"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
BIA Asylum Panel In Action Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia CommonsDan Kowalski Online Editor of the LexisNexis Immigration Law Community (ILC)
Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration Community:
“Alicia Naranjo Garcia (“Garcia”) is a native and citizen of Mexico. Garcia petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The Knights Templar, a local drug cartel, murdered Garcia’s husband, twice threatened her life, and forcibly took her property in retaliation for helping her son escape recruitment by fleeing to the United States. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we grant the petition in part and remand. … [W]e conclude that the BIA erred in its nexus analysis for both Garcia’s asylum claim and her withholding of removal claim. We remand with instructions for the BIA to reconsider Garcia’s asylum claim, and for the BIA to consider whether Garcia is eligible for withholding of removal under the proper “a reason” standard. We deny the petition as it relates to Garcia’s claim for relief under CAT.”
This insanely nonsensical gibberish put forth by the BIA — and defended by OIL — is an insult to the entire American justice system!Obviously, EOIR and their DOJ “handlers” unethically assume that Article III Circuit Judges will just “take a dive” and defer to illegal and illogical removal orders. Because, after all, it’s only foreign nationals (mostly people of color) whose lives are at stake! Not “real human beings.” That’s exactly what “institutionalized racism” and “Dred Scottification” look like. Nothing worth breaking a sweat about in the “21st Century Jim Crow America!”
The BIA’s anti-asylum bias and massively incompetent adjudication — on life or death matters — continues to be exposed. There likely are many, many other legitimate asylum cases that are wrongfully rejected by the EOIR “denial factory.” That’s one of many reasons why the EOIR/DHS (intentionally) “cooked stats” on the bona fides of asylum seekers arriving at our Southern Border can never be trusted!
Not everyone is fortunate enough to have competent representation and get meaningful review by a Circuit panel not on “autopilot.” This is a corrupt and broken system, the continued existence of which in its current form is a repudiation of our Constitution, the rule of law, and human decency!
The Biden Administration can, and must, put an end to this ongoing national disgrace! “Any reason to deny” is not justice!
Wonder how the Georgia Law Clinic got involved in this 9th Circuit case? I have the answer, thanks to my friend Michelle Mendez, Director, Defending Vulnerable Populations @ CLINIC:
Thanks so much to CLINIC’s BIA Pro Bono Project for identifying and placing this case with the wonderful team at at University of Georgia School of Law!
Michelle Mendez Defending Vulnerable Populations Director Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (“CLINIC”)
The NDPA is everywhere! And, we’ll continue to be there until due process for all is achieved, regardless of the Administration!
As always with ICE, the question is compliance in the field. After four years of essentially random enforcement designed to terrorize communities of color in support of a White Nationalist political agenda, I would expect lots of “line resistance” to establishing a disciplined, focused enforcement program targeting real priorities, not “low hanging fruit.”
Remember that one of the ways ICE Enforcement got their jollies and built up stats during the past regime was to “sack up” long-time residents under final orders who posed no real threat to anyone, but voluntarily reported to periodic check-ins with ICE. It a far cry from picking on those seeking mercy to actually rounding up “bad guys.” Likely to cause the stats to crater for awhile. Which, of course, will set off a storm of bogus protest from the nativist right!
The union of ICE Enforcement agents purported to negotiate a bogus “agreement” with an illegally appointed Trump lackey that would have prevented the Biden Administration from changing enforcement policies. Not surprisingly, Biden officials recently trashed this outrageous piece of White Nationalist nonsense. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ice-officers-union-agreement-trump-homeland-security/
But, it does illustrate the formidable problems facing Secretary Mayorkas in getting control of this sprawling, rudderless, missionless “rogue agency.”
By contrast, the union representing USCIS Asylum Officers courageously stood up for the legal and constitutional rights of vulnerable refugees. They were, of course, “punished” by illegally being replaced with absurdly unqualified Border Patrol Agents. Perhaps Asylum Officers should be the future leaders at DHS. It’s certainly a mess right now!
It’s also worth noting that agents of Homeland Security Investigations (“HSI”) earlier tried in vain to separate themselves from ICE’s gonzo, racist “civil enforcement” realizing that the latter was a huge negative to legitimate law enforcement. So, some folks at DHS have some wisdom, sound judgement, and commitment to sane, humane law enforcement. Just not enough!
The White House announced a sweeping immigration bill Thursday that would create an eight-year path to citizenship for millions of immigrants already in the country and provide a faster track for undocumented immigrants brought to the US as children.
The legislation faces an uphill climb in a narrowly divided Congress, where House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has just a five-vote margin and Senate Democrats do not have the 60 Democratic votes needed to pass the measure with just their party’s support.
Administration officials argued Wednesday evening that the legislation was an attempt by President Joe Biden to restart a conversation on overhauling the US immigration system and said he remained open to negotiating.
“He was in the Senate for 36 years, and he is the first to tell you the legislative process can look different on the other end than where it starts,” one administration official said in a call with reporters, adding that Biden would be “willing to work with Congress.”
The effort comes as there are multiple standalone bills in Congress aimed at revising smaller pieces of the country’s immigration system. Sens. Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, and Majority Whip Dick Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois, for example, have reintroduced their DREAM Act, which would provide a path to citizenship for immigrants who came to the country illegally as children.
Administration officials said the best path forward and plans either to pass one bill or break it into multiple pieces would be up to Congress.
“There’s things that I would deal by itself, but not at the expense of saying, ‘I’m never going to do the other.’ There is a reasonable path to citizenship,” Biden said at a CNN town hall in Milwaukee on Tuesday.
“The President is committed to working with Congress to engage in conversations about the best way forward,” one administration official said.
Officials did not say if they believed that the reconciliation process, a special budget tool that applies only to a specific subset of legislation and allows the Senate to pass bills with a simple majority, would be applicable for an immigration bill. “Too early to speculate about it right now,” one official said.
The Senate is working on passing the President’s coronavirus relief legislation through reconciliation. The expectation is that the administration could also use the process to pass an infrastructure bill.
Biden’s immigration bill will be introduced by Democrats Bob Menendez of New Jersey in the Senate and Linda Sanchez of California in the House.
Read the rest of Priscilla’s & Lauren’s analysis at the link.
The White House “Fact Sheet” on the legislation is also available at the link at the end of the above excerpt.
Here’s what that summary says about the U.S. Immigration Courts:
Improve the immigration courts and protect vulnerable individuals. The bill expands family case management programs, reduces immigration court backlogs, expands training for immigration judges, and improves technology for immigration courts. The bill also restores fairness and balance to our immigration system by providing judges and adjudicators with discretion to review cases and grant relief to deserving individuals. Funding is authorized for legal orientation programs and counsel for children, vulnerable individuals, and others when necessary to ensure the fair and efficient resolution of their claims. The bill also provides funding for school districts educating unaccompanied children, while clarifying sponsor responsibilities for such children.
Support asylum seekers and other vulnerable populations. The bill eliminates the one-year deadline for filing asylum claims and provides funding to reduce asylum application backlogs. It also increases protections for U visa, T visa, and VAWA applicants, including by raising the cap on U visas from 10,000 to 30,000. The bill also expands protections for foreign nationals assisting U.S. troops.
Unfortunately, the bill does not contain the most important legislative solution: An Article I Immigration Court. Nevertheless, a separate Article I bill will be introduced in the House soon. Since the “USCA of 2021” is largely a “talking draft” anyway, there is no reason why Article I couldn’t be combined with the other changes in the bill.
While attention to improving the Immigration Courts is welcome and long overdue, I think this proposal actually misses the major point: What’s needed right now isn’t necessarily more Immigration Judges; it’s better Immigration Judges, starting, but not ending, with a replacement of the current dysfunctional Board of Immigration Appeals. Only with the improvements in the administrative case law, docket management, and “best practices” that better EOIR judges would bring could we really tell whether more judges are actually necessary.
Right now, throwing more bodies into the ungodly mess at EOIR would only create confusion and aggravate existing problems. And, while the proposal correctly spotlights woeful inadequacies in IJ training and professional development, those alone will not be enough to restore due process to a system wracked by decades of bad judicial selection practices that basically have excluded the “best and brightest” immigration experts from the private sector, those with actual experience representing individuals in Immigration Court, from the “21st Century Immigration Judiciary.”
The good news: Judge Garland won’t need legislation to get this system back on track by:
Immediately replacing the current BIA with judges who are renowned experts in immigration, human rights, and due process, with special attention to those with actual experience representing asylum seekers;
Vacating all of the improper Sessions and Barr precedents, and letting the “new BIA” straighten out the law and implement best practices, including holding IJs who are members of the “Asylum Deniers Club” accountable;
Implementing efficient merit-based judicial hiring practices which would involve public input and actively recruit from communities now underrepresented in the Immigration Judiciary;
Eventually re-competing all Immigration Judge jobs under these merit criteria, again with public input on the performance of current judges part of the process;
Replacing all of EOIR’s incompetent upper “management” with competent professional judicial administrators;
Examining the justification and “bang for the buck” in EOIR’s bloated, yet highly ineffective, headquarters operation in Falls Church with an eye toward maximizing support for the local Immigration Courts and minimizing counterproductive and politicized micromanagement and interference with the operation of local courts;
Making peace and working with the National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”), which is much more “on top of” the real problems in the Immigration Courts than often clueless EOIR “management” in Falls Church;
Instituting e-filing and other long overdue 21st Century judicial administration practices in the Immigration Courts;
Working cooperatively with the private bar, NGOs, ICE, and local IJs to maximize representation and improve docketing and scheduling practices.
Judge Garland has the authority to make all the foregoing changes, which will immediately improve the delivery of justice at the critical “retail level” of our justice system and make the achievement of racial justice and equal justice for all more than just “pipe dreams.” Immigrant justice is essential for racial justice!
The only question is whether Judge Garland will actually do what’s necessary. If not, he can expect some “aggressive pushback” from those of us who are fed up with the “EOIR Clown Show” 🤡🦹🏿♂️☠️ and its daily mockery of American justice!
Will John D. Trasviña Reform ICE OPLA? I Have High Hopes…
In late January 2021 John D. Trasviña was appointed Principal Legal Advisor at ICE.
Here is his ICE bio dated 1-26-21, and here is his Wikipedia entry.
Call it wishful thinking, but I hope he can revamp the ICE legal team from top to bottom and set a new direction, especially regarding who gets put into proceedings and why.
********************
I share your high hopes, Dan!
I dealt with John on occasion in some of my “prior incarnations,” several decades ago. Always found him thoughtful, fair, reasonable, and helpful. Most of all, he was a guy with some compassion and empathy as well as a firm grasp of the “big picture” of immigration policies and their relationship to labor, jobs, the economy, and social and racial justice. Instilling those same qualities in OPLA and ICE would be a fantastic start!
President Biden’s Executive Actions on Immigration
A new webpage from the Center for Migration Studies summarizes and analyzes recent executive orders, proclamations, and directives from the Biden administration.
On his first day in office, President Biden issued a number of orders, proclamations, and directives that reversed policies enacted by the Trump administration and sought to put the US immigration system on a far different course. These executive actions:
Ended the discriminatory travel bans;
Revised US immigration enforcement priorities
Protected Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients;
Temporarily halted construction of the US-Mexico Border Wall;
Ensured that all US-residents, including undocumented immigrants, are counted in the 2020 Census; and
Reinstated Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) for Liberians.
President Biden also sent the US Citizenship Act of 2021 to Congress. If passed by the Senate and House, this bill would represent the most sweeping immigration reform legislation in decades and lead to the largest legalization program in US history.
President Biden has since issued several additional Executive Orders (EOs), which:
Created a task force to reunify separated migrant families;
Require federal agencies to review the Trump administration’s actions related to immigration;
Provide for safe and orderly processing of asylum applications at the border;
Call for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of State (DOS) to rebuild and strengthen the US Refugee Admissions Program.
The Center for Migration Studies (CMS) is a New York-based educational institute devoted to the study of international migration, to the promotion of understanding between immigrants and receiving communities, and to public policies that safeguard the dignity and rights of migrants, refugees, and newcomers. For more information, please visit www.cmsny.org.
By Geoff Bennett, Julia Ainsley and Jacob Soboroff
The Biden administration and Hill Democrats are expected later this week to release an immigration reform bill, multiple sources familiar with the planning tell NBC News.
The legislative text of the “U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021” will reflect the immigration priorities that President Joe Biden unveiled on his first day in office. His proposal includes an earned pathway to citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants, expands the refugee resettlement program and deploys more technology to the Southern border. There are additional protections that are being considered in the legislation, such as asylum processing in home countries for minors, expanded benefits for DREAMers and ending the public charge rule.
While previous attempts at massive immigration reform have failed under both Republican and Democratic administrations, the Biden White House has signaled support for breaking the legislation into pieces.
As a potential secondary path, lawmakers would work to pass bills legalizing farmworkers and Dreamers right away, and then move toward a more expansive overhaul. The main objective, officials and advocates say, is progress.
. . . .
*************
Sounds like modest expectations. But, any meaningful immigration legislation would be a major achievement that has eluded the last two Administrations.
Unfortunately, based on the the GOP’s impeachment performance, it’s hard to see 60 votes for any substantive legislation in the Senate.
Claudia R. Cubas, Litigation Director at CAIR writes: “Judge Tigar at the Northern District California Court issued a Preliminary Injunction in the East Bay II case enjoining the final transit ban rule nationwide from being applied to asylum cases at both the immigration court and by USCIS. This Final rule was issued on Dec. 17, 2020, and took effect on Jan 19, 2021. While the interim rule had previously been vacated in the case CAIR Coalition v. Trump, 471 F.Supp.3d 25 (D.D.C. 2020), and ruled unlawful in the East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Barr, 964 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2020) case, the government issued the final version of the rule last minute in December. The ACLU and other organizations in the East Bay case, amended their original challenge and requested a new PI to enjoin this final version of the rule. Thanks to the ACLU, and other orgs in the East Bay case!”
****************
Thanks, Claudia!
Yet another Trump regime lawless and contemptuous action to destroy our asylum system and interfere with the transition of power to the Biden Administration “outed.”
Elizabeth Gibson Attorney, NY Legal Assistance Group Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
COVID-19 & Closures
Note: Policies are rapidly changing, so please verify information with the government and colleagues.
EOIR Status Overview & EOIR Court Status Map/List: Hearings in non-detained cases at courts without an announced date are postponed through, and including, March 19, 2021. There is no announced date for reopening NYC non-detained at this time.
DHS: Beginning on February 19, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will begin phase one of a program to restore safe and orderly processing at the southwest border. DHS will begin processing people who had been forced to “remain in Mexico” under the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP). Approximately 25,000 individuals in MPP continue to have active cases.
Spectrum: The Biden administration officially rescinded the “no blanks” policy by updating guidance on the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services website in late January, a spokesperson confirmed to Spectrum News this week.
NBC: The White House is expected to select Michelle Brané of the Women’s Refugee Commission as the executive director of the task force to reunite migrant families separated by the Trump administration, three sources familiar with the decision tell NBC News.
WSJ: Business groups and immigrant advocates say they are worried that a ban imposed last year on most forms of legal immigration in response to the Covid-19 pandemic could stick even as President Biden undoes many of his predecessor’s other immigration policies.
Guardian: US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) deported at least 72 people to Haiti [last] Monday, including a two-month-old baby and 21 other children, as the Biden administration made clear it would press on with expulsions of newly-arrived migrants, pending a review of immigration policy.
Guardian: At least 11 migrant women were dropped off in Mexican border towns without birth certificates for their days-old US citizen newborns since March of last year, an investigation by the Fuller Project and the Guardian has found.
MJ: Many of the examples of “death while waiting” that Kocher’s question prompted can’t be directly attributed to the immigration system or the United States government. Motorcycle accidents and terminal illnesses are to blame. These fatalities are not accounted for in immigration statistics. But they evoke a concept known in the social studies field as “slow violence,” a kind of structural harm that happens “gradually and out of sight” and is often hard to assign to a specific perpetrator.
TRAC: The latest available case-by-case Immigrant Court records show that immigration cases that were completed in the first four months of FY 2021 took nearly twice as long from beginning to end as cases completed in the first four months of FY 2020. Cases that were completed between the beginning of October 2020 and the end of January 2021 took, on average, 859 days compared to 436 days over the same period a year before.
NPR: In an attempt to recruit lawmakers to their cause, FAIR targeted delegations from states that were projected to lose House seats if the apportionment counts were altered to leave out unauthorized immigrants. FAIR emphasized that if successful, the lawsuit would not hurt states’ bottom lines. Unauthorized immigrants would still be counted in the census numbers used to guide the distribution of federal grants to states, just not in the counts for dividing up House seats and electoral votes.
Guardian: That sudden spike is still relatively modest compared to huge figures from fiscal year 2019, when Border Patrol apprehended more than 76,000 unaccompanied children, a trend that reached its zenith that spring.
Law360: Foreign students studying in the United States will be able to return to the U.S. automatically, despite President Joe Biden’s across-the-board travel restrictions, under a set of new exemptions laid out by the U.S. Department of State on Wednesday.
NYT: The border with Mexico extends well beyond the desert. Tighter enforcement on land has driven record numbers of migrants to attempt dangerous crossings by water.
CityLimits: Both Mario and Fernando say that on the vaccination day, the county jail doctor did not give information about the vaccine. “They didn’t inform me of anything. They just gave me a piece of paper [the vaccination card], with my ID number and my name. They didn’t even say what kind of vaccine it was,” says Fernando.
A district court extended for another 14 days the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) enjoining the government from executing a 100-day pause on the removal of individuals already subject to a final Order of Removal, as outlined in the 1/20/21 DHS memo. (State of Texas v. USA, et al., 2/8/21) AILA Doc. No. 21012634
The court issued an order staying the district court’s ruling that had enjoined the government from expelling unaccompanied children (UACs) from the U.S.-Mexico border without a hearing or asylum interview under Title 42’s public health provisions. (P.J.E.S. v. Pekoske, 1/29/21) AILA Doc. No. 21021231
Unpublished BIA decision reopens proceedings sua sponte for DACA recipient who was married to a U.S. citizen and the beneficiary of an approved visa petition. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Sanabria Rosales, 6/17/20) AILA Doc. No. 21021000
Unpublished BIA decision reopens proceedings sua sponte for respondent with TPS to adjust status under Ramirez v. Brown, 852 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 2017). Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Rivas, 6/16/20) AILA Doc. No. 21020803
Unpublished BIA decision rescinds in absentia order of deportation because signature on return receipt for Order to Show Cause did not belong to respondent or a responsible person at his address. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Ramirez Flores, 6/16/20) AILA Doc. No. 21020804
Unpublished BIA decision reopens proceedings sua sponte to let respondent adjust status based on approved visa petition filed by U.S. citizen child who is active member of the military. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Oh, 6/23/20) AILA Doc. No. 21021001
Where petitioner had filed a motion to reopen and remand his case to the IJ in light of his placement by USCIS on the U visa waiting list, the court held that the BIA abused its discretion in denying the motion by failing to follow its own precedents. (Granados Benitez v. Wilkinson, 1/28/21) AILA Doc. No. 21021130
Law360: In a first-of-its-kind ruling, the First Circuit found that searches of cellphones and other electronic devices at the U.S. border do not require a warrant or probable cause and can be used to search for contraband.
Granting in part the petition for review, the court found to be unreasonable the BIA’s determination that the petitioner’s proposed particular social group (PSG) of “former Salvadoran MS-13 members” lacked particularity, and thus remanded his withholding claim. (Amaya v. Rosen, 1/25/21) AILA Doc. No. 21021131
The court held that a noncitizen who entered the United States without being “inspected and admitted or paroled” may not have their status adjusted to that of lawful permanent resident (LPR) by virtue of obtaining Temporary Protected Status (TPS). (Solorzano v. Mayorkas, 2/3/21) AILA Doc. No. 21021034
The court held that the petitioner’s conviction for the use of an unauthorized social security number in violation of 42 USC §408(a)(7)(B) was a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT), such that the petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal. (Munoz-Rivera v. Wilkinson, 1/27/21) AILA Doc. No. 21021133
The court held that petitioner’s credible testimony about her attempted gang rape in India was sufficient to establish past persecution, and that the BIA erred in imposing evidentiary requirements of ongoing injury or treatment beyond the attempted sexual assault. (Kaur v. Wilkinson, 1/29/21) AILA Doc. No. 21021134
Advance copy of USCIS notice extending Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) and work authorization for eligible Liberians through 6/30/22, pursuant to the memo issued by President Biden on 1/20/21. The notice will be published in the Federal Register on 2/16/21. AILA Doc. No. 21021233
Executive order issued 2/10/21 imposing sanctions on those determined to have contributed to instability in Burma, including, among other things, suspending the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of such persons. (86 FR 9429, 2/12/21) AILA Doc. No. 21021235
A number of the “Top Stories” have been covered separately on Courtside.
One that hasn’t is Michelle Hackman’s article in the WSJ about the predictable stupidity of the Trump regime’s “work visa ban.” Part of the White Nationalist restrictionist agenda, it was rolled out by Stephen Miller on the bogus pretext of “protecting American labor” during the pandemic.
However, as Michelle points out, it did nothing of the sort. What it did do, as many of us had projected, was create hardship for American employers, diminish the economy, create hardship for the potential workers and their families, but all without creating any meaningful job opportunities for American workers.
Just another of the many examples of how bad policies, based on nationalist myths, racism, and xenophobia rather than facts and realities, have many far reaching adverse effects for American and beyond.
I anticipate that at some point, the Biden Administration will resume regular issuance of work visas. When, however, is a different question.
By Julia Ainsley, Jacob Soboroff and Geoff Bennett
WASHINGTON — The White House is expected to select Michelle Brané of the Women’s Refugee Commission as the executive director of the task force to reunite migrant families separated by the Trump administration, three sources familiar with the decision tell NBC News.
The selection of Brané, director of migrant rights and justice programs at the Women’s Refugee Commission, is welcome news to the immigration advocate community, as most of the task force is made of government officials.
“If selected, Michelle would be a fantastic choice. She would bring deep expertise on the issues and the perfect mixture of passion and common sense,” said Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project.
. . . .
****************
Read the full article at the link.
Good news indeed!
Michelle was an Attorney Advisor at the BIA during part of my tenure as Chair, before moving on to a distinguished career in the NGO sector.
She is brilliant, tough, practical, humane, a leader, and a true pro who has been getting the job done for refugees and the most vulnerable among us for years. Michelle is just who America needs to bring expertise, organizational skills, and moral as well as intellectual leadership to a Government that has been missing those essential qualities for far, far too long!
Always satisfying to see the “best and brightest” whom I’ve worked with over my career rise to the leadership positions they deserve where they can use their skills to lead America to a better future!
Ms. McGhee is the author of “The Sum of Us: What Racism Costs Everyone and How We Can Prosper Together,” from which this essay is adapted.
Over a two-decade career in the white-collar think tank world, I’ve continually wondered: Why can’t we have nice things?
By “we,” I mean America at-large. As for “nice things,” I don’t picture self-driving cars, hovercraft backpacks or laundry that does itself. Instead, I mean the basic aspects of a high-functioning society: well-funded schools, reliable infrastructure, wages that keep workers out of poverty, or a comprehensive public health system equipped to handle pandemics — things that equally developed but less wealthy nations seem to have.
In 2010, eight years into my time as an economic policy wonk at Demos, a progressive policy research group, budget deficits were on the rise. The Great Recession had decimated tax revenue, requiring more public spending to restart the economy.
But both the Tea Party and many in President Barack Obama’s inner circle were calling for a “grand bargain” to shrink the size of government by capping future public outlays and slashing Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. Despite the still-fragile recovery and evidence that corporations were already paring back retirement benefits and ratcheting down real wages, the idea gained steam.
On a call with a group of all-white economist colleagues, we discussed how to advise leaders in Washington against this disastrous retrenchment. I cleared my throat and asked: “So where should we make the point that all these programs were created without concern for their cost when the goal was to build a white middle class, and they paid for themselves in economic growth? Now these guys are trying to fundamentally renege on the deal for a future middle class that would be majority people of color?”
Nobody answered. I checked to see if I was muted.
Finally, one of the economists breached the awkward silence. “Well, sure, Heather. We know that — and you know that — but let’s not lead with our chin here,” he said. “We are trying to be persuasive.”
The sad truth is that he was probably right. Soon, the Tea Party movement, harnessing the language of fiscal responsibility and the subtext of white grievance, would shut down the federal government, win across-the-board cuts to public programs and essentially halt the legislative function of the federal government for the next six years. The result: A jobless recovery followed by a slow, unequal economic expansion that hurt Americans of all backgrounds.
The anti-government stinginess of traditional conservatism, along with the fear of losing social status held by many white people, now broadly associated with Trumpism, have long been connected. Both have sapped American society’s strength for generations, causing a majority of white Americans to rally behind the draining of public resources and investments. Those very investments would provide white Americans — the largest group of the impoverished and uninsured — greater security, too: A new Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco study calculated that in 2019, the country’s output would have been $2.6 trillion greater if the gap between white men and everyone else were closed. And a 2020 report from analysts at Citigroup calculated that if America had adopted policies to close the Black-white economic gap 20 years ago, U.S. G.D.P would be an estimated $16 trillion higher.
. . . .
I’ll never forget Bridget, a white woman I met in Kansas City who had worked in fast food for over a decade. When a co-worker at Wendy’s first approached her about joining a local Fight for $15 group pushing for a livable minimum wage, she was skeptical. “I didn’t think that things in my life would ever change,” she told me. “They weren’t going to give $15 to a fast food worker. That was just insane to me.”
But Bridget attended the first organizing meeting anyway. And when a Latina woman rose and described her life — three children in a two-bedroom apartment with bad plumbing, the feeling of being “trapped in a life where she didn’t have any opportunity to do anything better” — Bridget, also a mother of three, said she was struck by how “I was really able to see myself in her.”
“I had been fed this whole line of, ‘These immigrant workers are coming over here and stealing our jobs — not paying taxes, committing crimes and causing problems,’” Bridget admitted. “You know, us against them.”
Soon after she began organizing, the cross-racial movement had won a convert. “In order for all of us to come up, it’s not a matter of me coming up and them staying down,” she said. “It’s the matter of: In order for me to come up, they have to come up too. Because honestly, as long as we’re divided, we’re conquered.”
*******************
Read the complete article at the link.
Inability to think beyond racist myths and false narratives is holding America back from realizing our full potential.
“Dividing and conquering” is the strategy of the modern GOP. If one could get behind the racist stereotypes and white resentment, rural America probably has far more in common with hard-working undocumented immigrants, African Americans, and Latinos than with elitist GOP politicos and corporate moguls — certainly more than with the notoriously lazy, dull, corrupt grifter Trump! But, the key seems to be to promote minority rule by sowing hate and distrust, thereby preventing the common good of the majority from prevailing.
While much of the “beggar thy neighbor” fear mongering comes right out of the current GOP playbook, Dems, including many in the Obama Administration, have also been guilty, as Heather points out. Just read some the alarmist stuff being put out by former Obama economic honcho Larry Summers.
And, contrary to White Nationalist myths about “job stealing,” much of American economic growth and innovation can be traced directly to immigrants, both documented and undocumented.
Government Misleadingly Posts Enjoined Asylum Regs
As we all know, on December 10, the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security jointly published final rules widely referred to as the “Death to Asylum” regulations. On January 8, a U.S. District Court Judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking those rules from taking effect. The rules remain enjoined at present.
However, EOIR, the agency housing the Immigration Courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals, maintains a Virtual Law Library (“VLL”) on its website. Most EOIR judges, staff attorneys, and law clerks use the VLL to reference applicable law when drafting decisions. Many private lawyers and other interested individuals outside of government use the VLL as a resource as well. In addition to listing all precedent decisions of the BIA and the Attorney General, the VLL contains links to the most current versions of both the Immigration & Nationality Act and the regulations that interpret it.
One clicking on the link to the federal regulations on the VLL is taken to a site called e-CFR, which is maintained by the U.S. Government Printing Office. At present, that site displays the enjoined “Death to Asylum” rules as if they are presently in effect. The site does not state that the regulations have been enjoined, and therefore may not be relied on.
This means that at present, an Immigration Judge, Board Member, law clerk, staff attorney, or anyone else involved in the decision-making process who researches the law applicable to a pending asylum case will read rules that are not actually in force, but that mandate the denial of asylum in cases that should be granted under the actual applicable law. The judges and their staff will see “rules” that require an overly narrow view of what constitutes political opinion or a particular social group; of who may be a persecutor and of how nexus is established. They will see language making it more difficult to find that an asylum seeker could not have reasonably relocated within their country; that discourage reliance on country condition information critical to establishing many elements of individual claims; and that, in some cases, call for the termination of bona fide asylum claims as “frivolous,” a classification that carries a lifetime bar to any and all immigration benefits.
Remarkably, when made aware of the problem, government officials defended the posting of the non-applicable rules on the grounds that their “effective date” had been reached, and seemed unable to understand what the problem was. I would hope that the Biden Administration might instruct these officials why it might actually be a problem for judges to access rules requiring them to deny asylum claims they should actually be granting. They might want to add that it would be a particularly good practice to double-check before posting any rule commonly referred to as “Death to Something.”
In the meantime, attorneys should carefully review all written decisions from EOIR, checking whether they cite to the inapplicable regs.
Copyright 2021 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
Republished by permission.
***********************
They might want to add that it would be a particularly good practice to double-check before posting any rule commonly referred to as “Death to Something.”
In the meantime, attorneys should carefully review all written decisions from EOIR, checking whether they cite to the inapplicable regs.
Says it all! EOIR = FUBAR 🤡🦹🏿♂️☠️
Hey, it’s only human lives and futures at stake!
And, of course, it’s the job of the job of the private bar to “cite check” the (non) experts @ EOIR!
Just think how justice could be achieved with real expert judges who understand asylum law in the first place and competent judicial (not bureaucratic) management focused on quality, efficiency, best practices, and most of all, correct, just results that comply with due process and fundamental fairness? What if all Federal Courts (including the Supremes) functioned in the manner set forth in the previous sentence: Racial justice might become a reality rather than an unfulfilled promise!
Fold up the tent on the “Clown Show” 🤡🦹🏿♂️ and replace it with real judges and real courts. The right folks are out there! But, they are mostly fighting the “malicious incompetence” from the outside, rather than solving problems and promoting justice “from the inside.”
EOIR might not be using the correct version of 8 CFR. But, they DO have wasteful and unnecessary “Judicial Dashboards” on every bench to jack up stress levels, promote “corner cutting and sloppy work,” and check to make sure “deportation quotas” are being made!
While most of official Washington has been focused on the Senate impeachment trial, another part of Washington is preparing the most far-ranging changes in American social policy in a generation.
The Capitol attack film was brutal. That’s why it must be watched | Francine Prose
Congress is moving ahead with Joe Biden’s American Rescue Plan, which expands healthcare and unemployment benefits and contains one of the most ambitious efforts to reduce child poverty since the New Deal. Right behind it is Biden’s plan for infrastructure and jobs.
The juxtaposition of Trump’s impeachment trial and Biden’s ambitious plans is no coincidence.
Advertisement
Upgrade to Premium and enjoy the app ad-free.
Upgrade to Premium
Trump has left Republicans badly fractured and on the defensive. The party is imploding. Since the Capitol attack on 6 January, growing numbers of voters have deserted it. State and county committees are becoming wackier by the day. Big business no longer has a home in the crackpot GOP.
This political void is allowing Biden and the Democrats, who control the White House and both houses of Congress, to respond boldly to the largest social and economic crisis since the Great Depression.
Tens of millions are hurting. A record number of American children are impoverished
Importantly, they are now free to disregard conservative canards that have hobbled America’s ability to respond to public needs ever since Ronald Reagan convinced the nation big government was the problem.
The first is the supposed omnipresent danger of inflation and the accompanying worry that public spending can easily overheat the economy.
Rubbish. Inflation hasn’t reared its head in years, not even during the roaring job market of 2018 and 2019. “Overheating” may no longer even be a problem for globalized, high-tech economies whose goods and services are so easily replaceable.
Biden’s ambitious plans are worth the small risk, in any event. If you hadn’t noticed, the American economy is becoming more unequal by the day. Bringing it to a boil may be the only way to lift the wages of the bottom half. The hope is that record low interest rates and vast public spending generate enough demand that employers will need to raise wages to find the workers they need.
Advertisement
Upgrade to Premium and enjoy the app ad-free.
Upgrade to Premium
A few Democratic economists who should know better are sounding the false alarm about inflation, but Biden is wisely ignoring them. So should Democrats in Congress.
. . . .
****************
Read the full article at the link.
Seems like what Democrats need to do here is follow President Biden’s lead and “keep their eyes on the ball.”
The minority of “non-Trumpist” Republicans, on the other hand, are going to have to decide where they fit in a party without values that has effectively “disowned” them in its embrace of racism, violence, insurrection, conspiracy theories, and corruption.
Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) on Sunday made history with their appointments to lead two separate Senate subcommittees.
The Senate Judiciary Committee, headed by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), announced Booker will chair the subcommittee on criminal justice and counterterrorism. He’s the first Black chair of a Senate Judiciary subcommittee.
The committee also announced Padilla will chair the subcommittee on immigration, citizenship and border safety ― the first Latino to do so. He became the first Latino senator from California last month when he took over Kamala Harris’ seat as she assumed the vice presidency.
In a statement Sunday, Padilla said he’s honored by the historic appointment, noting his roots as the “proud son of immigrants from Mexico.”
“While no state has more at stake in immigration policy than California, the entire nation stands to benefit from thoughtful immigration reform,” Padilla said. “I commit to bringing the urgency to immigration reform that this moment demands and millions of hard working immigrants have earned.”
. . . .
**************
Read the full article at the link.
“Urgency” on immigration and human rights is exactly what’s needed and has been sorely missing from Dem leadership in the past. There is nothing more “urgent” than insuring immediate comprehensive Immigration Court reform at the DOJ, eventually leading to the creation of a progressive, independent, Article I Immigration Court.
Without dramatic Immigration Court reforms, most other immigration reforms will prove to be sporadic, inconsistent, and ineffective. Somebody has to insure that the Executive Branch complies with due process and other legal requirements. That’s been totally lacking over the past four years, and has also been problematic in past Dem Administrations!
Without addressing the institutionalized dehumanization inflicted on people of color (“Dred Scottification”) by the immigration system, there will be no real racial justice in America!
Prof. Geoffrey Hoffman, Nov. 24, 2015 – “It is important, I think, to note the import but also the paradox behind the BIA’s latest precedent decision, Matter of Y-S-L-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 688 (BIA 2015) that admonishes IJ’s not to bully minors. In the decision, the Board discusses conduct by an Immigration Judge that can be construed as “bullying or hostile” behavior and says it is “never appropriate,” particularly in cases involving “minor respondents,” concluding such behavior may result in remand to a different Immigration Judge. I am glad that the Board is finally taking to task this kind of egregious IJ behavior. On the one hand, we should applaud the Board for pointing out this behavior and finally holding it up to the light of day in an important new precedent decision. On the other hand, it is a sad commentary on the behavior of some judges that the appellate body of the EOIR has to even say this publicly. Of course judges should not behave this way, and the fact that recusal is mandated by the BIA in such situations is something to congratulate the Board for now getting behind. But, one wonders whether this response is at all sufficient. Whether, as an IJ, I can now say, “Well, the worst that will happen is that I will have the case taken away from me on remand, and therefore I do not have to deal with this mess anymore.” It doesn’t seem like much of a deterrent.
In a case which I handled on appeal, the IJ denied the respondent’s attorney the opportunity to call a psychologist to testify about the respondent’s mental condition and disease (bipolar disorder), a fact which went directly to the particular social group and seemed particularly relevant to me. When the attorney respectfully requested permission to put on the expert witness, and specially whether the witness could testify about any medications the respondent had taken or was taking the IJ in response asked the attorney whether she was on any medications. Was she on any medications? I read and re-read that line again and again as I prepared the appeal thinking perhaps I had missed the joke. But this wasn’t a joke. It was simply intemperate behavior by an IJ. Thankfully, the BIA correctly and compassionately remanded the case but based on the bipolar condition, recognizing that it could form a valid PSG. No mention was made of the issue of judicial impropriety I had raised in the brief. In other appeals I have done before the Board, I have noticed that when raising issues with the Board about IJ’s missing evidence or even misconstruing the factual background, the Board does not seem to deal with these issues head-on but instead bases their decisions on some other ground, preferring to adjudicate the appeal on a legal ground rather than on the basis of judicial misconduct or judicial mistake. And there is nothing surprising here, with the Board insulating IJ’s from admonishment and not highlighting their misunderstandings of the record, but there is I think a cost which has been underreported or perhaps not even appreciated. The cost is that IJs become used to behaving in a way that can be described as intemperate at best and demeaning or demoralizing and abusive, at worst.
This said, I do have a lot of sympathy for many IJs, having worked very hard myself for a federal judge for two years after law school, and seeing and appreciating the incredible stress and responsibilities of being a judge. The IJs, it should be mentioned, have it worse: they have to juggle a case load of hundreds and hundreds of cases, while at the same time maintaining compassion and composure at all times, and at the same time providing a clear, cogent and correct legal analysis in all cases and contexts. However, and this needs to be said, I think some IJs should not be IJs and should not have been selected to be IJs. If we want to make the immigration court system work we need to do a better job in vetting these judges, choosing based on temperament and suitability to deal with the rigors of handling all these cases with compassion and professionalism.
This is the time now (at this very moment) to make this statement as loudly and boldly as possible, since EOIR right now is advertising for 50+ new judgeships across the country. Since we have approximately 250+ judges, this represents an approximate 20 percent increase. I implore EOIR to make these decisions with due regard to how the judges might act in future, not just whether they have experience deporting people, working for the government in other capacities, or experiences such as being in the military. While those are factors, let’s draw from the ranks of those with proven compassion, like the YMCA directors, legal aid attorneys, and people who will never belittle a child, never lose themselves in the power and prestige, and be resilient and persevere in one of the hardest jobs imaginable.”
Unfortunately, the Obama Administration ignored Geoffrey’s plea. Instead of creating a well-qualified, independent, progressive judiciary that could achieve the “EOIR Vision” of: “Through teamwork and innovation becoming the world’s best tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all,” the Obama Administration handed out immigration judgeships like they were service awards for DHS prosecutors, DOJ attorneys, and other government lawyers.
The Obama selections appeared designed primarily to avoid appointing anyone who might have the background, backbone, and courage to “rock the boat” and stand up for immigrants’ rights even when it meant rejecting ill-advised and legally questionable Administration enforcement policies and procedures. In other words, truly independent judging and thinking was discouraged in favor of a “go along to get along” atmosphere mischaracterized as “collegiality.”
Sure, collegiality has its benefits. But, in the end, independent judging is about justice for the individuals coming before the courts, not about institutional survival, job preservation, making friends, achieving bureaucratic performance goals, or pleasing political “handlers” who don’t want to read about their “subordinates” in the “funny papers.” When I was ousted from the BIA as part of the so-called “Ashcroft purge,” I noticed that those those judges who were “collegial” but outspoken about immigrants’ legal rights got punished right along with those who were perceived as “less collegial” in standing up for the same rights.
Moreover, the Obama folks designed an unwieldy and astoundingly inefficient “Rube Goldberg selection system” that took more than two years to fill an average IJ vacancy — much longer than the Senate confirmation process! This was at a time when backlogs were building and the NAIJ and the “line IJs” were begging “EOIR management” for help. “Management” could have achieved comparable results simply by throwing darts at a board containing the names of government attorneys. And, it would have cut the red tape.
Inept as the Obama Administration might have been, the Trump kakistocracy of course proved to be our worst nightmare. They “weaponized” the EOIR immigration judiciary into a tool of White Nationalist nativist enforcement, racial injustice, and misogyny. Here are some of the things Sessions and Barr did at the behest of Stephen Miller:
“Packed” the BIA with judges known as “asylum deniers” — some with denial rates in excess of 90%;
Appointed IJs from the Atlanta Immigration Court, which had generated Matter of Y-S-L-C-, to the BIA in an overt attempt to replicate the “Asylum Free Zone” as Atlanta was known throughout the private bar;
“Rewarded” with BIA appointments several judges who had complaints lodged against them for their rude and unprofessional in-court behavior, open hostility to asylum seekers (particularly women), and unprofessional treatment of private attorneys;
Issued bogus EOIR and BIA precedents, some on their “own motion,” that were almost 100% against respondents and in favor of DHS Enforcement while undoing long-standing rules that had promoted fairness to asylum seekers and sound docket management;
Appointed almost all government/prosecutorial background Immigration Judges, many without immigration qualifications, others associated with anti-immigrant or anti-gay groups;
“Decertified” the National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”) as punishment for speaking out against gross mismanagement at EOIR and DOJ;
Imposed due-process-denying unprofessional “production quotas” on IJs intended to increase deportation rates;
Deprived IJs of effective management control over their dockets, while engaging in endless “Aimless Docket Reshuffling;”
Unethically exhorted IJs to treat the DHS as their “partners” in enforcing immigration laws;
Gave the Director — essentially a political appointee disguised as a career executive — authority to interfere with BIA decision making in certain cases;
Basically reduced Immigration Judges to the status of “deportation clerks” while falsely claiming that they were “management officials” to “bust” the union;
“Dumbed down” immigration judge training;
Artificially “jacked up” the Immigration Court backlog to an astounding 1.3 million cases — even with twice the number of IJs on the bench.
As one of my esteemed Round Table colleagues said, “since [Geoffrey’s article] was written, record numbers of good IJs resigned over the past 4 years, many good candidates wouldn’t apply (or if they did, likely weren’t chosen) over the past 4 years, and then just the general drop in quality that comes with that degree of expansion [in the absence of competent planning].”
The lack of compassion, glaring disregard for the protective purposes of refugee law, and absence of human understanding as to what it means to be a refugee seeking salvation simply screams out from the last four years of perverse AG and BIA precedents as well as from some of the elementary mistakes made by EOIR judges at all levels in the numerous cases reversed by Courts of Appeals over the past four years.
And, this is just the “tip of the iceberg.” Many seeking protection are denied any hearings at all, railroaded out without understanding what’s happening, or simply give up without appealing wrong decisions and denials of due process — worn down by the abusive and unnecessary detention that EOIR helps promote and the intentionally “user unfriendly” procedures developed to discourage individuals from asserting their legal and human rights.
While the broken and reeling Department of Justice presents many challenges, I predict that Judge Garland’s tenure will be remembered largely by how he deals, or doesn’t deal, with the total disaster in the U.S. Immigration Courts. The Trump regime’s attack on democracy and people of color began with immigration, and the effort to dehumanize and degrade migrants continued until the final day.
Will Judge Garland leave behind a reformed, progressive, due-process-oriented system that is a model judiciary? One that finally fulfills the vision of — “Through Teamwork and innovation action becoming the world’s best tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all?” A court that can easily transition out of the DOJ intro an independent Article I Judiciary? Or will he leave behind another disgraceful mess and the dead bodies, broken dreams, and visible betrayals of American values to prove it?
Only time will tell! But, the NDPA will be watching. And, there isn’t much patience out here for more of the “EOIR Clown Show!”🤡🦹🏿♂️
🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever! Better judges 🧑🏽⚖️👩⚖️👨🏻⚖️ for a better America. And that starts (but doesn’t end) with the U.S. Immigration Courts!
Quick: You’re a lawyer and your client is on trial for inciting a violent insurrection. The problem is, he’s guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. Literally, there is no question whatsoever that he did what he’s been accused of—none! Whatsoever! And everyone knows it! To wonder if he’s guilty is to look at O.J. Simpson and think, “Well, the glove doesn’t fit, so who knows?” Nevertheless, you’ve been hired to defend him—after basically everyone else in your profession refused—and defend him you will! But how? If you’re Donald Trump’s attorneys, the answer is clearly: Lie, lie, play some Madonna clips, and lie some more.
There were far, far too many lies told over the course of Bruce Castor Jr., David Schoen, and Michael van der Veen’s presentation to catalog them all. In fact, it would be easier to simply point out the rare moments in which they did tell the truth. But, just for posterity’s sake, here were some of the biggest whoppers the defense team told as it claimed that Trump wasn’t responsible for the rally that took place at the Capitol on January 6:
Trump never intended for “the joint session [of Congress] be prevented from conducting its business”: This is obviously completely false and the reason we know that is because Trump repeatedly tried to get Mike Pence to stop Congress from doing just that, reportedly telling the V.P., “You can either go down in history as a patriot, or you can go down in history as a pussy.”
The rioters were mostly antifa, and one of the first people arrested was a member of the left-wing group: This, like virtually all of Trump’s lawyers’ claims are not true. The first person arrested was John E. Sullivan, who has denied being a member of antifa, and the FBI has said there is zero evidence that the supporters’ movements participated in the riot, no matter what Trump’s most shameless loyalists say. (Rep. Matt Gaetz, for instance, falsely claimed, “They were masquerading as Trump supporters and, in fact, were members of the violent terrorist group antifa.”)
A prior protest in front of the White House was just as bad: Referring to the June protest in front of the White House, van der Veen claimed “violent rioters” attacked officers and “at one point, pierced a security wall, culminating in the clearing of Lafayette Square.” (1) There was no breach; (2) five people didn’t die (3) the people who were hurt were the protesters tear-gassed so that Trump could do a photo shoot with a bible outside a church (an event that, surprisingly, did not result in him bursting into flames).
“The reality is Mr. Trump not in any way shape or form instructing these people to fight or use physical violence. What he was instructing them to do was to challenge their opponents in primary elections, to push for sweeping election reforms, to hold Big Tech responsible—all customary and legal ways to petition your government for redress of grievances which of course is also protected Constitutional speech.” Right, right, sure, sure. Trump totally wasn’t encouraging his supporters to air their grievances via violence, he just wanted them to push for election reforms. He just wanted them to form political action committees, you see! Run for office! Fight ideological differences at the ballot box! It’s actually extremely impressive van der Ween was able to get through this whole thing without bursting into laughter, and for that he should win some kind of award (and then lose his license to practice law).
“There was no insurrection”: There was! We all saw it! If you missed it, just google “Capitol riot” or “Capitol attack” or “Trump insurrection.”
In addition to the many lies told by Trump’s defense, his legal team also proffered a series of arguments for why he couldn’t possibly be found guilty that sound like something a bunch of stoned college kids came up with shortly before a mock trial they forgot to prepare for, which is actually an insult to stoned college kids unprepared for mock trials. Specifically, we’re talking about the series of clips the defense presented showing various Democrats using the word “fight,“ which they claim means Trump can’t also be held responsible for telling his supporters to “fight,“ because other people have said “fight” before and they weren’t found guilty of inciting insurrections. (Naturally, they left out the part about how, for instance, when Elizabeth Warren told supporters to “fight” they didn’t proceed to storm the Capitol and try to burn down democracy):
Or that, when Chuck Schumer said “fight” he was talking about fighting COVID-19. Yes, this a real thing that actually happened:
And yes, there was also this:
Of course, the bald-faced lies and complete lack of convincing arguments will clearly do little to sway the majority of Republicans, who have already decided how they’re going to vote, which we know because they‘ve already said as much and also because during the question-and-answer portion of the day, a typical question posed of the attorneys went something like, “Can you tell us how it’s possible that President Trump has not been named People’s Sexiest Man Alive yet? Is it because the media is in the can for liberals? Because we can’t think of another explanation!”
Anyway, Madonna, eh? Someone better impeach that menace, ASAP!
Just in case there was any question re: whether or not Trump loved the insurrection he personally set into motion…
CNN reports that the ex-president insisted the rioters were patriots in a call with House leader Kevin McCarthy:
In an expletive-laced phone call with House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy while the Capitol was under attack, then President Donald Trump said the rioters cared more about the election results than McCarthy did. “Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are,” Trump said, according to lawmakers who were briefed on the call afterward by McCarthy.
McCarthy insisted that the rioters were Trump’s supporters and begged Trump to call them off. Trump’s comment set off what Republican lawmakers familiar with the call described as a shouting match between the two men. A furious McCarthy told the president the rioters were breaking into his office through the windows, and asked Trump, “Who the f–k do you think you are talking to?” according to a Republican lawmaker familiar with the call.
“I think it speaks to the former president’s mindset,” Rep. Anthony Gonzalez, an Ohio Republican who voted to impeach Trump last month, told CNN. “He was not sorry to see his unyieldingly loyal vice president or the Congress under attack by the mob he inspired. In fact, it seems he was happy about it or at the least enjoyed the scenes that were horrifying to most Americans across the country.”
In reality, as others have observed, the “defense team” could have read old copies of the Congressional Record or all the baseball scores from the 2019 season from the podium and it wouldn’t have made any difference to corrupt GOP Sens who had already decided to acquit notwithstanding the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
The indifference and boredom with the suffering of others and the clear misdeeds of Trump exhibited by scumbags like Cruz (who actually helped prepare the inept “defense”), Hawley, Cotton, et al, was pretty telling. Obviously, they wouldn’t have cared a fig if Trump’s rioters had done in Pence, Romney, or any other of their “colleagues.”
It’s all about the next election and destroying American democracy.
My favorite part is when the Trump defense Team kept whining about the rights of 74 million who voted for the The Big Clown. It’s like their attempt to disenfranchise and diss the 81+ million of us who didn’t vote for Putin’s Puppet are irrelevant? But, that’s always been the way the “modern GOP” has “governed.”
Right now, the GOP is hard at work at the state level trying to disenfranchise as many Black and Brown voters as possible in advance of the 2022 elections.
Remember all the great “bipartisanship” and concern with the legislative process on the tax giveaway (nobody actually read it, clearly not Trump) or the unsuccessful attempt to “do in” Obamacare. Lots of great “bipartisanship” on display with the Coney Barrett confirmation and the confirmation of a steady stream of Federalist Society judges.
The current GOP is an ongoing threat to the national security and well-being of our nation.
