“In speaking to some DOJ and DHS attorneys and officers since the recent election, I have seen a certain level of demoralization. Some people have expressed to me their desire to leave government service. While these individuals respect and follow the law–even when the results are harsh–they are not ideological. They do not hate immigrants (or non-white people, or Muslims) and they do not want to enable or contribute to a system that they fear will become overtly hostile to immigrants that President Trump considers undesirable. I suppose if I have one word of advice for such people, it is this: Stay.

If you are a government attorney or officer and you are thinking of leaving because you fear an overtly ideological Administration, you are exactly the type of person that we need to stay. As has often been the case in recent decades, an honest, competent bureaucracy is the bulwark against our sometimes extremist politics.

It’s likely that if you are a government employee who is sympathetic to non-citizens, your job will get more difficult, the atmosphere may become more hostile. It will be harder to “do the right thing” as you see it. Opportunities for promotions may become more limited. Nevertheless, I urge you to stay. We need you to help uphold the law and ensure due process for non-citizens and their families. To a large extent, our immigration system is as good or as bad as the people who administer the law. We need the good ones to stay.”

http://www.asylumist.com/2016/12/22/an-open-letter-to-my-friends-at-dhs-and-doj/

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

I blogged yesterday about the outrageous attack on the Civil Service System and career public servants by the House GOP:

http://wp.me/p8eeJm-4O

As noted by Jason, one of those urging such cowardly attacks on the fabric of our Government and those who keep it running is Newt Gingrich. Interestingly, while in Congress, Gingrich was censored by his colleagues for ethics abuses while on the public payroll.

PWS

01/06/17

From “John Kelly’s Washington” In The Washington Post: Kudos To Local NGOs Homestretch And The Tahirih Justice Center For Saving A Migrant Victim Of Human Trafficking!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/it-feels-horrible-and-lonely-a-victim-of-human-trafficking-describes-her-ordeal/2017/01/05/18ab5654-d281-11e6-945a-76f69a399dd5_story.html?utm_term=.a3085f919767

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

Tahirih Justice Center did some wonderful pro bono representation in the Arlington Immigration Court. As I frequently note, representation is the key to success in immigration matters!

PWS

01/06/17

EOIR Hits The Airwaves with First YouTube Release — See The Blockbuster Hit “Recognition And Accreditation Programs — 2016” Starring Steven Lang and Peggy Gleason! Learn About The Recently Revised Procedures For Recognition and Accreditation!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV_yNi23nbQ

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

This is “Must See TV” for all NGOs who practice, or wish to practice, before the U.S. Immigration Court and the DHS! An impressive offering for an agency that houses the only major U.S. court system unable to implement the not-so-new technology for electronic filing!

PWS

01/06/17

Advocates: Here’s Your Opportunity To Shape The Future Of American Immigration Law — Don’t Blow It! — BIA Asks For Amicus Briefing On Whether “Misprision Of A Felony” Is A “Crime Involving Moral Turpitude!”

Amicus Invitation No. 17-01-05
AMICUS INVITATION (MISPRISION OF A FELONY), DUE FEBRUARY 6, 2017

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

ISSUES PRESENTED:

(1) Does the offense of misprision of a felony under 18 U.S.C. § 4 categorically qualify as a crime involving moral turpitude? Please see in that regard and address Matter of Robles- Urrea, 24 I&N Dec. 22 (BIA 2006), reversed, Robles-Urrea v. Holder, 678 F.3d 702 (9th Cir. 2012); and Itani v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2002).
(2) Assuming the Board should decide to adhere to Matter of Robles-Urrea, supra, in circuits other than the Ninth, is the application of such precedent impermissibly retroactive to convictions for acts committed prior to the publication of Matter of Robles- Urrea inasmuch as that decision overruled a prior precedent holding that misprision of a felony was not a crime involving moral turpitude?

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. 17-01-05. 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. 17-01-05. 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.

Deadline: Please file a Request to Appear and brief with the Clerk’s Office at the address below by February 6, 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 briefs.

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

The key case to read is Robles-Urrea v. Holder, 678 F.3d 702 (9th Cir. 2012), where the Ninth Circuit rejected the BIA’s conclusion in Matter of Robles- Urrea, 24 I&N Dec. 22 (BIA 2006) that misprision of a felony is “categorically” a “crime involving moral turpitude” for removal purposes.

In simple terms, among other things, the BIA is now considering whether to “blow off” the reasoning of the Ninth Circuit in other circuits and adhere to its prior interpretation which the Ninth Circuit found to be wrong and which, of course, is must less favorable to respondents.

So, anybody who thinks that the BIA is about to “bark up the wrong tree” here (and, not for the first time, ignore the well reasoned decision of an Article III Court under the so-called “Chevron doctrine”) better get their group together and get crackin’ on a brief to convince the BIA that the Ninth Circuit got it right.

The deadline is February 6, 2017, (WARNING: The BIA seldom extends amicus deadlines) and everything you need to know about how to file the brief is in the BIA’s notice, reproduced above.

Here are links to Robles-Urrea v. Holder: https://casetext.com/case/roblesurrea-v-holder

and Matter of Robles: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2014/07/25/3542.pdf to help you get started.

Good luck!

PWS

01/06/17

Guess Who’s Going To Pay For That “Great Wall?” — Surprise: We Are, As Reported By CNN! — President Elect Trump blames “Dishonest Media!”

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05/politics/border-wall-house-republicans-donald-trump-taxpayers/index.html

“Washington (CNN)President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team has signaled to congressional Republican leaders that his preference is to fund the border wall through the appropriations process as soon as April, according to House Republican officials.

The move would break a key campaign promise when Trump repeatedly said he would force Mexico to pay for the construction of the wall along the border, though in October, Trump suggested for the first time that Mexico would reimburse the US for the cost of the wall.
Trump defended that proposal Friday morning in a tweet, saying the move to use congressional appropriations was because of speed.

“The dishonest media does not report that any money spent on building the Great Wall (for sake of speed), will be paid back by Mexico later!” Trump tweeted Friday.”

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

President Elect Trump promises that he will negotiate “full reimbursement” from Mexico at a later date. Don’t hold your breath. Yeah, as the President Elect notes, we’re Mexico’s biggest trading partner; but, Mexico is also one of our biggest. As a fast developing economy, I’m guessing that lots of other countries would be willing to do business with Mexico on favorable terms if the climate in the U.S. gets too stormy.

PWS

01/06/16

Sessions Garners Support From Son Of “Marion 3” Defendants — N/W/S Controversy, Confirmation Appears Likely — As AG, He Will Administer One Of Our Most Important Court Systems: The United States Immigration Court!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/alabama-politician-whose-parents-were-prosecuted-by-sessions-endorses-him-for-attorney-general/2017/01/04/51c89608-d29b-11e6-945a-76f69a399dd5_story.html?utm_term=.6469f01a24e7

“Albert F. Turner Jr., the son of civil rights activists who were prosecuted by Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions in a controversial voting fraud case 32 years ago, said Wednesday he supports the Alabama lawmaker’s nomination to be attorney general.

“My family and I have literally been on the front line of the fight for civil rights my whole life,” said Turner, a county commissioner in Perry County, Ala. “And while I respect the deeply held positions of other civil rights advocates who oppose Senator Sessions, I believe it is important for me to speak out with regard to Senator Sessions personally. . . . He is not a racist.”

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

Another article in the Washington Post discusses positive aspects of Senator Session’s character and career. He appears to be someone who engenders strong feelings, both positive and negative.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/dueling-images-of-attorney-general-nominee-jeff-sessions/2017/01/05/e96bb796-d36e-11e6-9651-54a0154cf5b3_story.html?utm_term=.ecd459fbad2c

But, unless something quite unexpected comes up during his confirmation hearing, Senator Sessions appears to be well on his way to confirmation as the next Attorney General.

Although most of the focus has been on Civil Rights, as Attorney General, Jeff Sessions’s most important and largely overlooked role probably will be his authority over the hugely important and highly troubled — to the tune of a stunning 530,000+ case backlog which continues to grow — United States Immigration Court System, with both trial and appellate branches administered by the DOJ through the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”).

Although many experts have called for establishing a truly independent Immigration Court System outside of the DOJ, the current reality is that the DOJ controls perhaps the largest and most important Federal Court System. Whether as Attorney General Jeff Sessions nurtures, supports, and improves the independent due process mission of the Immigration Courts, or rather tries to undermine and “game” the Immigration Courts’ due process role, as some of his predecessors have done, will, to a much larger extent than most imagine, determine the future of our nation.

PWS

01/06/17

L.A.’s Already Overwhelmed Immigration Court Could Simply Collapse Under A Trump Enforcement Initiative!

http://www.scpr.org/programs/take-two/2016/12/27/54010/la-s-busy-immigration-courts-could-swell-under-tru

“The burden on judges could also increase, as dockets swell with more cases and those on the bench come under increasing pressure to render decisions.

“I see this as a pot that is going to boil over and scald everybody,” said Bruce Einhorn, a former immigration judge in Los Angeles. “I just don’t see pragmatically how you can almost double the number of cases without spending huge amounts of money to try to accommodate the dockets of the cases already on schedule and those that will be brought into the system.”

The backlog of cases is not new. It has steadily increased over the past decade — even as fewer immigrants have been apprehended along the Southwest border in recent years. In response, the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the agency that oversees the courts, has added more judges, including one to Los Angeles in November. It’s also prioritized juvenile cases in an effort to speed up cases of migrant youth.”

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

The full article, at the link, contains a 9-minute audio segment. Does anyone seriously think that adding one Immigration Judge in Los Angeles or “prioritizing” juvenile cases will solve this mess?

Actually, the misguided prioritization of juvenile cases, many of them unrepresented, over longer pending cases of represented individuals is exactly the type of “Aimless Docket Reschuffling” that has created a practically insurmountable backlog in the Immigration Courts, notwithstanding a modest decline in new case receipts and a modest increase in resources. The inability of the DOJ and EOIR to establish an efficient merit hiring system for new Immigrstion Judges and poor planning for additional courtrooms to house new judges has also aggravated the problem.

PWS

01/05/17

Legal Representation Funds & Accredited Representatives — A Smarter Approach For “Sanctuary Cities?”

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/312909-sanctuary-cities-have-a-new-cheaper-way-to-help-undocumented

Nolan Rappaport writes in The Hill:

“A few days after the Chicago City Council approved Mayor Emanuel’s Legal Protection Fund, Los Angeles officials announced that they had created a legal defense fund too. With help from philanthropists, Los Angeles established a $10 million fund to provide legal assistance for the city’s undocumented immigrants who are placed in removal proceedings.

These funds are an extension of their sanctuary city status to protect undocumented immigrants.

Chicago passed such an ordinance four years ago which provides that police can only give federal immigration officers information on undocumented immigrants that have arrest warrants out on them or are convicted criminals. This only applied to Chicago.

California, Connecticut, New Mexico, and Colorado have made their entire states immigrant sanctuaries.

Point No. 4 in President-Elect Trump’s 10-Point Plan to Put America First calls for an end to sanctuary cities, which presumably will be done by threatening to withhold federal funds from cities that refuse to cooperate with his administration’s enforcement program.

Mayor Emanuel’s Legal Protect Fund may be a more effective way to protect undocumented immigrants from deportation and it should avoid that threat.

The benefit of legal representation is illustrated by TRAC statistics which show that the likelihood of success with an asylum application is much higher with representation [chart omitted].”

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

New York City has also done some outstanding work on providing representation to needy migrants in Immigration Court. In the full article, Nolan also points out that EOIR’s recently revised program for non-attorney Accredited Representatives — now administered by the Office of Legal Access Programs (“OLAP”) rather than the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) — presents important opportunities for improving and expanding pro bono representation.

Additionally, Professor Michele Pistone of Villanova Law School is developing a revolutionary “modular training program” for Accredited Representatives that could dramatically increase both the number and quality of those willing to serve nonprofit organizations in this currently underutilized capacity.

Looks like lots of creative thinking combined with effective action is going on among the members of the immigration pro bono community. Providing and facilitating representation is is probably the most important aspect of providing due process in Immigration Court. In stark contrast to these efforts by the non-Federal sector, the “prioritization” of cases of recently arrived families by the U.S. Department of Justice has seriously impeded due process in contravention of the mission and vision of the U.S. Immigration Courts.

PWS

01/06/17

House GOP Declares War On All Feds!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/house-republicans-revive-obscure-rule-that-could-allow-them-to-slash-the-pay-of-individual-federal-workers-to-1/2017/01/04/4e80c990-d2b2-11e6-945a-76f69a399dd5_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_fedpay-1230pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.972e5d74eeea

“The rule was the first thing House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) railed against Tuesday in a floor speech objecting to an overarching rules package, which includes the Holman provision.

“Republicans have consistently made our hard-working federal employees scapegoats, in my opinion, for lack of performance of the federal government itself,” he said. “And this rule change will allow them to make shortsighted and ideologically driven changes to our civil service.”

The rule changes the process of passing spending bills by allowing any rank-and-file House member to propose an amendment that would cut a specific federal program or the jobs of specific federal employees, by slashing their salaries or eliminating their positions altogether.

Before this rule change, an agency’s budget could be cut broadly, but a specific program, employee or groups of employees could not be targeted because of civil service protections.

Republicans and Trump advisers have been quietly drawing up plans since the election to erode some of the job protections and benefits that federal workers have received for a generation, starting with a hiring freeze Trump has pledged to put in place in his first 100 days in office.”

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

Anybody who thinks this group is going to govern and exercise power in a responsible manner is likely to be in for a rude awakening. As they have in the past, the GOP wastes time and the People’s money mounting baseless attacks on their own Government, rather than working in a bipartisan manner to solve the real problems facing our country. Most discouraging.

Maybe they need to look inward to see whose efforts aren’t worth what we are paying them. Note that this nonsense was just after the House GOP’s first ordker of business was gutting the ethics rules that keep them in line and make them accountable. Only immediate, widespread public outrage and a swift negative reaction from President-Elect Trump made them back down from that outrageous abuse of power and privilege.

PWS

01/05/17

“Dreamers” Worry About Fate of DACA — Under Trump Administration, What Will Happen To The Lives They Have Built In America?

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2017/0104/For-immigrant-Dreamers-an-uncertain-future

“There is much at stake, too, for undocumented immigrants like Brady, who have grown up, gone to school, and struggled to make sense of their futures.

“I was just a kid when I came, and I really didn’t know what immigration status really meant,” says Brady, who grew up and attended public schools in Washington Heights, which New Yorkers often call “Little DR” because of the many Dominican immigrants who live there. “I wasn’t really worrying about it until my senior year in high school when I had to start thinking about colleges.”

“But when I started to really understand what my life was going to be like, I started freaking out, I started to panic,” she continues. “Why was I going to school? What is the point of going to college if I couldn’t get a career if I was an illegal immigrant?”

She pressed on, doing what a lot of low-income New Yorkers do. She volunteered at a home for the elderly, she attended summer academic programs, she made her high school honor roll and tutored younger peers.

And after getting accepted to John Jay College of Criminal Justice, she worked long hours as a bartender, off the books, to pay her way. It was overwhelming, she says, until she got a scholarship from a local civic group. “I was over the moon, full of joy and crying and happy after getting it,” she says.

She loved her days tutoring and eventually decided to become a teacher.

“As cliché and corny as this sounds, it’s like some people just have their calling,” the graduate student now says. “It took me a while to figure it out, but it truly makes my heart happy.”

Yet she still felt that she was “living in the shadows, being a part of something, but not really,” during her 20 years coming of age in the United States. Now married to a US citizen, she says Obama’s order finally helped her become “DACA-mented,” as many Dreamers call it, and be authorized to teach math in New York City public schools.”

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

The possibility of a legislative compromise to help the “Dreamers” while beefing up immigration enforcement is discussed in this article by Nolan Rappaport in The Hill:

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/311243-gop-immigration-bill-gives-dreamers-a-break-hardliners-a-bone

It was also discussed in my blog of 12/30/16.

PWS

01/05/17

Experts Doubt Trump’s Ability To Make Good On Campaign Promises Of Mass Deportations, But Do Expect Him To Have Major Impact On Immigration Enforcement

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/04/politics/donald-trump-immigration/index.html

A group of immigration experts on both sides of the issue interviewed by CNN all doubted that the Trump Administration would be able to carry out mass removals on the scale Trump alluded to on the campaign trail. Among the problems: Congressional funding for more enforcement and detention, severely backlogged U.S. Immigration Courts, practical problems of locating and processing undocumented individuals within the United States, and potential large scale resistance by states, cities, counties, and universities to overly aggressive enforcement efforts.

Here’s an excerpt (full article posted above):

“Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center For Immigration Studies, a non-partisan think tank in Washington, said Trump’s campaign pledges to deport millions amounted to an “Archie Bunker moment” that should not have been taken seriously.
“He’s not going to be snapping his fingers and deporting millions of people over night,” said Krikorain, whose group’s motto is “Low-Immigration, pro-immigrant.”

“That’s not realistic,” Krikorian said. “No one thinks that’s going to happen.”

But Krikorian said “it’s very plausible” that Trump could ramp up deportations by 25% or more in 2017 and return to levels seen under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, which he said reached about 400,000 a year when Bush left office.

That, he said, could be done without significant budgetary increases and despite resistance from sanctuary cities.

“I think the other side is making it seem more complicated than it needs to be,” he said.

Stephen Yale-Loehr, who teaches immigration law at Cornell Law School, agreed that Trump would be able to have meaningful impact during the first year of his presidency, but not to the extent suggested during the campaign.

“On the campaign trail things are not nuanced. They’re black and white,” Yale-Loehr said. “It takes a while to turn the battleship of bureaucracy around.”

PWS

01/04/17

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: