"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals PAUL WICKHAM SCHMIDT and DR. ALICIA TRICHE, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
“They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.”
Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice, Supreme Court, March 1857, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857)
“Congress is entitled to set the conditions for an alien’s lawful entry into this country and that, as a result, an alien at the threshold of initial entry cannot claim any greater rights under the due process clause.”
Justice Samuel Alito, Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. ___ (2020)
Dred Scott (circa 1857) Public Realm — Black asylum seekers and other migrants aren’t celebrating the continuing disgraceful “Dred Scottification of the other” in Mayorkas’s “New American Gulag” and Garland’s “Miller Lite” Immigration “Courts” that aren’t “courts” at all!
Yacouba, a political activist in Ivory Coast, knew if he didn’t immediately flee his home country, he wouldn’t survive.
After being threatened, attacked and tortured by people sympathetic to those in power, Yacouba fled his country in 2018. He went to Brazil for a few years, then made a perilous trek through Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, Panama, Costa Rica, Honduras and Mexico before finally arriving in the United States.
The journey was one of the two most challenging periods of his life. The second was being detained as a Black immigrant in the U.S.
As the nation celebrates Juneteenth — a day commemorating the emancipation of African Americans who had been enslaved in the United States — as a federal holiday for the first time, Black Americans and immigrants are fighting to dismantle institutional racism, including within the immigration system. Black immigrants are disproportionately detained, receive higher bond costs, and say they face racist treatment within detention centers.
Recognizing and celebrating the emancipation of slaves is vital, activists say ― but continuing to take down systemic racism needs to come with it.
“From an immigration perspective, Black immigrants face disproportionate levels of detention and exclusion,” Diana Konate, policy director at the advocacy group African Communities Together, said Thursday on a press call. “These can be life-threatening, as Black immigrants often get deported back to unsafe and dangerous conditions. While we celebrate the victories, we keep in mind that a lot of work remains.”
. . . .
*********************
Read the rest of Rowaida’s article at the link.
Every day that Garland, Monaco, Gupta, and Clarke drag their collective feet on ending “Dred Scottification,” racial bias, and xenophobia at EOIR diminishes their credibility on all racial and social justice issues. To date, Garland has appointed zero (O) progressive judges at EOIR, has only scratched the surface of the White Nationalist bias in decision-making in the Immigration Courts, and has failed to re-establish due process and the rule of law for Blacks and other migrants of color at the border.
Justice Alito and his colleagues in the majority disgracefully basically “dressed up” the core of Dred Scott dehumanization and bias in “21st century faux constitutional gobbledygook and intentional, disingenuous fictionalization!” Make no mistake: asylum seekers applying at our borders with their lives and humanity at stake are “persons” subject to our jurisdiction and are entitled to full Constitutional due process and statutory rights that are being denied to them every day, currently by the Biden Administration.
While Alito & Co. are wrong, DEAD WRONG in all too many cases, nothing in their dishonest and misguided “jurisprudence” prevents Garland from providing due process to individuals, regardless of status, in Immigration Court and to ending the racism and dehumanization underneath both the mess at EOIR and the cowardly abdication of duty by the Supremes’ majority in Thuraissigiam! In human rights, you either solve the problem or become part of it. And, experts, journalists, and historians are making a permanent record of the actions of the Supremes and the Biden Administration when democracy and racial justice are under stress!
You don’t have to look very far to “connect the dots” between Alito’s dismissive attitude toward the human rights of Asians and other asylum seekers of color and the increase in hate crimes directed against Asian Americans and unfair policing of African Americans. Once courts and government officials endorse “dehumanization of the other based largely on ethnicity” the “protections” and “distinctions” of citizenship tend to also vanish. If the lives of migrants of color can be declared worthless, what difference does citizenship mean for those of the same ethnic heritage that Alito deems below humanity? Obviously, the Trump kakistocracy’s attack on migrants of color was just a “place holder” for their attack on the rights of all persons of color in America!
How can Garland’s DOJ demand racial justice in state law enforcement while operating America’s most notorious “Jim Crow Court System?”
James “Jim” Crow Symbol of American Racism — He still “rules the roost” at Garland’s EOIR!
It’s time for all civil rights and civil liberties organizations to join forces in demanding an end to bias and “Dred Scottification of the other” in Garland’s disgracefully dysfunctional Immigration “Courts.” Not rocket science!🚀 Just human decency, common sense, available (yet ignored) progressive expertise, and Con Law 101!
The panel held that substantial evidence did not support the immigration judge’s determination that Alvarado- Herrera failed to establish a reasonable fear of torture with the consent or acquiescence of a public official, given Alvarado-Herrera’s specific assertions of police complicity in the 18th Street gang’s violent acts. Noting that the asylum officer refused to credit Alvarado-Herrera’s assertions, which were based in part on media reports and common knowledge among Hondurans that it is well known that the police work for the gangs, that the police are allied with the 18th Street gang in particular, and that the police not only allow gang members to harm others but also provide information to gang members to help them find and kill people, the panel wrote that it was unclear what additional evidence the asylum officer expected Alvarado-Herrera to produce at that stage of the proceedings. The panel observed that non-citizens in reinstatement proceedings who express a fear of returning to their home country typically appear for a reasonable fear interview within a short time of their
ALVARADO-HERRERA V. GARLAND 5
apprehension by immigration authorities, and that many, like Alvarado-Herrera, are being held in detention facilities and do not have legal representation. The panel wrote that, as a result, they cannot realistically be expected to produce for the asylum officer’s review the kind of detailed country conditions evidence that would be introduced during a merits hearing before an immigration judge. The panel wrote that such a demand would be inconsistent with the purpose of a reasonable fear interview, which is simply to screen out frivolous claims for relief in as expeditious a manner as possible, and if a non-citizen provides an otherwise credible account concerning his fear of torture, his own statements can supply adequate support for claims about country conditions, at least for purposes of satisfying the ten percent threshold necessary to pass a reasonable fear screening interview. The panel remanded with instructions for the agency to provide Alvarado-Herrera a hearing before an immigration judge only as to the merits of his claim for protection under CAT.
2) 10th Cir. Says IJ Muffed Analysis Of Mexican CAT Claim!
“Maria Torres de Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, appeals the denial of her application for deferral of removal under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT). Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings. … [W]e are compelled to conclude it is more likely than not that El Tigre [of the Sinaloa Cartel] would be aware if Torres de Lopez is removed to Mexico, and that El Tigre and his direct associates would have both sufficient motivation and ability to locate Torres de Lopez anywhere in Mexico. But the evidence does not compel the conclusion that the Juárez or Sinaloa cartels have a sufficient institutional motivation to locate Torres de Lopez anywhere in Mexico. And the questions that remain are ones the IJ did not reach—if El Tigre or his direct associates found Torres de Lopez in Mexico, would they inflict any harm on her, would that harm be severe enough to constitute torture for CAT purposes, and would Mexican public officials instigate, consent to, or acquiesce in such harm? We may not answer those questions in the first instance and remand them to the IJ for initial consideration. … All this brings us to the fourth and fifth steps in the IJ’s framework—if El Tigre or his direct associates find Torres de Lopez, will they harm her and, if so, will the harm amount to torture? … [W]e must remand to the agency to conduct the inquiry into the fourth and fifth steps in the first instance. … We grant the petition for review and remand to the agency for further proceedings consistent with our decision.”
[Hats off to Stephen W. Spurgin!]
**********************
Sadly, “reasonable adjudicator” wouldn’t encompass many of those currently serving in Garland’s holdover corps of Immigration Judges and his “Millerized & Trumpitized”BIA. In particular, the horrible job done by, and the bias against due process for those seeking CAT protection shown by, Attorneys General and the BIA over the past three Administrations is absolutely disgraceful.
Yet, it continues, unabated, today under Judge Garland! It’s basically “Jim Crow Justice” dressed up in a Sunday suit. One could almost imagine a picture of Chief Justice Roger Taney hanging in the BIA’s conference room.
Roger Taney PHOTO: Matthew Brady Public Realm Discredited CJ remains a hero to many Miller/Hamilton/Sessions holdovers at Garland’s DOJ because of his aggressive “Dred Scottification” of the other! One of Stephen Miller’s soul mates, this dude’s life was defined by his unyielding belief that all men aren’t created equal and that only powerful White Guys have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness! And, that women don’t even exist before the law!
The obvious lack of competence in a “judiciary” regularly attempting to send individuals back to possible torture in violation of due process and the statute should prompt decisive corrective action from those in charge of this dysfunctional system. But, to date, it hasn’t!
Instead, what have Biden, Garland, & Mayorkas done? Continued the illegal practice of returning asylum seekers and others to possible death or torture without any process at all. Then, they have the gall to send their “flackies” out to claim that the “victims” are the “problem” for exercising their legal rights to seek protection, at a time that apparently is “politically inconvenient” for the Biden politicos to offer a system that provides that legally-required protection.
Looks pretty “Stephen Millerish” to me, not to mention “Catch 22!” How dare you cross our border seeking due process and turn yourself in to the Border Patrol when can go to a legal port of entry, present yourself, and be immediately sent back to death with no process at all! Don’t you understand how American “justice” works? Go back to your own countries from where you were forced to flee where, if you live long enough, you can’t apply under our non-existent overseas refugee system. Is that perfectly clear?
The Presidential election was over on Saturday, Nov. 7, 2020! Biden and Harris campaigned on a platform of immigration and human rights reforms that included ending the many illegal, inhumane, and counterproductive policies of Trump/Miller, restoring the rule of law, and re-establishing honesty and human dignity in immigration, asylum, and refugee processing.
Yet, in the 10 weeks between the conclusion of the election and the inauguration, “Team Biden” and those who were under serious consideration for leadership positions in the thoroughly broken and dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy came up with no viable plans to “hit the ground running” with the necessary dramatic, yet achievable, changes. That’s something that I submit hundreds of “practical experts” — all of them in the Democratic camp — could have achieved had they been tapped.
It certainly was no mystery that the border and the mess at DHS, EOIR, OIL, and the SG’s Office would have to be addressed immediately — “day one or day two stuff!” Nor, would it take any deep thinking to recognize that immigration would be the overarching issue connecting social justice, racial justice, economic recovery, court reform, foreign affairs, the environment, and public health.
Nor would it have taken much awareness to recognize that the GOP, who didn’t even bother advancing a platform or constructive ideas during the campaign, would make and “rev up” appeals to hate, fear, racism, White Nationalism, myths, fabrications, distortions, and outright lies about “security threats” (actually threats to “white culture and power”) posed by desperate individuals, many of color, merely seeking legal refuge and fair consideration under our legal system. So, getting the legal asylum and refugee systems functioning again should have been a top priority — simultaneous with COVID relief!
Additionally, there were dozens of smart journalists out there who were “on top” of the Miller/Trump White Nationalist nonsense, and had figured out how to cut through the BS and obfuscation to explain what the law and common sense requires, in understandable terms. Thus, the Biden team even had a “golden opportunity” to put together a group of “immigration/human rights/rule of law flackies” who could both educate insiders and in public run circles around the likes of Fox News, right wing radio, and magamoron White Nationalist nativists like Cruz, Cotton, Hawley, and McCarthy. All it would have taken is competence and courage — two qualities often in short supply in Dem Administrations when immigration, human rights, and due process are at stake.
Yet, nearly three months into the Administration, and a full five months after the election was decided, the Administration’s approach to this key issue can best, and most charitably, be described as “Amateur Night at the Bijou.”
During five months since the election, the Biden Administration has quickly moved to set up a chain of nationwide “recruiting centers” for the their Immigration Courts, immigration bureaucracy, refugee administration, human rights PR groups, and liaison with Hill Dems. Results have been astounding! PHOTO: Thomas Hawk Creative Commons
Most seriously, the Immigration Court and the rule of law remain in shambles — with Judge Garland failing to take the necessary elementary steps to reverse the Trump/Miller DOJ’s misogynist, racially driven assault on the rule of law for asylum seekers of color. This sends an ugly shockwave of failure throughout the Biden-Harris agenda and continues to de-stabilize an already shaky American justice system.
It also “pisses off” the Administration’s would-be friends and supporters while energizing its most vociferous enemies! Additionally, it demoralizes and disrespects those remaining at EOIR, many who have struggled though the last four years trying to hold some portions of the fort while waiting for salvation, potential allies — already on the in side — who will be necessary for the “reclamation project.”
Some have even taken the desperate step of anonymously reaching out to Courtside for help in raising consciousness about the astounding level of injustice, incompetence, and anti-immigration culture that Judge Garland is countenancing at EOIR. They just can’t wrap their heads around it!
As they have pointed out, Sessions, who once (in the distant past, before overt racism came part of the GOP platform) was deemed unfit by his own party for a Federal Judgeship because of his racist record, and his hench-people “hit the ground running” with their White Nationalist misogynistic agenda at EOIR. This was an agenda basically drafted by nativist groups. They moved rapidly and with purpose to remove, force out, disempower, isolate, and/or marginalize anyone at EOIR thought to harbor the heretical belief that asylum seekers, migrants, women of color, and their lawyers were humans or possessed any rights whatsoever. They obliterated any “best practices” — they few things that actually were working at EOIR. They also filled every vacant position with nativist toadies and hacks, packed the Immigration Courts and BIA with more “judges,” even as they were more than doubling the already huge backlog with their “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and endless due-process- killing, yet fundamentally ineffective, enforcement nobly gimmicks.
Sessions even proudly announced his war on refugee women of color and their lawyers at am “EOIR training session” for “his judges,” drawing stunned silence from many, but also cheers from some “magamoron judges” in the audience. Somehow, over the years, indolent Article III Judges overlooked the obvious lack of ethics in Sessions’s performance as well as the crystal clear lack of Matthews v. Eldridgefundamental due process in a farcical “court” system. A “court parody” where the racist head prosecutor, who also asserted himself as the de facto head of DHS enforcement, urged “his judges” on to inflict ever more rapid and unlawful acts of desecration, dehumanization, and capricious treatment upon those they were supposed to be judging fairly and humanely.
Some of the “survivors” within EOIR expected Judge Garland, once a highly respected Court of Appeals Judge, former Supreme Court nominee, veteran of the DOJ in better times, and relatively recent descendent of immigrants, to put a quick end to the unconstitutional nonsense at EOIR, cast out the “Miller/Hamilton perps,” their many EOIR toadies, and the “go along to get alongs” who had created this disgraceful and dysfunctional mess at what was once supposed to be a “bastion of due process.” They expected Garland to bring in a team of respected “immigration/human rights/due process pros” and to elevate those in the system who had stood tall against the abuses of due process and humanity over the past four years.
Alas, those survivors quickly discovered that Garland is largely oblivious to the ongoing clown show at EOIR, the continuing human carnage it causes on a daily basis, the squandered potential to boost due process and racial justice in America, and the rapid erosion of his support and his image among those who courageously and often successfully fought the “Miller neo-Nazi plan” to dismantle the American justice system.
Vainly, they wait for Garland’s recognition of the heroic role of the National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”) in maintaining some vestiges of justice and professional training at EOIR and, most important, in publicly exposing, including to Congress, the ongoing fraud, waste and abuse of public trust carried out by the Trump/Miller kakistocracy at EOIR. They are distraught by Garland’s inexplicable failure to condemn “Billy the Bigot’s” totally outrageous actions in frivolously moving to “decertify” the NAIJ as punishment for their exposing his many illegal activities and abuses of honest government at EOIR.
They are absolutely incredulous that a “100 page study,” conducted by those having no real expertise in the Immigraton Court, would be viewed as a substitute for the immediate removal and replacement of dysfunctional personnel and a strong public commentment to root out injustice, racism, and misogyny, reject and repudiate bogus precedents, institute aggressive due process reforms, and promote true quasi-judicial independence at EOIR.
They are particularly puzzled by Garland’s permitting the conducting of idiotic clown shows — misnamed “Town Halls” — throughout the country further insulting and inflaming the long-suffering stakeholders and advertising EOIR’s continuing failure to run like a court and respect the input, expertise, and legitimate needs of those same “stakeholders.” They are baffled when there are so many great “due process role models” out there who could and should be sending the exact opposite message — that “the clown show is over” and the pros are now in charge of restoring justice and sanity @ EOIR!
They can’t fathom how anyone, let alone a former Article III Judge, could believe that judicial dockets across America can be micromanaged by non-judicial bureaucrats in Falls Church and DC who have never successfully managed a docket in their lives, know little about the harsh realities of today’s dysfunctional Immigration “Courts,” and who operate in blissful studied ignorance of the many localized factors that go into successful docket management at all other functioning court systems in America.
And, although it might be below Judge Garland’s “radar screen,” human lives are actually being destroyed and human suffering multiplied while he and his “spear carriers” diddle over how to fix EOIR! To quote some of the Hill Dems yesterday, “This is stupid!”
(Duh, who outside the Biden camp would have failed to predict that yesterday’s idiotic “two-step” on the refugee cap would go over worse than a lead balloon? The Biden immigration “advisors” might think that refugee lives don’t matter, but many Dems living in the real world and on the Hill don’t see it that way!)
Garland has also failed to place competent judicial leadership in charge of EOIR and the BIA and to make it clear that institutional disdain for due process, best practices, and human dignity will no longer be the ”order of the day” in America’s largest, and perhaps most important, Federal Court System. A rather atrocious start for an Administration struggling to put the Trump-Miller scofflaw White Nationalist agenda behind them!
Just how does one “pull that off” with a bunch of Miller cronies, and Sessions/Barr nativist judges (many incompetent to fairly apply and interpret basic asylum, immigration, and due process laws) still dominating the scene in America’s most dysfunctional and dehumanizing “judiciary.” While Judge Garland might have forgotten this during his “above the fray” tenure in the “judicial ivory tower,” leadership, priorities, and symbolism are really important in government! Right now, they are all headed 100 mph in the wrong direction at the DOJ — for no obvious reason!
Garland, supposedly the “people’s” chief lawyer, has also failed to push Mayorkas and the White House for a restoration of the legal asylum system at the border! In 100 days, Mayorkas and Garland could have supplemented the Asylum Officer corps with retirees and private sector refugee/asylum experts and gotten them down to the border to do honest, efficient credible fear screening. Obviously, reopening timely legal screening at legal ports of entry would reduce the incentives for crossing the border elsewhere.
They also could have energized human rights and pro bono NGOs to represent those “screened in.” Garland could have gotten both sitting and retired Immigration Judges with strong records of granting asylum (check TRAC, it’s all set out in plain view) working on these cases, while clearing the dockets of hundreds of thousands of backlogged cases going nowhere in any event. See Greg Chen & Professor Peter Moskowitz.
Garland could have appointed competent Appellate (or even “Appellatte”) Immigration Judges at the BIA (acting, if necessary until final selections can be made) to issue positive precedents on asylum, CAT, withholding, cancellation of removal, adjustment of status, administrative closure, and docket management to stop the endless nonsense and idiotic, justice-killing, enforcement gimmicks and “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” imposed by the Trump/Miller crowd of malicious incompetents.
Secretary Mayorkas and Secretary Becerra could have invoked and energized the now largely dormant refugee resettlement apparatus in the private/NGO sectors to temporarily resettle arriving children and families in a humane, orderly and efficient manner.
Yesterday’s stunning“unforced error” on refugee processing is just the latest example that Biden’s advisors don’t “get” immigration and need to be replaced with experts; experts who understand the fundamentals, believe in the generous, humane, restore the rule of law platform he and Harris ran on, and can explain it in clear, compelling terms. The “right folks” are “out there” — that’s the problem, “out there” instead of inside solving problems and moving the train in the right direction.
It’s not rocket science:
Immigration is good. 98% of Americans are immigrants or descended from immigrants. That immigration has produced some scoundrels, insurrectionists, liars, and ingrates like the Trumps, Cruzes, Cottons, McCarthys, Taylor-Greenes, Millers, Kobachs, etc., of our world doesn’t change that overall equation;
Refugees and asylees (refugees granted status at our border or in the US when our legal system is functioning — it isn’t now) are essential components of legal immigration;
We need and must have significantly more legal immigration, particularly if we want to maintain a robust economy and a dynamic, innovative society, in light of population losses from the pandemic and low birth rates;
Applying the Refugee Act of 1980 in a fair, generous, humane manner that furthers due process of law isn’t “an option” for debate or a matter for more “studies” — there are more than enough of the latter our there anyway. The problem is that the folks who did them and can solve the problems remain on the outside rather than running EOIR! It’s a legal and moral imperative! Garland’s function isn’t coming up with more failed, illegal gimmicks to avoid granting asylum or aid misguided law enforcement, make a few cosmetic changes to appease advocates, or engage in more boneheaded “revolution by evolution” (see Obama Administration) approaches at EOIR! It’s getting our legal asylum system functioning again at EOIR and also at USCIS in a robust, competent manner with real, independent, expert judges and professional judicial administrations who can do the job;
That also means publicly and virtuously standing up for the legal and Constitutional rights of the most vulnerable among us — per MLK Jr. — and having the guts and presence to “take it to” magamorons like Miller, Cruz, Cotton, McCarthy, and other GOP White Nationalist hate mongers who are destroying our nation and poisoning the well of our democracy with their xenophobic myths and “solutions” that actally are “crimes against humanity!” When in power, those folks had no problem publicly advancing and even touting their racist lies and ethnic slurs, as they continue to do! Why is Garland “swallowing the whistle” on rooting out and condemning institutionalized racism, misogyny, dehumanization of the other, incompetence, and scofflaw behavior @ EOIR?
Obviously, those advisors who told Biden to release the “Miller-level” refugee cap yesterday believed in neither the Biden election platform nor the positives of robust legal immigration. They also lacked the knowledge and self-confidence to “sell” an honest, realistic, humane human rights and immigration agenda that is the key to our national future. They also were woefully ignorant about and totally “misplayed” the strong political and public support for refugees and the critical role that immigration and human rights advocates play within the Democratic Party.
Currently, the inability of the Biden Administration to bring competence, positivity, the rule of law, and creative thinking to their immigration/human rights program is weighing down and “sucking much of their air” from the many things they are getting right.
It’s past time to end “Amateur Night at the Bijou” and bring in the pros. Before it’s too late!
🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽⚖️Due Process Forever! Judge Garland, End the Disgraceful EOIR Clown Show, Now🤡🦹🏿♂️🏴☠️!
6) No, they can’t. Casey would be right home with the gang at EOIR HQ and also @ “Main ‘Justice.’”
If you got 100%, congratulations, you have won the “Amateur Night at the Bijou” competition. Although that makes you over-qualified to become an “Appellatte Immigration Judge” you will receive a free Starbucks coupon redeemable for a latte of your choice, to be issued only tomorrow!
Another day, another extreme cruelty: according to a report in the New York Times, the Trump administration has deported almost 1,000 migrant children and teens during the past two months of the covid-19 pandemic, sending them out of the United States alone and at times putting them on a flight without even telling their family members. Stephen Miller, who is unfortunately still alive, must be thrilled.
Trump’s latest tactic in the service of slashing immigration is, as the New York Times points out, a complete 180 from past policy:
The deportations represent an extraordinary shift in policy that has been unfolding in recent weeks on the southwestern border, under which safeguards that have for decades been granted to migrant children by both Democratic and Republican administrations appear to have been abandoned.
Historically, young migrants who showed up at the border without adult guardians were provided with shelter, education, medical care and a lengthy administrative process that allowed them to make a case for staying in the United States. Those who were eventually deported were sent home only after arrangements had been made to assure they had a safe place to return to.
But now, not even children who are already in the United States with pending asylum cases are safe from deportation. As the Times reported, in addition to the more than 900 children and teens who were deported in March and April shortly after arriving at the border, 60 young people who were already being held in government shelters were also abruptly sent out of the United States, at times “rousted from their beds in the middle of the night.”
According to the Times, even young children have been put on flights by themselves. Take the case of Sandra Rodríguez and her 10-year-old son Gerson, whom she sent across the southern border with the expectation that once Gerson arrived in the United States, he would be able to eventually live with Rodríguez’s brother in Houston. But instead, shortly after entering the U.S., Gerson was sent to Honduras alone.
This incredibly callous treatment of young migrants as well as their families is part of the Trump administration’s attempt to erase any vestige of due process at the border with Mexico. Citing the pandemic, immigration officials have used provisions in the 1944 Public Health Act as justification to essentially close the United States to all asylum seekers who cross the border. The impact has been severe: In an almost two-month period from mid-March to May, only two people seeking protection on humanitarian grounds at the border were allowed to stay within the United States.
“What is happening at the border right now is a tragedy. We are abandoning our legal commitment to provide asylum to people whose lives are in danger in other countries,” Kari Hong, an immigration attorney and Boston College law school professor, told the Washington Post. “By invoking these emergency orders, the Trump administration is simply doing what it’s wanted to do all along, which is to end asylum law in its entirety,” she said.
While Trump administration officials have justified their likely illegal use of emergency orders in the name of public health, the fact that officials have also deported children and teens who were already in the care of the federal government sure indicates that something else is going on here. I wonder what that could be.
*********************
Who would have thought that America would become a nation of child abusers and that Federal Courts would be so feckless and complicit in the face of such clear abuses? Three years of concerted failure, led by John Roberts and the Supremes, to give meaning to Due Process and Equal Protection in the face of the “New Jim Crow” have emboldened the regime’s White Nationalist, anti-American abusers while kneecapping democratic and constitutional institutions.
Then, there’s the extreme, wanton cruelty and dehumanization inflicted on the mostly vulnerable among us that has come to symbolize our nation in the Age of Trump. Like all the other abuses by the regime, it’s been “normalized” by feckless legislators and judges: “Another day, another extreme cruelty!” ☠️⚰️🤮🏴☠️
Somewhere down there in the fires of the underworld, Chief Justice Roger Taney, author of the infamous “Dred Scott Decision” must be feeling totally vindicated by Roberts and his gang!
Is this really how we want to be remembered by future generations? If not, vote ‘em out this November!
The immigration policies executed by the Trump administration have been, to be succinct, f***ed up. That’s not even just me saying that. The people who have to execute his policies are saying it too.
The New York Times reports that a union of federal asylum workers has filed an amicus brief stating that a policy from the Trump Administration that diverts migrants to Guatemala is unlawful. The union, National CIS Council 119, represents 700 asylum and refugee officers of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. The brief states that international treaty obligations are being violated as a result of having to deport migrants to a country where they will likely face prosecution. The Trump administration made a deal with Guatemala that allows the United States to deport migrants seeking asylum in the States to Guatemala. The union believes that these new rules are forcing them to violate the laws they were trained to uphold.
. . . .
********************************
Read the complete report at the link.
HEROES & ENABLERS — Judges Who Aid The Trump Regime’s Deadly Oppression Of The Most Vulnerable Among Us Will Eventually Hear The Voices Of Those They Abandoned & Dehumanized — Even From The Graves Of The Oppressed, History Will Pass Judgement On The Smugly Powerful Who Abuse The Weak!
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
Courtside Exclusive
March 9, 2020
USCIS Asylum Officers are the “NDPA Heroes of the Week!”
So, one group of courageous civil servants is willing to put their careers on the line to defend the Constitution and the rights of the vulnerable. But, others in more protected positions, like, for example, Supreme Court Justices and some Court of Appeals Judges, are afraid to stand up to Trump and defend the rule of law and the humanity of those whose only “crime” is to trust in our legal protection system. The courage of one group contrasts with the willful ignorance and cowardly complicity of the other. What’s wrong with this picture?
At some point, there will be “regime change” in the Executive as well as the Senate. When that happens, our system needs a complete re-examination of the immigration scholarship, commitment to human rights, and the moral leadership of those we are giving lifetime appointments to the Federal Bench, particularly the Supremes.
Obviously, the system has failed when two current justices choose to use their power and privileged positions disingenuously to rail about the “bogus horrors” of nationwide injunctions, and thereby spur the regime on to even grater abuses, while papering over the real issue of the actual grotesque legal, constitutional, and human rights violations inflicted on migrants and others by a White Nationalist would-be authoritarian regime that would eventually do away with almost all of our legal rights.
In the future, perhaps we should consider elevating more Asylum Officers with law degrees and a record of fair adjudication and speaking truth to power to the Article III Judiciary, including the Supremes. There are younger members of our Round Table of Former Immigration Judges who were forced by the regime into “early retirement” who could bring scholarship, fairness, practicality, and justice back to the Article IIIs. How about some pro bono lawyers, clinical professors, and NGO leaders who combine scholarship with real life experience and whose proven creativity and problem solving skills far exceed the pedestrian and wooden approaches we see all too often from today’s failing Article III Judiciary. Although their efforts are mocked, disrespected, and undermined by complicit Article III Judges, like the “J.R. Five,” these courageous “defenders of democracy and the rights of the weak” are the ones who are in fact keeping our legal system afloat in the face of Article III willful ignorance and complicity in tyranny.
And, we definitely need fewer corporate lawyers (except those who have extensive pro bono immigration/human rights experience), prosecutors, and right wing “think tankers” occupying the Federal bench.We have an oversupply of those folks on the bench right now, and our rights are suffering for it. It will take years, perhaps decades, to repair the damage they are causing and to bring the Federal Judicial system back into a proper balance.
These aren’t “liberal/conservative philosophical questions.” They are black and white questions of moral courage and the willingness to enforce Due Process and protect those whose lives are endangered by the Trump regime’s cruel and lawless programs and constant racially-inspired lies, naked bias, and misrepresentations. Sending folks back to dangerous countries without functioning asylum systems is wrong as a matter of law. Period. Making them “Remain in Mexico” is wrong. Period. A so-called “court system” run by a transparently biased, disingenuous, “uber enforcement” official like Billy Barr does not provide the “fair and impartial adjudications” required by Due Process. Period. Separating families and putting kids in cages and “kiddie gulags” is wrong. Period. Those initiating and carrying out those policies should be chastised and held accountable, not enabled. Period.
Actually, many courageous and scholarly U.S. District Judges have gotten these straightforward legal questions exactly right and promptly entered life-saving injunctions. A number of U.S. Immigration Judges have also courageously adhered to the rule of law in the face of excruciating and unethical pressure from DOJ politicos and their toadies to cut corners and railroad individuals out of the country without due process.
It’s the Supremes and too many Circuit Court Judges who who have “rolled over” for the regime’s cruel and inhuman nonsense. By doing so, they essentially “pull the rug” out from under those judges who have the encourage and integrity to “just say no” to the regime’s constant overreach. In doing so, the Federal Appellate Courts and the Supremes are actually engaging in undermining the system they serve and encouraging “worst practices” and even worse results. What truly reprehensible “role models” for upcoming lawyers. Fortunately, many newer lawyers are members of the New Due Process Army and are ignoring the poor and immoral examples of judicial spinelessness set by their supposed “elders.”
Life tenure protects the jobs and paychecks of Article III Judges. But, it won’t protect them from justified criticism and the ultimate judgement of history. Bashing the oppressed in behalf of those in power might seem like a good short-term strategy. After all, the deported, the abused, and the dead don’t normally get to “write history.”
But others are watching this travesty unfold and are pledged to “give a voice” to those silenced by the gross dereliction of legal duties and ignoring simple human decency and values by many with power who could have put an end to these obscene human rights abuses. Chief Justice Roger Taney might have been hailed by the White Supremacists of his age for his opinion in Dred Scott. But, he hasn’t “weathered the test of time” too well! Nor will Chief Justice Roberts and others who have been “going along to get along” with cruel and illegal abuses wantonly inflicted by the White Nationalist regime on the most needy and vulnerable among us.
Congrats and much appreciation from all of us in the New Due Process Army to USCIS Asylum Officers for your courage and integrity in the face of tyranny!
Due Process Forever; Complicity & Enabling Cruelty Never!
Americans generally take it for granted that the U.S. government cannot restrict freedom of speech. It cannot discriminate on the basis of ethnicity and religion, and it cannot detain people without due process. Though these rights are not absolute, there is at the very least a strong constitutional presumption against such measures. Much of this is thanks to the Bill of Rights and other constitutional protections, particularly the Fourteenth Amendment. But there is an area of public policy in which the government routinely gets away with oppression and discrimination that would be readily recognized as unconstitutional anywhere else: immigration law.
In Dred Scott v. Sandford, Chief Justice Roger Taney infamously wrote that black people “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” Many aspects of immigration policy are unfortunately based on a similar assumption: Immigrants have virtually no constitutional rights that the federal government is bound to respect.
In other situations, the Supreme Court has a much lower bar for what qualifies as unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of religion. Indeed, in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, decided just a few weeks before the travel ban case, the Supreme Court overturned a decision from a state civil rights commission in a case regarding a baker who declined to prepare a cake for a same-sex wedding ceremony for religious reasons. Although the commission had originally concluded the baker had violated state antidiscrimination law, the Court found that two of the group’s seven members had made biased statements against the baker’s religion—meaning that his case hadn’t been afforded the neutral treatment demanded by the First Amendment’s free exercise clause—and invalidated the commission’s decision. The Court reached that decision even though the commission would quite likely have ruled against the baker regardless of the prejudices of the two members (the other five commissioners also supported the ruling). All five of the justices who voted with the majority in the travel-ban case were part of the 7–2 majority in Masterpiece Cakeshop.
Why the difference between the two cases? As Chief Justice John Roberts explained in his majority opinion in the travel ban ruling, the answer is that courts defer to the government far more in immigration cases than practically any other area in which constitutional rights are at stake. As he put it, judicial “inquiry into matters of entry and national security is highly constrained.”
The travel ban is far from the only case in which immigration restrictions have been held to a lower constitutional standard compared with almost any other exercise of government power. In August, the Israeli government was rightly criticized for barring entry to two American members of Congress because of their support for the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. But few recalled that the U.S. also has a long history of banning foreigners with political views that the government disapproves of. Concerns that European immigrants had dangerous political views were a major motivation behind the highly restrictive 1924 Immigration Act, and were also used to justify barring many Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany in the 1930s. Even today, the law forbids entry to anyone who has been a “member of or affiliated with the Communist or any other totalitarian party.” Meanwhile, the government cannot discriminate against U.S. citizens who share those same views, including by denying them government services available to others.
Similar constitutional double standards pervade many other aspects of immigration policy. Courts have ruled that the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment provides for paid counsel in most cases where the state threatens indigent individuals with severe deprivations of liberty. But indigent migrants targeted for detention and deportation are not entitled to free legal representation, and often have to navigate a complex legal system without assistance. This leads to such horrific absurdities as toddlers “representing” themselves in deportation proceedings. You don’t have to be a lawyer to recognize that this does not comport with the due process of law required by the Fifth Amendment.
Some argue that nothing is wrong with such policies, because immigrants have no constitutional right to enter the United States. But the Constitution undeniably prohibits various types of discrimination with respect to issues that are not themselves constitutional rights. For example, there is no constitutional right to receive Social Security benefits. But it would still be unconstitutional for the federal government to adopt a policy that extended such benefits only to Christians, or only to people who support the president.
Noncitizens are not categorically denied all constitutional rights; far from it. If they are accused of a crime, they get the same procedural rights as citizens. If the government condemns their property, they are entitled to “just compensation” under the Fifth Amendment. Many other constitutional rights cover them as well. But the anti-immigrant double standard applies to virtually all laws and regulations governing entry into the United States, immigration detention, and deportation.
Immigrants are not the only ones who suffer as a result of the immigration-law double standard. Many native-born citizens suffer along with them. A study by the Northwestern University political-science professor Jacqueline Stevens estimates that the federal government detained or deported some 4,000 American citizens in 2010 alone, and more than 20,000 from 2003 to 2010, due to mistakes resulting from the extremely lax procedural safeguards surrounding immigration detention and deportation. Other American-citizen victims of the immigration double standard include the thousands of parents forcibly separated from their children (and vice versa) by measures such as Trump’s travel ban, which would have been invalidated as unconstitutional if not for special judicial deference on immigration policy. Many U.S. citizens also suffer from the extensive racial profiling permitted in immigration enforcement.
There is no basis for the immigration double standard in the text and original meaning of the Constitution. Most constitutional rights are phrased as generalized limitations on government power, not privileges that only apply to specific groups of people, such as U.S. citizens, or to government actions in specific places, such as U.S. territory. The First Amendment, for instance, states that “Congress shall make no law” restricting freedom of speech and religion, not “Congress shall make no law—except when it comes to immigration” restricting those rights.
A few constitutional rights are indeed limited to U.S. citizens or to “the people,” as in the case of the Second Amendment right to bear arms, which might be interpreted as a synonym for citizens. But the fact that a few rights are specifically reserved for citizens highlights the broader principle that most are not. There would be no need to specify such restrictions if the default assumption were that all rights are limited to citizens.
During the founding era, the dominant view, held by Founding Fathers including Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (the “father of the Constitution”), was that the federal government did not even have a general power to restrict immigration. The Supreme Court did not decide that Congress had a general power over immigration until the Chinese Exclusion Case of 1889, a ruling heavily influenced by racial prejudice. It is perverse that the exercise of a federal power that rests on such dubious foundations is largely exempt from the judicial scrutiny that applies to almost all other powers.
Admittedly, since the late 19th century, many Supreme Court precedents have reinforced the so-called plenary power doctrine, which holds that normal constitutional constraints on federal authority largely do not apply to immigration restrictions. For example, a variety of Supreme Court decisions hold that migrants could be excluded based on their political views, and based on restrictive laws whose enactment was in large part motivated by racial and ethnic prejudice. But these precedents are not as clear as is often assumed. Many upheld discriminatory immigration restrictions when similar discrimination was also permitted in the domestic context. For example, some involved racially discriminatory restrictions at a time when courts also upheld domestic Jim Crow laws, and others upheld the exclusion of communists at a time when courts permitted domestic persecution of communists as well.
Still, in addition to rejecting the reasoning of the travel-ban decision, uprooting the plenary power theory entirely would require reconsideration of the traditional interpretations of many earlier precedents, even though it would not require fully overruling those cases. The Court could instead accept that those precedents were justifiable insofar as they upheld discrimination that was also considered permissible in other areas of law at the time, but reject the idea that they require perpetuation of a double standard between immigration law and other fields.
Abolishing constitutional double standards in immigration law would not end all immigration restrictions. But it would ensure that immigration policy is subject to the same constitutional constraints as other exercises of federal authority. The government could still restrict immigration based on a variety of characteristics. For example, it could still discriminate using such criteria as migrants’ education, occupational credentials, and criminal records. But it would no longer be permitted to engage in racial, ethnic, religious, or other discrimination that is forbidden in other contexts.
Ending this double standard will not be easy, and probably cannot be done by lawyers alone. The civil-rights movement, the feminist movement, and the gun-rights movement are all examples of how successful struggles to strengthen protection for constitutional rights usually require a strategy that integrates litigation with political mobilization. The lessons of that history might be useful to those who seek to end one of the most egregious double standards in our constitutional jurisprudence.
It’s actually not that hard to get the Constitution right and to do the right thing. The Republic and Constitutional Government are “on the ropes” as a result of Trump’s White Nationalist corruption and gross abuses of the Rule of Law. And, all current indications are that the Supremes’ complicit majority intends to continue to corruptly and disingenuously destroy our republic. So, who will protect them and their families in the “Post-Constitutional Chaos” they are promoting?
Where, oh where, has judicial courage and integrity gone? Trump is destroying America, but a complicit Supremes’ majority has been a key enabler! What’s wrong with these guys? And, that’s certainly not to minimize the role of prior Supremes in failing to enforce required Constitutional protections for migrants. After all, the unconstitutional U.S. Immigration Courts have been operating under the DOJ for decades.
Think how history might have been different if the Supremes had “just said no” to Trump’s unconstitutional, clearly religiously and politically motivated, “Muslim Ban” instead of “rolling over.” (“The Court did so despite overwhelming evidence showing that the motivation behind the travel ban was religious discrimination targeting Muslims, as Trump himself repeatedly stated.”) Instead of shrinking before tyranny, the Supremes could have made it clear that Trump & Miller and their sycophants would have to act within the Constitution with respect to foreign nationals. The lower courts had it right! The Supremes undermined them and trashed the Rule of Law in the process!
Trump advertised that he could steamroll the Constitution with racism and religious bigotry. And, the feckless Supremes’ majority proved him right, dissing those courageous lower court judges who actually stood up for the Constitution in the process. The utter disaster that has followed, including betrayals of our real national security, can be laid directly at the feet of a complicit Supremes’ majority!
Will John Roberts go down as the “reincarnation of Chief Justice Roger Taney?”
