"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.
Hon. Cecelia M.Espenoza Former Appellate Immigration Judge, BIA; Member, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges Source: Denverdemocrats.orgHon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
“Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports:
Hi all: The bipartisan Children’s Immigration Court bill that we endorsed was introduced today.
The press release of Sen. Michael Bennet included this quote from Cecelia!
“The most vulnerable people in immigration proceedings are unaccompanied children. The Immigration Court Efficiency and Children’s Court Act of 2023 not only improves the process for children, it also provides necessary support and guidance to the overburdened immigration court system to address the needs of these children,” said Cecelia M. Espenoza, Former Appellate Immigration Judge.
Thanks to Sen. Michael Bennett (D-CO), Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.), Rep. Maria Salazar (R-Fla.), Rep. Hillary Scholten (D-MI), and Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R-OR)! This is long, long overdue! A great bipartisan idea! 😎
Rep. Hillary Scholten (D-MI) Credit: Ike Hayman SOURCE: Wikipedia
Rep. Hillary Scholten, the only former EOIR attorney in Congress, and an indefatigable advocate for good government, due process, common sense, and the well-being of children had this to say:
“Let’s be clear about one thing–infants and children should not be in a situation where they have to stand trial in immigration court,” said Scholten. “We have a deeply broken immigration system in this country. But as we continue the long and complicated work for repairing it, of fighting for justice in a political climate that has grown callous to the suffering of children, the next best option is creating a court that works to accommodate their unique needs. As a mom, I’ll never stop fighting for these vulnerable kids.”
Is this REALLY the “look” that Dems want at the “retail level” of the U.S. justice system. What if Garland and his lieutenants had to face this every day of their professional careers?
Received in the “Courtside mailbox:”
Hello. I just came across your page. What great work you are doing. This is awesome. I have a few topics that it would be nice to see a discussion about regarding IJ demeanor and how immigration lawyers are treated by IJs:
1. IJs are unchecked in many instances. When a lawyer is sick and unable to appear, there is no established method for informing the court.You just hope that the IJ has a responsible and reliable legal assistant [note: high turnover and understaffing of legal assistants is a chronic problem at EOIR] who will inform the IJ of your illness. Oftentimes, IJs become enraged that you do something human like “become too sick to appear.” They take it out on the respondent who has courageously appeared, without a lawyer, to avoid an in–absentia order. They oftentimes display bullying and rude behavior towards the client and the office staff of the lawyer when they learn that the lawyer cannot appear, even in instances where the lawyer or lawyer’s staff members have taken measures to inform the court of said illness. This bullying behavior may cause the client to lose faith in the attorney’s representation.
In years past, I can probably count upwards of several dozen occasions when I have traveled over 2 hours for a PreCovidafternoon individual hearing only to find out that the IJ was out sick. [“Aimless Docket Reshuffling (“ADR”) in action.] No one called to inform my office, and there was no recourse or reimbursement of travel funds. It would have been inappropriate to express any anger at the time I was informed at the pre-COVID hearing. Yet some IJs take it out on lawyers, the respondent, and the lawyers’ staff for the being too ill to appear. There is no human response. This behavior pressures some lawyers to perform even in instances where they may not be competent to perform. Yet IJs cancel court hearings, from the privacy of their homes, by calling out of work, providing lawyers and respondents with absolutely no notice or explanation.
2. Some IJs are unreasonably denying Webex hearings. How can the private bar join the DHS to make a statement regarding their newest fight to challengeIJs seeking to force them to travel from other states and far-away locations for hearings?
3. IJs need to stop yelling, rolling eyes, bullying, and mistreating lawyers and respondents.
4. One time I appeared in court with high fever and a bad cough, and asked for a continuance. Instead, the judge forced me to conduct the 3-hour individual hearing anyway. I was surely not competent to represent the respondent that day.
5. OPLA apparently is now being forced by EOIR to appear in person at the court. OPLA’s position is that its attorneys shouldn’t be forced to travel hours each way to and from to conduct hearings, and that it is essentially a waste of resources when WebEx is available. I believe that the private bar should join OPLA in its battle to preserve the ability to appear by WebEx, since it concerns us too.
6. We should not be arbitrarily and capriciously dragged in to court for in person appearances when technology affords otherwise. We have been using virtual technology for almost four years now, with the lesson of efficiency at the forefront. Traveling numerous hours each way is costly and ultimately unproductive for both the government and private bar members not living in close proximity to courts. With the advent of WebEx, attorneys get more work done by cutting down the number of hours sitting in traffic, leaving more time for case management and preparation. Most importantly, the benefit of WebEx hearings is an improvement of mental health of attorneys on both sides. It is important to mention that the pressure associated with dealing with temperamental adjudicators, a lack of productivity from daily travel, and overwhelming pressure to perform one’s duties for fear of being found ineffective ultimately leads to depression and anxiety.
7. One can also imagine the overall benefits for IJs and EOIR personnel. Having an efficient process for disposal of cases also gives IJs more time for case review and case management. One might also surmise that IJs may find relief in having fewer people in their courtrooms.
****************************
This unduly harsh treatment of the legitimate needs of private attorneys by some IJs contrasts sharply with the recent “policy position” of OPLA that, essentially, ICE attorneys only have to appear in cases where “they feel like it.” https://www.ice.gov/about-ice/opla/prosecutorial-discretion.
I can testify from years on the bench that there are many occasions when as an IJ, I needed information and positions that only the Assistant Chief Counsel could furnish. This basically contemptuous approach to Immigration Court by DHS effectively converts IJs into Asylum Officers, perhaps less than that because IJs don’t have ready access to key information in the DHS databases. Moreover, I actually learned useful things about the strengths or weaknesses of a case by having an opportunity for a face-to-face dialogue with bothcounsel.
I wonder if OPLA would dare conduct business in this highly insulting and unprofessional manner if the DOJ had actually implemented the statutory contempt authority granted to IJs by Congress decades ago but improperly withheld by DOJ over Administrations of both parties.
This isn’t to minimize the observations of the anonymous attorney who related their experiences above that both counsel, and the cause of justice, suffer from lack of minimum professional judicial standards at EOIR.
I wonder how AG Merrick Garland and his political lieutenants would like it if, rather than moving on to cushy jobs after their DOJ tenure, they were required to spend the rest of their careers making a living representing individuals before the dysfunctional and irrationally “user-unfriendly” courts that they thus far have failed to materially reform? Until the Immigration Courts are finally removed from DOJ into an independent Article I structure, the appointment of AGs who lack significant “hands on” experience representing individuals before EOIR will remain problematic for justice in America. In the interim, Garland could and should make reforms administratively! Why hasn’t he?
On August 30, 2023, Judge Leo A. Finston of the Newark Immigration Court granted asylum to a Cravath pro bono client persecuted by gang members in El Salvador.
Cravath’s client overheard the murder of his neighbors by a Salvadoran gang and, fearing retaliation from the gang, subsequently refused to provide police with information. Even so, he was repeatedly attacked and continued to receive threats to “cooperate with the gang.” He fled El Salvador and arrived at the Texas border in December 2017, turning himself in to United States immigration officials and requesting asylum. He was detained, and Human Rights First represented him before the Immigration Court in Newark, New Jersey.
In September 2018, Judge Finston denied the application for asylum, finding that, while the man was credible and had suffered PTSD from the events in El Salvador, “complaining witnesses against major Salvadoran gangs” were not a “particular social group” for purposes of asylum, and there was not sufficient probability that he would be tortured upon his return to El Salvador. In March 2019, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed the initial appeal. Cravath became involved at this stage, briefing and arguing the appeal before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
On April 17, 2020, the Third Circuit issued a precedential opinion (see related news item here) granting the client’s petition for review, vacating the BIA’s removal order and remanding the case to the BIA for further proceedings. The Court held that “persons who publicly provide assistance against major Salvadoran gangs do constitute a particular social group” for purposes of asylum, and that the BIA erred in denying relief under the Convention Against Torture, finding that “it is clear to us, viewing the record as a whole, that [he] suffered torture”. The Court remanded the case to the BIA, and in December 2021, the BIA remanded the matter to the Newark Immigration Court for further proceedings.
By that time, Cravath’s client was living in hiding in El Salvador, and the Cravath team spent the next year and a half trying to secure his return for a new merits hearing, consistent with the Third Circuit’s opinion.
On July 20, 2023, at a Master Calendar Hearing before Judge Finston, the Cravath team argued the man had a meritorious case and constitutional due process and statutory rights to be present at his merits hearing, but the Department of Homeland Security took the position that it had no obligation to allow him to return. On August 30, 2023, the Cravath team appeared on the client’s behalf at a second Master Calendar Hearing, where Judge Finston found that, in light of the Third Circuit’s opinion and based on the record before him, it was clear the man qualified for asylum and no further proceedings were necessary.
The Cravath team was led by partner Wes Earnhardt and included associates Brian P. Golger and Ana C. Sewell.
******************
Many congrats to Cravath!
I told the BIA that witnesses were a PSG more than a decade ago! They wouldn’t listen, but the Fourth Circuit did! See Crespin-Valladares v. Holder, 632 F. 3d 171 (4th Cir. 2011). When will they ever learn?
With proper guidance from a competent BIA, this case should have been a “slam dunk grant” five years ago. This also illustrates the absurdity of those who disingenuously claim that asylum applicants can receive due process without competent representation! It also shows the legal and moral bankruptcy of “expedited docket gimmicks” that attempt to rush cases to denial and deportation without a realistic chance to get representation and prepare!
The U.S. asylum system would work much more fairly and efficiently with a BIA of recognized asylum experts! They are out here! Why hasn’t Garland reformed and reconstituted the BIA to get the job done?
Lives and the future of American law are at stake here!
It’s a huge deal! Dems must “lose” the arrogant “it’s only immigration” attitude that has prevented Dem Administrations from doing the correct, courageous (and smart) thing on immigration, human rights, social justice, and civil rights! Migrants’ rights are human rights are civil rights are everyone’s rights!
Judge Finston did the right thing on remand from the Circuit. I’d like to believe that with better guidance from the BIA he would have done it five years ago. The human impact of the abject failure of the BIA to provide positive leadership on GRANTING asylum in recurring situations is an incomprehensible drag on our justice system at many levels.
Better judges for a better America! And, it starts at the “retail level” with EOIR!
Appearing before EOIR courts can be highly stressful — not everyone survives the ordeal! Here, a 3-judge panel deliberates the fate of an asylum seeker using traditional methods.Jeremy McKinney, Esquire Greensboro, NC AILA President
As Congress returns to action after House Republicans were finally able to elect a speaker of the House following a weekslong impasse, one area they seem determined to address is border policy. Unfortunately, there seems to be much less interest in tackling one of the most important parts of our immigration system: immigration courts.
To put it mildly, there are a lot of misunderstandings about immigration court, and how things work or don’t work. As someone who’s been working in immigration courts for 25 years, I can say there are a myriad of ways things can and should be better.
First, the distances between immigration courts and the people who need to use them are often vast. My office is in Greensboro, North Carolina; my immigration court is in Charlotte. My clients typically travel from two to five hours to appear in court.
I once represented two children—a brother and sister from Central America—in immigration court proceedings. They had been sold by their father into domestic servitude and then abused by the people who trafficked them. The children escaped and reached the United States.
To prove they deserved asylum under our laws, they had to share what happened to them. The brother was so young, he struggled to articulate the horrors he experienced, while his older sister bore the deep scars of trauma, ones so severe that she had attempted to take her own life while her case in court was pending.
As horrifying and clear-cut as their stories seemed, the siblings faced a bewildering array of legal challenges. Their notices to appear lacked any hearing date, leaving them confused about when to appear. Immigration judges frequently order people removed for not appearing, despite the countless examples of ways in which the bureaucracy fails to inform people what their obligations are.
Before filing their asylum applications, I had to send a copy to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to trigger biometrics appointments for their criminal and security background checks. Some judges have ordered people removed for not having the biometrics done even though there isn’t anything they can do except request an appointment. Without a competent attorney working with you, it is impossible to make your way through all these pitfalls; errors at any of these stages could have resulted in them losing their asylum case—a devastating consequence and really a matter of life or death.
Prior to the hearing, I tried to contact the Immigration and Customs Enforcement attorney in their case to narrow down the legal issues. But the ICE attorney never responded, which is unfortunately common. In fact, ICE has recently instructed their attorneys that they don’t even need to appear in court. In any other court, if the trial attorney didn’t show up, the case would be dismissed. But not in immigration court.
Ultimately these siblings won their case because at the time, fear of persecution on account of kinship and domestic abuse was recognized as a valid basis for asylum. But several years after they won, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions changed asylum law using his unusual power to override immigration court decisions and tried to block kinshipand abuse cases as bases for gaining asylum.
The simple truth is that immigration courts are not real courts. The Executive Office for Immigration Review, or EOIR, is an arm of the Department of Justice headed by a political appointee, the attorney general. The attorney general has total authority over EOIR—including the power to hire the judges and re-adjudicate any case they decide. In an appeal, the attorney general represents the government in seeking to deport the person instead of remaining the neutral decision-maker. Given their very structure, the courts are not fair.
. . . .
*****************
Read the rest of the article at the link.
Notably, the notice issue, such as the lack of a hearing date, time, and place, as required by statute, has reached the Supremes for the third time. A better BIA would have followed the statute and held DHS accountable right off the bat.
This is just one of many problems that, in the absence of long-overdue Congressional action to establish an independent Article I Court, as urged by Jeremy and other experts, Garland has failed to address with administrative reforms and needed personnel changes within his sole authority!
Many thanks to all involved in this effort, particularly Richard Mark and the Pro Bono Team at Gibson Dunn. Will the DOJ go down for the third time on interrelated notice issues before the Supremes? What if the BIA followed the statute and held DHS fully accountable? What if due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices were the mission of EOIR? (Hint, they once were the “noble vision” of EOIR — trashed by Administrations of both parties.)
Some Republican lawmakers are flagging Hamas’ attack on Israel as an example of why more security is needed at the southern U.S. border. Hamas militants breached a border fence and attacked Israeli villages bordering the Gaza Strip on Oct. 7.
“Potential terrorists are attempting to cross our southern border. In September alone, 18 illegal immigrants on the terror watchlist were caught at the border,” U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., posted Oct. 21 on X. “The attack on Israel should serve as a warning as to why we must secure the border.”
The next day, U.S. Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., also mentioned the terrorist watchlist on NBC’s “Meet The Press.”
“We just caught 18 people, just last month, on the FBI terrorist watchlist, coming across our border,” McCarthy said. “More than 160 have done it this year, a record breaking.”
U.S. immigration officials have encountered rising numbers of people on the watchlist. But not everyone on the list is a terrorist, and not everyone encountered is allowed to enter the country.
Terrorism and immigration experts say that the threat of attacks in the U.S. and Israel are incomparable.
“They both involve borders, but the comparison ends there,” David Bier, an immigration expert at the libertarian Cato Institute, previously told us. “People aren’t crossing the border to conduct terrorist attacks or take over parts of the United States. A very small percentage may come to commit ordinary crimes, like selling drugs, but overwhelmingly, they are coming for economic opportunity and freedom.”
McCarthy’s office did not respond to our query for more information. A Blackburn spokesperson pointed us to a Fox News reporter’s post on X. Customs and Border Protection did not confirm whether 18 people were stopped in September.
Here’s what we know about who is on the terrorist watchlist, and what the data can and can’t tell us.
. . . .
*********************
Read Maria’s complete article which includes comments from real experts like Professor Stephen Yale Loehr, Professor Denise Gilman, Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, and others in addition to David Bier. They stand in sharp and long overdue contrast with the GOP’s alarmist, out of context, claims.
It’s little wonder that a party of anti-democracy activists, insurrectionists, and election deniers would want to deflect attention from themselves onto folks who are overwhelmingly coming to save their lives and to work hard and contribute to our economic growth!
I have previously “called out” Kristen Welker and NBC’s Meet the Press for giving McCarthy an unnecessary public forum for his alarmist narrative. See, e.g.,https://immigrationcourtside.com/2023/10/23/🚩politics-gops-bakuninist-clown-show-sows-american-chaos🤮☠️/. Worse yet, there was no effective “pushback” from Welker on McCarthy’s attempt to blame vulnerable asylum seekers for the political disorder and threats to our democracy that he and his righty GOP buddies helped sow!
Many thanks to Maria for setting the record straight and to the experts who were interviewed from her article!You actually did the “due diligence” that Welker and others often brush off when “doing immigration.”
Of course border security is important! A significant, achievable improvement would be to establish a fair, timely, functional asylum screening and adjudication system at ports of entry so that those seeking asylum will be motivated to use it (rather than attempting to “punish” and “deter” those who can’t use the current dysfunctional DHS/EOIR “system.”) That would give CBP a chance to concentrate on the real law enforcement challenge: identifying and stopping those who seek to harm the U.S. That’s going to take even better intelligence and more sophisticated efforts.
I also wouldn’t minimize that, as pointed out by the experts, CBP has been able to identify and deny entry to individuals on their list. That’s a sign of success, not failure!
To state the obvious, further cutting or restricting asylum (as many in the GOP disingenuously advocate) would only force even more of those seeking refuge into the hands of smugglers and push them into the dangerous lands between ports of entry. Misdirecting enforcement resources to fruitlessly and improperly trying to “deter” and “apprehend” those legitimately seeking refuge will only further dilute the attention that CBP can pay to any real dangers lurking at the border!
The stories of child migrant laborers are harrowing. They take on late-night, early-morning or 12-hour shifts that keep them out of school. They work on farms, at garment and food manufacturing factories as well as meat and processing plants, in construction and sawmills — often dangerous jobs with few protections.
Despite media portrayals of this system as a new economy, historian Ivón Padilla-Rodríguez has documented that the success of industries such as agriculture, manufacturing and construction in the Southwest relied on child labor as far back as the early 20th century. My dad arrived in Los Angeles from El Salvador as a 17-year-old in the 1970s. He immediately became a garment worker in denim factories across downtown Los Angeles and later installed carpet for a man who refused to pay him.
Los Angeles remains a center for this problem. My research studies the lives of undocumented young adults who arrived in the U.S. as unaccompanied minors from 2003 through 2013 and now live in L.A. I’ve spoken to children who have worked in garment factories that sew clothes for companies including Forever 21, J. Crew and Old Navy. Others worked in hotels such as the Ritz Carlton downtown or cleaned the homes of the rich and famous as live-in domestic workers.
Given my research focus, I often get asked what the government is doing about this child labor epidemic and what regular people can do about it. My response: It depends how far you want to go.
Perhaps counterintuitively to many Americans, part of the equation is paying attention to these youth before they cross our border by granting them what anthropologist Lauren Heidbrink and other scholars identify as “el derecho a no migrar” — the right not to migrate.
Young people need alternatives to migration to make a living. That shouldn’t mean aiding foreign governments in deporting migrants, as the Biden administration recently pledged to aid Panama’s government. It should mean investing in community-based programming to integrate children into their home society, such as Colectivo Vida Digna in Guatemala, which aims to reduce youth migration by supporting Indigenous teens and their families in reclaiming Indigenous cultural practices and strengthening communities so they can build futures without leaving their home country.
Even with those programs, some children will migrate to the U.S. and need shielding from exploitation. That may sound uncontroversial in theory, but the current policy landscape shows little willingness to widen the social safety net in practice, even for children and youth.
Take, for example, that last month a federal judge ruled illegal, but declined to end, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, a program implemented by executive order in 2012 that offers work authorization and a stay on deportation for undocumented youth brought to the U.S. as children. Courts have debated the policy for more than a decade, and with the Supreme Court expected to review the policy a third time, even these longtime U.S. residents — once touted by President Obama as “talented, driven, patriotic young people” — are left in limbo.
Then there’s the immigration program meant to provide vulnerable immigrant children a path to lawful residence and citizenship: the Special Immigrant Juvenile Status designation created in 1990. A recent report found that it has produced “avoidable delays, inconsistent denial rates, and a growing backlog” of petitioners, putting unaccompanied youth’s lives “on hold” and leaving them vulnerable to exploitation and abuse.
All the while, states across the U.S. are actively moving to weaken child labor laws for all children, immigrants or not.
Children’s futures are under threat in the U.S., and stalled immigration policy is a culprit. Protecting children and child workers requires moving forward on immigration. Failing to do so may haunt us for generations to come.
Stephanie L. Canizales is an assistant professor of sociology at UC Merced.
***************************
Jennifer Podkul Vice President of Policy & Advocacy Kids In Need of Defense (“KIND”) PHOTO: Momsrising.com
The figures in the Oct. 20 news article “Child labor violations soar in FY 2023” were staggering and all too familiar in my work with unaccompanied children, who are particularly vulnerable to exploitative labor conditions. Overnight shifts operating heavy machinery at slaughterhouses are not jobs or roles for any child.
To prevent this exploitation of unaccompanied children, we need to ensure existing laws are enforced, including child labor standards put forth by the Labor Department. Additionally, the Department of Health and Human Services should work toward ensuring every unaccompanied child is provided legal counsel as set out in the Fair Day in Court for Kids Act, recently introduced by Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii).
As we’ve seen from experience, a lawyer can be one of the few trusted adults in the life of a child who is experiencing exploitation. Attorneys help unaccompanied children understand their rights against abuse and access a fair chance to make their case for U.S. protection, which can lead to the ability to apply for legal and safe employment. Most unaccompanied children do not have this elemental protection.
Jennifer Podkul, Washington
The writer is vice president of policy and advocacy for Kids in Need of Defense.
*************************
Read Stephanie’s full op-ed at the above link. Many thanks to both of these experts for speaking out on this tragic, solvable, yet widely ignored by the pols and the media, issue!
They live in a rusty shack with no running water, hiding from the violence just outside their door, haunted by a question that won’t go away: Should they have listened to President Biden?
A year ago, Dayry Alexandra Cuauro and her 6-year-old daughter, Sarah, fled a crumbling Venezuela, setting off for the United States, carrying almost nothing. But they quickly lost each other, separated in a treacherous jungle known as the Darién Gap.
For three terrifying days, Ms. Cuauro heaved herself over muddy hills and plowed through rivers that rose to her chest, panicked that her child had drowned, been kidnapped or fallen to her death.
Many of the migrants traveling alongside the Cuauros — like hundreds of thousands of others — simply ignored the president’s warning, dismissing it as a ploy to keep them at bay. They kept marching, crossed the border and quickly started building new lives in the United States, with jobs that pay in dollars and children in American schools.
Ms. Cuauro listened and dropped off the migrant trail. But nearly a year later, all she has gotten is an auto-reply: Her applications to enter the United States legally have been submitted. She refreshes the website constantly, obsessively, and every day it says the same thing: “Case received.” Only the numbers shift: 57 days. 197 days. 341 days.
Online, she is bombarded by jubilant posts from Venezuelans who have made it to the United States — pictures of them in Times Square, wearing new clothes, eating big meals, going to school. Even the friend who guided her daughter safely through the jungle kept going and made it to Pennsylvania, where he now makes $140 a day as a mechanic.
. . . .
Sarah had become a literal poster child for the Darién. She and her mother had done what Mr. Biden had asked of them. They had a first-class support team of eager American sponsors. Yet no one could figure out how to get their cases through the U.S. immigration system.
. . . .
Recently, a member of the Cuauro committee, the woman in North Carolina, reached out with an urgent request. A Venezuelan man who had contacted her asking for help was about to take the Darién route. The woman asked Ms. Cuauro to talk to him — to try to convince him to apply for the legal route instead.
“I did it,” Ms. Cuauro said, “but he didn’t want to listen, and he left.”
The man got to the American border and, within days, crossed into the United States.
*****************
Read Julie’s article at the link.
As Courtside readers know, I love writing headlines. So, here’s one for the story that Julie might have written had the Administration been quicker on the uptake:
🇺🇸🗽⚖️😊 VENEZUELAN MOM, DAUGHTER FIND SPONSOR, SAFETY IN U.S. UNDER BIDEN PROGRAM AFTER HARROWING DARIEN ORDEAL — “The Legal Path Was Quick, Safe, &Saved Our Lives,” Says Ms. Cuauro, “Others Should Use It!”
Despite often using language peppered with terms that might once have appeared in business textbooks, the USG does not follow a “business model.” Nowhere is that more true than in the largely dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy. Businesses that ran like ICE, USCIS, and EOIR would have gone bankrupt long ago.
Nevertheless, it would be prudent for the Administration to employ some “better business practices” on immigration, which does have a dynamic, potentially even more positive, effect on the U.S. economy.
In the case of the Southern Border, the USG is “competing” with professional smugglers and human traffickers who DO view it in business terms. The “smugglers’ heyday” of a bias-driven Trump Administration that operated in direct contravention of common sense, the rule of law, the laws of supply and demand, and the realities of worldwide forced migration is gone, for now — although, undoubtedly to the delight of criminals and cartels, GOP politicos would dearly love to re-establish it and thereby enhance profits for the “bad guys.”
But, there are plenty of glitches in the Biden Administration’s approach. As this article illustrates, they are unable and unwilling to do what’s necessary to “out-compete” smugglers by making the legal channels they tout robust, timely, generous, and user friendly!
In the meantime, the GOP is marshaling its White Nationalist forces to make the system for legal entry even more restrictive, irrational, and less usable. That will make smugglers essentially “the only game in town” and cede much more of immigration control to self-interested criminals.
Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr Cornell LawMuzaffar Chishti Senior Fellow Migration Policy Institute PHOTO: MPI
The Migrant Surge: What’s Different About It This Time?
Please join us on November 7, 2023, from 12:15 p.m. to 1:15 p.m. in Myron Taylor Hall G85 of Cornell Law School for a lunchtime seminar given by our guest Muzaffar Chishti and moderated by Stephen Yale-Loehr.
Join Mr. Chishti and Professor Yale-Loehr as they discuss the history of recent migrant flows to the U.S. border, the current migrant surge at the border, the impact on cities and states beyond the border, and possible impacts on federal immigration policy.
Muzaffar Chishti is a Senior Fellow at the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute (MPI) and Director of MPI’s office at New York University School of Law. He received his LLM from Cornell Law School in 1975.
Steve Yale-Loehr teaches immigration and asylum law at Cornell Law School as Professor of Immigration Practice and is of counsel at Miller Mayer in Ithaca, New York.
Can’t make it to our event in-person? You can attend virtually!
The Title 42 farce instituted by Trump, under false pretenses, to unjustly suspend asylum laws has expired. But, the Biden Administration has come up with its own scofflaw regulations and policies intended to “meter” the flow of legal asylum seekers at ports of entry and to improperly “punish” those who exercise their legal rights by entering and turning themselves in to CBP. Biden’s BIA continues to churn out unrealistic hyper-technical asylum precedents (that actually fly in the face of precedents like Cardoza-Fonseca and Mogharrabi) and wrong, anti-asylum decisions intended to “deter and discourage” asylum seekers from applying and to make it unnecessarily difficult, frustrating, and time consuming for pro bono lawyers to represent them!
Contrary to the nativist myths, the U.S. does NOT bear the brunt of increased forced migration! Even in the Western Hemisphere, Colombia has many times more displaced Venezuelans than the U.S. Indeed, the U.S. experience, no matter how much it’s hyped or distorted by nativists and shallow media alarmists, is only a relatively modest slice of the pie. Over three quarters of the world’s forced migrants end up in low and middle income countries outside the U.S. https://www.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/2023-06/global-trends-report-2022.pdf. Yet, you would never know that from listening to the apocalyptic narrative of GOP nativists and their Dem “fellow travelers!”
Years of cruelty, dehumanization, fortification, imprisonment, prosecution, endangerment, harsh laws, family separations, racist rhetoric, illegal turn backs, and summary deportations of asylum seekers in the U.S. and at the border have demonstrably, and quite predictably, failed to stop or materially deter forced migration stemming from causes outside of U.S. legal policies. Yet, most of our “dialogue” about the U.S. border and immigration start with the bogus assumption that closing the border and unilaterally suspending due process and domestic and international legal obligations will effectively create “Fortress America” where no migrant will dare to tread!
A real discussion of the border and migration must reject nativist myths, racist tropes, and media alarmism by starting with the truth. That is:
Human migration is a real and inevitable worldwide phenominon;
No one nation-state can unilaterally stop or prevent human migration;
Because of climate change and political instability in the world, forced migration is likely to increase in the foreseeable future;
Seeking asylum is a basic legal and human right;
The U.S. will have to accept more migrants, whether legally (preferable)or extralegally (the alternative).
Only by “ditching” and getting beyond nativist myths can we develop solutions that will deal realistically and humanely with human migration. I’m hoping that these two knowledgeable migration and legal experts can get us beyond the myths and to a discussion of practical, achievable actions!
WASHINGTON — An immigration judge and lawyer told a U.S. Senate Judiciary panel on Wednesday that an independent immigration court would help ease a backlog of more than 2 million pending cases.
Because the immigration court system is an arm of the U.S. Justice Department — the Executive Office for Immigration Review — each presidential administration has set immigration policy, and often those courts are subject to political interference, said Mimi Tsankov, an immigration judge, and Jeremy McKinney, an immigration attorney.
In the immigration court system, judges hold formal court proceedings to determine whether someone who is a noncitizen should be allowed to remain in the United States, or should be deported.
“Every administration has interfered with the courts. This undermines the courts’ integrity, and many of the executive branch’s manipulations of judges and their dockets simply backfire,” said McKinney, the former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
Tsankov, the president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, said in order to alleviate the backlog of immigration court cases, Congress should establish an independent immigration court under Article I of the U.S. Constitution.
. . . .
“An independent board will begin the process of healing this broken system,” she said.
The witnesses also argued that many people going through the immigration system lack legal representation, which can greatly impact their outcome.
The top Republican on the Senate panel, John Cornyn of Texas, argued that most cases are without merit, as opposed to asylum cases, which are based on a credible fear of death or harm. He said that people are “clogging the courts” and are aware the severe backlogs will allow them to stay in the country. Some courts have backlogs until 2027.
Sen. Mazie Hirono, Democrat of Hawaii, pushed back.
“People who have attorneys are 10.5 times more likely to be granted relief,” she said. “So it is when they have attorneys that they can proceed with their asylum claims.”
She added that another issue is that many children who are unaccompanied, even some toddlers, are expected to legally represent themselves.
“There is no guarantee that children will also have a lawyer, and this is alarming because children are some of the most vulnerable people in our immigration system,” she said.
Cornyn said he did not believe that “the taxpayer should be on the hook” for paying for legal fees and representation.
McKinney said that those who have representation and are not detained are five times more likely to gain relief. Immigrants who are detained and have legal representation are 10 times more likely to be granted relief than those who do not have representation.
“The point is that representation ensures due process,” he said. “It also makes the system more efficient when all the parties know the rules and know how to present a case. Cases move faster.”
***********
Read the full article at the above link. You can also check out the full video of the hearing here:
In his opening statement, ranking GOP Sen. Cornyn made it very clear that fixing the Immigration Courts is a nonstarter for the GOP.
Instead of engaging on this critically important initiative, he wasted much of his introduction disingenuously repeating the oft-debunked claim of a connection between asylum seekers and fentanyl smuggling. See, e.g., “Who is sneaking fentanyl across the southern border? Hint: it’s not the migrants,”https://www.npr.org/2023/08/09/1191638114/fentanyl-smuggling-migrants-mexico-border-drugs.
Obviously grasping at straws, in the absence of any empirical support for his nativist “scare scenario,” Cornyn went so far as to suggest — of course without a shred of evidence — that perhaps “go-arounds” were smuggling fentanyl.
This theory appears particularly questionable in light of evidence that most fentanyl is successfully smuggled through ports of entry by U.S. citizens and legal residents. Why would cartels abandon proven successful methods of port of entry smuggling to entrust their cargos to individuals who might not even survive the border crossing and, if apprehended, would certainly be searched? Cornyn had no answer.
What does seem likely is that by concentrating border law enforcement largely on “apprehending” and fruitlessly trying to “deter” those merely seeking to turn themselves in to exercise legal rights, the USG has diverted attention and resources from real law enforcement like an anti-fentanyl strategy. That almost certainly would require undercover infiltration of smuggling rings — dangerous and sophisticated law enforcement operations far removed from “apprehending” folks who WANT to be caught because they were forced to leave their home countries, are unsafe in Mexico, and can’t wait to schedule asylum appointments at ports of entry through the badly flawed and inadequate “CBP One App!” Building a fair and efficient asylum system should even help CBP apprehend more of Sen. Cornyn’s “go arounds!”
But, Cornyn’s misdirection isn’t just a distraction; it’s actually dangerous! As the GOP has shown over and over, if you repeat a lie or myth enough times, folks start to believe it. Witness the demonstrably totally frivolous claims of election interference that drive much of the GOP’s agenda and has become “truth” for their misguided “base.”
A case in point is the outrageous political boondoggle recently carried out by Virginia’s right-wing Governor Glenn Youngkin. In response to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s White Nationalist plea, Youngkin wasted two million taxpayer dollars on a bogus detail of the National Guard to the Texas border, ostensibly to “protect Virginians from the scourge of fentanyl.”
What if Youngkin had spent the same amount of money supporting NGOs in Virginia struggling to resettle and represent migrants aimlessly bussed to the DMV by Abbott and DeSantis as part of a political stunt? Community social justice NGOs generally use funds more carefully and efficiently than GOP blowhards like Youngkin and co.
The GOP claim that most asylum claims are frivolous also is misleading. For those who can actually get a merits hearing on asylum at EOIR — often in and of itself no mean feat given the prevalence of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” — TRAC statistics for FY 2022 show that 46% are granted. Seehttps://trac.syr.edu/whatsnew/email.221129.html#. And, this is in a system that is still heavily tilted against asylum seekers. EOIR still has many “holdover judges” from the Trump years who were hired not because of their expertise, qualifications, or reputations for fairness, but because their backgrounds indicated that they were likely to be unsympathetic to asylum seekers!
Admittedly, the manner in which EOIR keeps asylum statistics can make meaningful analysis difficult. For example, more than half of asylum “dispositions” are listed as “other” — which covers“abandoned, not adjudicated, other, or withdrawn,” a facially, at least partially, circular definition! Seehttps://www.justice.gov/media/1174741/dl?inline.
Moreover, since EOIR procedures generally require that all potential relief be stated at the time of pleading or presumptively be waived, prudence requires that the right to appply for asylum be protected, even if it is unlikely that the case will proceed to the merits on that application.
Also, it’s worth remembering that the Government already has a powerful tool for both identifying and quickly tossing frivolous asylum claims and expeditiously granting clearly meritorious claims to keep them out of the Immigration Court. It’s called the Asylum Office at USCIS! That despite much ballyhooed regulatory changes, DHS has failed to obtain “maximum leverage” from the credible fear/Asylum Office process is not a reason for eschewing EOIR reform!
What we can tell from the available data is that, rather than wasting more money on expensive and ineffective “deterrence gimmicks,” the best “bang for the buck” for the USG would be to invest in representation for asylum seekers and in a better, professionally-managed EOIR with better, independent judges, acknowledged experts in asylum law, who could “keep the lines moving” without denying due process or stomping on individual rights.They could also set helpful precedents for the Asylum Office. That’s what Congress and the Administration should be investing in.
Reforming the Immigration Courts and creating an independent Article I Court should be a high national priority. While no single action can bring “order to the border” overnight, fixing EOIR is an achievable priority that will support the rule of law and dramatically improve the quality and efficiency of justice at the border and throughout the U.S.
As Chairman Padilla (D-CA) said, this should be a bipartisan “no-brainer.” Just don’t look to today’s White-Nationalist-myth-driven GOP for help or rational dialogue on the subject.
Many Americans today worry that our nation is losing its national identity. Yet the core of that identity is not the whiteness of our skin or our religion or our ethnicity.
It is the ideals we share, the good we hold in common.
That common good is a set of shared commitments. To the rule of law. To democracy. To tolerance of our differences. To equal political rights and equal opportunity. To participating in our civic life. To sacrificing for the ideals we hold in common. To upholding the truth.
We cannot have a functioning society without these shared commitments. Without a shared sense of common good, there can be no “we” to begin with.
If we are losing our national identity, it is because we are losing our sense of the common good. This is what must be restored.
As I’ve argued in these essays, recovering our common good depends on several things:
It depends on establishing a new ethic of leadership based on trusteeship. Leaders must be judged not by whether they score a “win” for their side, but whether they strengthen democratic institutions and increase public trust.
It depends on honoring those who have invested in the common good, and holding accountable those who have exploited it for their own selfish ends.
It requires that we understand — and educate our children about — what we owe one another as members of the same society. Instead of focusing solely on the rights of citizenship, we need also to focus on the duties of citizenship.
And it requires a renewed commitment to truth.
Some of you may feel such a quest to be hopeless. The era we are living in offers too many illustrations of greed, narcissism, brutality, and hatefulness.
I, however, firmly believe this quest is not hopeless.
Almost every day, I witness or hear of the compassion and generosity of ordinary Americans. Their actions rarely make headlines, but they constitute much of our daily life together.
The challenge is to turn all this into a new public spiritedness extending to the highest reaches in the land — a public morality that strengthens our democracy, makes our economy work for everyone, and revives trust in the major institutions of the nation.
The moral fiber of our society has been weakened but it has not been destroyed.
We can recover the rule of law and preserve our democratic institutions by taking a more active role in politics.
We can fight against all forms of bigotry. We can strengthen the bonds that connect us to one another by reaching out to one another. We can help resurrect civility by acting more civilly toward those with whom we disagree.
We can protect the truth by using facts and logic to combat lies.
We can help restore the common good by striving for it and showing others it’s worth the effort.
We have never been a perfect union. Our finest moments have been when we sought to live up to our shared ideals.
I worked for Robert F. Kennedy a half-century ago when the common good was better understood. Resurrecting it may take another half-century, or more.
But as the theologian Reinhold Niebuhr once said, “Nothing that is worth doing can be achieved in our lifetime; therefore we must be saved by hope. Nothing which is true or beautiful or good makes complete sense in any immediate context of history.”
Thank you for joining me on this journey. I hope you’ve found these essays useful and even on occasion inspiring. I hope you’ll join me in carrying forward the fight for the common good.
***
Subscribers to this newsletter are keeping it going. If you are able, please consider a paid or gift subscription. And we always appreciate your sharing our content with others and leaving your thoughts in the comments.
*****************************
Kelly Bouchard Staff Writer Portland Press Herald PHOTO: Linkedin
Despite the uncertainty, resettlement agencies in Maine are pushing ahead, preparing to welcome as many refugees as possible. To increase their chances of finding affordable apartments, they’re building a network of landlords willing to rent to newcomers and expanding resettlement efforts beyond Greater Portland, Lewiston-Auburn and Augusta-Waterville to Bangor and Brunswick, Ouattara said.
“We can settle people within 100 miles of Lewiston-Auburn,” said Rilwan Osman, executive director of Maine Immigrant & Refugee Services in Lewiston. “We have settled some families in Augusta, and we are exploring other communities.”
The State Refugee Advisory Council held four quarterly meetings last year to connect and support various community representatives in government, public safety, schools, social services and health care, Ouattara said.
“There are resources that are available from the federal government to assist communities that accept refugees,” he said.
At least half of the new arrivals last year had family ties in Maine, Ouattara said, while the other half were “free cases” that could be resettled more widely in the state but would require more support from agency staff. Transportation continues to be a challenge for many newcomers.
“The public transit system in Maine is still in development, so that can be isolating in some communities,” he said.
Helping refugees find jobs is a top priority for resettlement agencies, which provide financial assistance and case management support for up to 90 days after arrival and limited case management and employment services for up to 60 months.
“All the refugees that are coming have permission to work as soon as they are able,” Osman said. “Some have English skills, some don’t. If they have the necessary language skills, they can at least start entry-level work within 90 days.”
One refugee who is eager to get to work is Ahmed, a recent arrival from Somalia who also declined to give his last name. Ahmed, 58, attended a cultural orientation session Wednesday at the JCA. Through an interpreter, Ahmed said he has been reunited with his wife and six children after being separated from them for 21 years.
He also said he wants to be a good citizen and a taxpayer.
“I’m so grateful to be here,” he said. “My dream is to settle in and get work at a job in my skill range. I am a welder and I would like to work in the same industry.”
Staff Photographer Brianna Soukup contributed to this report.
“America is a beautiful country and has a lot to offer the world and the people who come here, and so does Portland,” said Ali, who came to the United States from Ghana more than two decades ago.
Portland’s five mayoral candidates may be more aligned on this issue than any other. They all fundamentally see asylum seekers as an asset to the city, and they all want to see the wait time before they can work made much shorter. They all also feel a little bit helpless.
For years, Portland has welcomed these immigrants, who often undertake dangerous journeys to get here and then go through an arduous, sometimes yearslong process to get visas and work authorization.
. . . .
Zarro said that if it should turn out to be too big a legal risk to offer asylum seekers paid work before they got federal work authorization, he would like to build a more robust job training program so they would be ready to start work in local businesses as soon as their work authorization comes though.
“We have people who are coming here to better their lives and to better their communities. Maine stands to benefit significantly,” he said.
All the candidates also are keenly aware that Portland is in need of more young workers.
“We’re an aging state without enough people to fill the workforce,” Costa said.
***********************
Austin Kocher, Ph.D. Research Assistant Professor TRAC-Syracuse PHOTO: Syracuse U.
Abstract of Austin Kocher, PhD’s article “Welcoming the stranger in Trump’s America: Notes on the everyday processes of constructing and enduring sanctuary:”
Geographers have begun to explore the concept of ‘immigrant welcome’ as a framework for understanding the tension between spontaneous social support for immigrants and refugees and their subsequent restriction and criminalization by states. Overlooked in the emerging discourse on immigrant welcome is the rich literature in feminist geography that views the everyday practices of endurance, care and social reproduction as essential to, but often hidden within, more traditional, political and economic analyses of power. By focusing on the everyday practices of welcome within sanctuary church activism, I argue for more attention to the energy-intense work that is often excluded from official media and academic accounts, yet which is essential to understanding what makes welcome function or fail. I draw upon one in-depth case study of a sanctuary church in Ohio, where a woman has been living for a year and a half in public defiance of her deportation order. In addition to contextualizing this specific case within the broader policy and immigrant rights landscape, I focus on the spatial, material and relational processes that participants implemented to construct a ‘welcoming’ environment as well as observe the ways in which welcome fails to live up to its imagined potential. The case study provides important grounded insights into the material, relational and emotional processes of enduring sanctuary as a form of resistance to the US deportation regime and enduring sanctuary itself as an intensive socio-spatial form of existence.
Read more about each of these inspiring efforts at the respective links above.
Compare what could be if folks put aside hate and worked together to solve human problems with the pathetic, totally selfish, inept, inane, yet existentially dangerous, “Clown Show” 🤡 in the GOP House Conference egged on by their “leader” — congenital liar, bully, insurrectionist buffoon, and criminal defendant Donald Trump.🤮
What’s missing is more dynamic, courageous, truth-based national leadership on immigration and human rights issues from Dems (although, to be fair, the bipartisan Maine delegation — and many Maine Republicans — appear to “get it”)! But, fortunately, that void hasn’t stopped members of the NDPA from “soldiering on” for the commn good and a better America!
A life saved is a life saved! Sometimes, we just have to focus on the daily victories we can achieve!
EOIR HQ, Falls Church, VA (a/k/a “The Tower of Babel”) — EOIR and their DOJ handlers imposed designed-to-fail “dedicated dockets” on the public over the objections of advocates. Now they need the same experts they “blew off” to help them save their “due-process-denying rocket dockets!” By Pieter Bruegel The Elder Public Domain
Contact: Communications and Legislative Affairs Division Phone: 703-305-0289 PAO.EOIR@usdoj.gov
www.justice.gov/eoir @DOJ_EOIR
Oct. 17, 2023
EOIR to Host National Stakeholder Meeting Seeking to Increase
Pro Bono Representation for Immigration Courts with Dedicated Dockets
SUMMARY: The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) invites immigration law school clinical communities and pro bono organizations to attend a national stakeholder meeting for an open discussion on how to increase pro bono representation in immigration courts with Dedicated Dockets.
At this meeting, EOIR seeks input and recommendations on how the agency can better encourage and facilitate pro bono advocacy, either in person or remotely, at the following immigration courts with established Dedicated Dockets: Boston, Denver, Detroit, El Paso, Los Angeles – N. Los Angeles Street, Miami, New York – Broadway, New York – Varick, Newark, San Diego, San Francisco, and Seattle. See EOIR’s Policy Memorandum 21-23 for more details on this initiative.
EOIR continues to work to increase the representation rate and the number of practitioners available to represent noncitizens in immigration proceedings. Practitioners who volunteer their time to help those unable to afford counsel are a critical part of that effort.
Please join us for a targeted discussion with the goal of strengthening pro bono representation for the Dedicated Dockets.
DATE: TIME: LOCATION:
Oct. 26, 2023
1 p.m. – 2 p.m. Eastern Time
Live via Webex – Meeting Registration
All media inquiries should be directed to pao.eoir@usdoj.gov.
In reality, these ill-conceived and poorly-planned dockets have been “dedicated” to maximizing denials, minimizing due process, impeding effective representation, and developing an unfriendly atmosphere that will discourage asylum seekers from fully exercising their legal rights.
Some DOJ politicos and EOIR bureaucrats must belatedly be worrying about their “legacy,” future employability, or eventually being held accountable for plotting to deny due process to thousands of the most vulnerable humans! As usual, the immigration bureaucracy creates unnecessary problems, then leaves it to the NGO/advocacy community to bail them out!
It’s a deadly, counterproductive, wasteful, frustrating “downward cycle” that needs to stop! Why not “cut out the nonsense” by putting in charge those with the comprehensive knowledge, creative ideas, advanced skills, moral courage, and realistic foresight to solve these problems BEFORE they become self-created “crises?” Those needed leaders and judges are primarily OUTSIDE the USG right now. They need to be brought on board to solve the problems that are demonstrably beyond the ability, will, and skill set of the current immigration bureaucracy at DOJ and DHS!
Only those Immigration Judges granting at or above the (already substantially suppressed) national average should be allowed to hear asylum cases.
Reassign those BIA Appellate Judges who are not recognized asylum experts, and replace them with qualified asylum experts committed to providing and enforcing some positive guidance and best practices for asylum adjudication.
Identify and promptly grant the hundreds of thousands of meritorious asylum cases now moldering in the EOIR backlog (many victims of EOIR’s ADR) so that these refugees can get on with their lives and contribute fully to American society and our economy.
Dems have the power to reform EOIR — a huge “Federal Court system” that they exclusively control! Why are they afraid to use that power “to promote justice and resist evil?”
In the meantime, please take advantage of this chance to “enlighten” EOIR bureaucrats about what it’s really like to attempt to provide pro bono representation on “dedicated dockets” while dealing with their ADR on already-prepared cases that could and should have been granted long ago. Hopefully, some members of the media will also tune in to get a dose of the challenges of trying to fight for justice in America’s worst and least-user-friendly “courts!”
The fact remains that the U.S. government spent a lot of money to build new barriers to keep migrants out and did not get the result it wanted.
. . . .
Trump used a lot of hyperbole to promote his pet project and was prone to describe the barrier as the personification of his presidency. He took a keen interest in its aesthetic appearance and design features, often urging aides to make it look as imposing as possible. He told supporters his wall would be “impenetrable.” He also said Mexico would pay for it (Mexico did not).
U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials didn’t make such claims and weren’t surprised when criminal smuggling organizations in Mexico began sawing through the steel bars — using ordinary power tools — almost immediately.
The border wall has been hacked through thousands of times since then, so often that the government has had to deploy welding crews full-time to shore up the structural integrity of the barrier. Smugglers have figured out a cheaper and even easier way to defeat it, fashioning cheap, disposable ladders out of scrap wood or metal rebar. They send migrants and drug couriers up and over the top, then use ropes to lower them down the other side. Experienced fence-jumpers have developed a technique using the steel bars like fire poles, sliding down onto the U.S. side in seconds.
. . . .
Dozens of migrants have been killed and hospitalized after falling from the structure, often with horrific spinal trauma and broken legs. Immigrant advocates also say the barriers force migrants toward more remote desert areas, contributing to more deaths from heat stroke and exposure. CBP reported 568 migrant deaths along the border during the 2021 fiscal year, the most recent for which data is available — nearly twice the amount of the previous year.
The border wall has a devastating toll on animals too, advocates say. The steel bars have essentially cut in half the habitat of animal species, in some cases cutting off their access to water and grazing areas. Trail cameras set up by researchers have shown pumas, bobcats and other large mammals blocked and searching fruitlessly for some way to get through.
The expensive futility of the wall and border barriers might pale in comparison with the human damage to both migrants and our nation’s soul, according to this interview with border physicians by Melissa Del Bosque in The Border Chronicle:
Melissa Del Bosque Border Reporter PHOTO: Melissadelbosque.com
Dr. Brian Elmore is an emergency-medicine resident physician in El Paso, Texas. He’s also the cofounder of Clínica Hope, a free clinic for migrants in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, which he runs with the nonprofit Hope Border Institute. Elmore frequently treats patients who have been injured by razor wire or fallen from the border wall that divides El Paso and Ciudad Juárez. He’s coined a term for these injuries: political pathologies. “These are normally healthy people, most of them young, who have been injured because of political decisions made thousands of miles away,” he says. “These are the political repercussions of the border.”
. . . .
That’s interesting that you use this term political pathologies. Is that a term you coined yourself?
It’s what I’ve started calling these injuries that otherwise healthy folks are receiving. These are mostly young people in their 20s, 30s, and sometimes kids, who out of sheer desperation decided to climb the wall or cross the river or desert. Other than for decisions that politicians made thousands of miles away to fortify the border, and make it as dangerous to cross as possible, they wouldn’t have these injuries. It’s really tragic.
. . . .
I’ve treated quite a few border wall falls. I’ve become used to this. But last week, I had a child who came in with multiple lacerations from barbed wire. She came in with her family, and they were all cut up from barbed wire. It’s jarring to see this, especially when it’s a kid, who’s innocent and has no idea what’s going on.
I started talking to the dad, and he told me they were from Venezuela. He said they’d heard a rumor in Ciudad Juárez that officials were letting Venezuelans cross outside of ports of entry. So a huge crowd showed up to present themselves to U.S. border officials [and ask for asylum]. Everyone became frustrated and irritated when they discovered that it wasn’t true.
And this family were pressed up against the barbed wire by the crowd, and they couldn’t go back. The only way for them to move was forward. So they started crawling under the barbed wire. This is the mother, father, the child, who is about 10, and an infant.
So, I’m stitching them up, making small talk because sewing up lacerations takes time and you’re face-to-face, and I’m talking to the dad and he lifts his shirt, and I see that he has a thoracotomy scar. When you perform a thoracotomy, it’s a last-ditch Hail Mary effort to save somebody’s life. The majority die after a thoracotomy. It’s when you crack open a chest because there’s either aortic bleeding or a penetrating injury to the heart. He told me he’d been stabbed and robbed in Caracas. And it was stunning to see his scar and to know that he’d survived. And the thing is, this is the second thoracotomy scar I’ve seen on a Venezuelan patient I’ve treated. This really reinforced for me the constant levels of violence people are facing. I feel like Americans have very little context for what’s going on in that country and how desperate things are there.
. . . .
There’s a very characteristic injury. It’s called a pilon fracture. It’s a lower-extremity kind of ankle fracture, very debilitating. And it’s often associated with a lumbar spinal fracture. Sometimes the bone has broken through the flesh and may require surgery. A lot of times they’ll be fitted with a device that keeps the bone in place while the swelling goes down, so they can get surgery. They’re then discharged to a migrant shelter in town while they wait for surgery.
. . . .
You see on the news, all these headlines, “migration crisis” and “invasion.” And that’s not what people in El Paso are experiencing or how they’re responding to it. They’re responding to the humanitarian crisis with compassion. You see people at shelters volunteering their time, offering to cook, and giving donations. I think the people of El Paso are amazing in the way they’ve responded. As opposed to how the rest of the country is just totally freaking out. I think El Paso is the most inspiring place to be and to practice.
*********************
You can read the full articles (and listen to Nick’s) at the above links.
Just think what could happen if we stopped “doubling down on failure,” eschewed dehumanizing treatment of asylum seekers, and devoted some of the time, money, and effort we spend on dehumanization, militarization, and deterrence to building better systems for fairly and timely screening, identifying, and resettling refugees.
Honorable Mimi Tsankov U.S. Immigration Judge President, National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”)Hon. Samuel B. Cole Executive Vice President NAIJ PHOTO: NAIJ
Federal immigration judges Mimi Tsankov and Samuel B. Cole to address immigration courts backlog at Headliners Newsmaker, Oct. 18
October 16, 2023, 5:13 pm
WASHINGTON, Oct. 16, 2023 /PRNewswire/ — Judges Mimi Tsankov, a federal immigration judge in New York City, and Samuel B. Cole, a federal immigration judge in Chicago, will speak Wednesday, Oct. 18 at 10 a.m. at a National Press Club Headliners news conference about the pressures of the migrant crisis on the federal immigration court system.
NATIONAL PRESS CLUB LOGO. (PRNewsFoto/NATIONAL PRESS CLUB) (PRNewsfoto/National Press Club) (PRNewsfoto/National Press Club)
An unprecedented surge in migration has created a backlog of 2.6 million cases in the nation’s immigration courts resulting in long waits for hearings. Among other topics, the judges will address the recent assignment of judges to areas along the border. They will provide an update on the judges’ union efforts to restore rights lost during the previous administration.
Federal immigration judges are generally barred from speaking out on issues that affect their courts. Tsankov and Cole will speak in their capacity as president and executive vice president of the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), an affiliate of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE).
The National Press Club is located on the 13th Floor of the National Press Building at 529 14th St., NW, Washington, D.C.
PRESS CONTACT: Cecily Scott Martin for the National Press Club; cscottmartin@press.org; (202) 662-7525
Yet, the mainstream media, Democrats, Civil Rights organizations, and commentators often pay scant attention to the outrageous dehumanizing chaos in our Immigration Courts. One contributing factor is that the DOJ has “muzzled” Immigration Judges from speaking out publicly about what’s happening in their courts, a questionable 1st Amendment suppression that a Federal District Judge recently “shrugged off.” See, e.g., https://knightcolumbia.org/cases/naij-v-neal.
This is a rare opportunity for the public to get insights on this critically important yet “below the radar screen court system” from two sitting judges. They apparently have “sidestepped” the DOJ’s censorship by appearing “solely in their capacity as officers of the National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”).” (Full disclosure: I am a retired NAIJ member.)
The NAIJ strives to provide professional training, encouragement of best practices, more independence, better working conditions, and more cooperation with parties appearing before the Immigration Courts. These positive efforts, among the few happening at EOIR, earned the NAIJ a “decertification” of their status as a union representing Immigration Judges during the Trump Administration.
Ironically, although the Biden Administration touts itself as the most “union-friendly Administration in history,” three years in, the NAIJ has yet to regain full recognition as a union.
“Pie in the sky?” Hardly! Undoubtedly, these measures could be carried out far less expensively than further, ultimately fruitless, border militarization and enhanced cruelty being pushed by the GOP and some Dems. And, they would be more effective in bringing “law and order” to the border and our overall legal system.
Fanned by alarmist narratives being spread by folks like Adams and Hochul (no, Governor, 8 billion people aren’t going to descend on your state — in fact, the U.S. has a “refugee/1,000 population ratio” far below that of many smaller, much poorer countries), and the mainstream media’s insatiable need for a “trumped-up invasion narrative” to create headlines and sound bites, I suspect that the Administration and Dem politicos might be prepared to “throw asylum seekers under the bus” to reach an agreement with the GOP to keep the Government open. After all, asylum seekers don’t vote, and their advocates have historically been good “team players” who go to bat for the Dem Party despite having their contributions, energy, and ideas consistently undervalued, even dissed, once elections are over.
Don’t do it Dems!Giving in to the righty nativists will NOT solve anything, nor will abandoning values help you in the next election! Indeed, the Administration could set more “world records” for exclusions, deportations, denials, imprisonments, wall-building, enforcement hiring, “rocket dockets,” and the GOP would still spout the same “open borders” myth, and the media would give it equal, or greater, time. They largely ignore HRF and other experts who actually understand the border, migration, and have practical, humane, if less inflammatory or drastic, solutions to offer.
The mainstream media seems to have endless time for folks like Trump, Gaetz, Jordan, Haley, Ramaswamy, etc., who have little to contribute to solving pressing national problems. Why aren’t they talking to the folks who understand migration, asylum seekers, the border, and the legal framework? Why aren’t they “headlining” and publicizing reasonable, humane, values-based solutions rather than promoting narratives of doom, hopelessness, and expensive, often illegal, cruelty as the only “solutions?” There actually have been some bipartisan proposals for addressing the border while respecting and even enhancing the rights of asylum seekers. See, e.g.,https://immigrationcourtside.com/2023/02/14/🇺🇸courtside-politics-rep-hillary-scholten-d-mi-is-part-of-a-bipartisan-group-of-new-house-members-reaching-across-the-aisle-in-an-attempt-to-govern-for-the-public-good/. But, you sure wouldn’t know it from listening to the so-called “mainstreamers!”
Here’s another fascinating thing. Humane, sensible, legally compliant, cost effective solutions to migration issues proposed by experts, many of whom are immersed in the reality on a daily basis, are often dismissed, if even mentioned, as “impractical,” “unrealistic,” “idealistic,” “costly.” On the other hand, when politicos, think tankers, reporters, commenters, profiteers, many largely removed from the human trauma of the border situation, present costly, proven to fail, draconian, often illegal measures directed against asylum seekers, the same prejorative, dismissive terms are seldom used.
Indeed, the worse, crueler, and more hare-brained a scheme is, the more likely it is to be mischaracterized as a “realistic response” to a hyped-up emergency! Somehow, wanton cruelty and end-running legal obligations are packaged as a “practical necessities,” while creative ideas on how to solve problems and make the current laws work are summarily brushed aside, often without meaningful analysis and discussion.
As horrifying and clear-cut as their stories seemed, the siblings faced a bewildering array of legal challenges. Their notices to appear lacked any hearing date, leaving them confused about when to appear. Immigration judges frequently order people removed for not appearing, despite the 
