Cuba – immigrationcourtside.com

☠️ PERSECUTED IN CUBA, NIT-PICKED BY IJ 🤮, RUBBER-STAMPED BY BIA 👎🏼, REFUGEE FINALLY GETS SOME JUSTICE ⚖️ FROM 11TH CIR!😎

Kangaroos — “Any reason to deny, any reason to deny, any reason to deny, any reason to deny, any reason to deny, any reason to deny, any reason to deny . . . .”
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/
Creative Commons License

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca11-on-credibility-substantial-evidence-cuba-serra-v-atty-gen

CA11 on Credibility, Substantial Evidence, Cuba: Serra v. Atty. Gen.

Serra v. Atty. Gen.

“For decades, the authoritarian regime in Cuba has utilized its police force to intimidate and physically assault political dissidents and peaceful demonstrators throughout the island. Ignacio Balaez Serra, a Cuban immigrant seeking asylum in the United States, maintains he experienced this abuse first-hand after multiple arrests, imprisonments, and beatings by the Cuban police. Serra seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) final order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of Serra’s application for asylum, withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”) (together, “Application”). The IJ denied Serra’s Application, finding Serra’s testimony “not credible.” In reaching this adverse credibility determination, the IJ cited two inconsistencies between Serra’s hearing testimony and Application. The first purported inconsistency dealt with the timing of Serra’s passage of a kidney stone; specifically, whether he passed it on the day he was beaten by Cuban police or several days thereafter. The second pertained to the number of countries Serra passed through en route to the United States; he listed ten countries in his written Application but later testified that he traveled through “about 11 or 12.” The IJ also reached his adverse credibility determination based on Serra’s perceived non-responsiveness to certain questions. On appeal, the BIA rejected the IJ’s finding that Serra was non-responsive but affirmed the IJ’s adverse credibility determination based on the two inconsistencies alone. After careful review and with the benefit of oral argument, we conclude the record lacks substantial evidence that would allow us to affirm the adverse credibility determination. We therefore reverse and remand. … [T]he IJ perceived two instances of non-responsiveness and two discrepancies in the record, resulting in an adverse credibility determination. The BIA rejected the IJ’s findings of non-responsiveness. Thus, the IJ’s adverse credibility determination hinged only on two purported inconsistencies in the record. But upon consideration of the totality of the circumstances, it is clear these inconsistences are unsupported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence—and thus cannot form the basis for an adverse credibility determination. Therefore, we grant Serra’s petition. We further vacate the BIA’s decision and the IJ’s opinion and remand this case to the IJ to rule on Serra’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under CAT in accordance with this opinion. In doing so, the IJ must ensure that all relevant factors are considered—and the totality of the circumstances ascertained—before reaching a conclusion as to credibility. PETITION GRANTED, VACATED and REMANDED.”

[Hats off to Marty High and Joshua Carpenter and Jonathan Morton for amici American Immigration Council and Immigration Justice Campaign!]

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

Super congrats to NDPA superstar litigators Marty High, Joshua Carpenter, and Jonathan Morton.

This respondent was a unrepresented before the IJ. Thus, we see another example of how EOIR routinely mistreats pro se litigants and why counsel is a due process necessity even in a very straightforward asylum case like this. Obviously, here, the IJ played the role of “co-counsel” to the ICE Assistant Chief Counsel. Yet, AG Garland has intentionally established “dedicated dockets” and bogus “adjudication timelines” that have been shown to reduce opportunities for representation and diminish the chances of success for asylum seekers.

To borrow a memorable phrase used by my late BIA colleague Appellate Judge Fred W. Vacca, “this pathetic attempt at an adjudication” by EOIR was actually defended before the Circuit by the DOJ’s OIL. The glaring problems with immigration and asylum adjudication at DOJ begin at EOIR, but by no means end there.

This case isn’t “rocket science,” nor is it legally or factually complicated. It’s a very straightforward asylum grant to somebody persecuted by Cuba, where, in the words of the 11th Circuit, “[f]or decades, the authoritarian regime . . . has utilized its police force to intimidate and physically assault political dissidents and peaceful demonstrators throughout the island!”

I also note the statutory provision on credibility that the IJ completely bolluxed here and the “any reason to deny” BIA then “rubber stamped” (in part, even while noting that some of the IJ’s analysis was wrong) was part of the REAL ID Act, passed in 2005. That’s 15 years before the the IJ hearing in this case! Heck, I used to give training classes for incoming EOIR JLCs where decisions very much like this IJ’s were used as “teaching examples” of how NOT TO APPLY Real ID! EOIR not only isn’t making “progress,” it’s actually stuck in reverse!

Having spent eight years as an Appellate Judge at the BIA and having reviewed thousands of records, I know that when an IJ goofs up one part of the analysis it’s often indicative of an overall careless, flawed analysis that should be viewed with considerable skepticism. Yet, here the IJ’s “clear error,” acknowledged by the BIA, in basically inventing “unresponsiveness” doesn’t appear to have inspired the BIA to critically examine the rest of the adverse credibility ruling below. On the contrary, it appears to have spurred the BIA to find “any other reason to deny” despite the indication that this was an inaccurate and unreliable analysis by an IJ having a bad day.

It also appears from the Circuit’s decision that there might have been interpretation issues before both the IJ and the Asylum Office. That makes the IJ’s “cherry picking” and “excessive focus on insignificant testimonial inconsistencies” particularly egregious.

The 11th Circuit decision here was written by U.S. District Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz II, SD FL, sitting by designation. Judge Ruiz is a Trump appointee. He was joined on the panel by Judge Jill Pryor (Obama) and Judge Charles R. Wilson (Clinton) of the 11th Circuit. Thus, apparently the abysmal performance of EOIR is one of the few things capable of uniting and creating “bipartisan agreement among Article III Judges!”

Perhaps Senator Gillibrand is right, and she will be able to obtain sufficient bipartisan support for her Article I Immigration Court bill, which would remove this system from the DOJ’s chronic mismanagement. See https://immigrationcourtside.com/2023/02/17/⚖️🗽-teas-coffee- Because the current situation at EOIR, the continuing indifference to injustice, and its damage to human lives and the law is totally unacceptable!

Also, what about the legal and judicial resources consumed on this and similar cases? Wouldn’t it be great if both the USG and the private sector could “redeploy” them to making the immigration justice system work, rather than correcting sophomoric, yet life threatening, errors? (Admittedly, describing the errors made by DOJ attorneys at all three levels here as “sophomoric” could be viewed as a slight to sophomores everywhere.)

Not only is EOIR’s “any reason to deny” system patently unjust, it’s a colossal waste of public resources! “Bureaucracy 101” — “Get it right at the initial level of the system.”

Of course the battle here hasn’t concluded. The remand gives EOIR yet another opportunity to screw up. Given EOIR’s current indifference to quality and fairness, I wouldn’t count on them to “get it right this time around” — even with Judge Ruiz basically providing them with the correct answer!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

02-20-23

🏴‍☠️IT’S NOT YOUR FATHER’S GOP! — Today’s MAGA GOP Throws Refugees From Lefty Dictatorships Under The Bus Along With Most Of Humanity!🤮 We have a duty “to treat migrants humanely and incorporate as many of them as we lawfully and realistically can; and to oppose more effectively the despotism that is the root cause of their desperation.”

Charles Lane writes in WashPost:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/09/21/migration-cuba-nicaragua-venezuela-dictatorship/

. . . .

Like the 1980 and 1994 boatlift crises, the present one may be in part tacitly encouraged by the Havana regime, which, like its allies in Managua and Caracas, is closely aligned with Russia.

It is in these governments’ interest to export dissent and stir political trouble for President Biden — as the boatlifts did for his Democratic predecessors Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

Notably, the exodus from Cuba accelerated after its ally Nicaragua ended its visa requirement for Cubans, making it far easier for the latter to reach the Central American isthmus — and continue on to the border.

Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela do not take their citizens back if deported from the United States, which renders the Biden administration all but powerless to deter the flow.

All of the above should inform the debate about “root causes” of migration, which, like so many of its predecessors, the Biden administration has promised to address. There is a related argument over the United States’ own culpability in the plight of people living under the three left-wing regimes. Washington has sanctioned each one for gross human rights violations, the most recent being Cuba’s nightmarish crackdown on protests that broke out in July 2021 and a similar round-up of dissidents by President Daniel Ortega’s regime in Nicaragua.

Even when the United States targets them to limit collateral damage, these measures can affect ordinary people and not just the regimes; obviously, too, millions have left non-communist countries in Latin America for a better life in the United States.

What is nevertheless undeniable is the historic debacle represented by the departure of over 6 million from Venezuela, whose population peaked at 30 million in 2015, when the main phase of the exodus began. That is a fifth of the entire country.

For Cuba, 200,000 emigrants in a year represents nearly 2 percent of its 11.3 million population. In Nicaragua, the 200,000 who have left since Ortega’s crackdown began four years ago, mostly for the United States and next-door Costa Rica, amount to 3 percent of a 6.6 million population.

U.S. sanctions, under which — for example — this country was still Cuba’s second-largest supplier of food imports in 2020, cannot possibly account for so many people “voting with their feet” against the systems they live under. The foreseeable failure of subjecting the economy to top-down control and denying people basic freedoms can.

The exodus is thus a tremendous compliment to the United States and other democratic capitalist countries. We should appreciate it. Meanwhile, it imposes duties: to treat migrants humanely and incorporate as many of them as we lawfully and realistically can; and to oppose more effectively the despotism that is the root cause of their desperation.

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

Read the complete article at the link.

Growing up in the 50’s and 60’s in Wauwatosa, WI, then a GOP bastion, I remember that the party of Ike and Nixon never saw someone fleeing from Communism or lefty dictatorships that they didn’t swoon over. East Germans, Hungarians, the “Chang Gang” from China, Cubans, Russians, all were welcomed and viewed not only as great assets to America (which they were) but also as strong empirical evidence of the superiority of democracy over left-wing dictatorships!

In elementary and high school, I had good friends whose families had fled East Germany and Hungary. They were all hard-working folks who left much behind but “reinvented themselves” in a new environment.

Now, the forces of xenophobia, hate, fear, and the hope of exploiting the foregoing for political gain have replaced more realistic and welcoming attitudes in MAGA land. It’s up to the rest of us to show that these “negative values and bad attitudes” don’t represent the real America!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

09-24-22

WASTEFUL, DANGEROUS ICE DETENTION (THE “NEW AMERICAN GULAG”) CONTINUES TO UNDERMINE HUMANITY & OUR NATIONAL INTERESTS — Cornell Students From the NDPA Intervene To Save A Cuban Doctor From Mindless and Life-Threatening Detention, But Her Problems Linger Under Garland’s Dysfunctional Immigration “Courts” (That Aren’t “Courts” At All, By Any Sane Definition)!

Trial by Ordeal — Is this really the ‘preferred method’ for handling an asylum claim by a female Cuban refugee doctor? Judge Garland seems to think so!” Woman Being “Tried By Ordeal”
17th Century Woodcut
Public Realm
Source: Ancient Origins Website
https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160

https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/06/asylum-clinic-wins-release-cuban-doctor-detained-ice

Asylum clinic wins release for Cuban doctor detained by ICE

By Owen Lubozynski | June 1, 2021

In April 2020, COVID-19 reached the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Detention Center in Eloy, Arizona. Dr. Merlys Rodriguez Hernandez, who had been detained there for six months, said she knew it would spread quickly.

Rodriguez Hernandez is originally from Cuba, where she and her husband, Lazaro, practiced medicine before they were forced to flee government persecution, she said. When they reached the U.S. border, they applied for asylum. Both were detained, in separate facilities, Merlys said. After eight months, Lazaro was granted protection from having to return to Cuba. Merlys’ petition, based on identical circumstances, was tried in a different immigration court – and denied, she said.

Cornell Law School’s Asylum Clinic took her case, under the direction of Stephen Yale-Loehr, professor of immigration law practice, and Ian M. Kysel, visiting assistant clinical professor of law. Law students Conor Bednarski, J.D. ’21, and Michelle Zhu, J.D. ’21, litigated an appeal to the U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals.

Conor Bednarski

Michelle Zhu

Meanwhile, Rodriguez Hernandez was trapped in a detention system raging with COVID-19, she said. She fell ill with the virus in May 2020 and spent 40 days in isolation, suffering from joint pain, body aches and severe diarrhea and confined to a cell she was expected to sanitize herself, she said. Tara Pilato, co-executive director emerita of the Weill Cornell Center for Human Rights at Weill Cornell Medicine, who consulted on the case, observed that “the conditions Merlys reported were not only inhumane, but against all best practices for caring for patients with COVID-19.”

Kayleigh Yerdon

“Watching this preventable tragedy unfold week after week, as we were told to shelter in place, was the hardest part of working on this case,” Bednarski said.

As the pandemic spread, Bednarski and Zhu tried to secure Rodriguez Hernandez’s release, and then supported a collaboration with pro bono counsel who filed a habeas corpus writ in federal court.

Kayleigh Yerdon, J.D. ’21, took the lead on the case during the fall 2020 term. With Spanish interpretation assistance from Cornell doctor of juridical science student Ana Ruival, LLM ’19, Yerdon won her client’s release on bond. Rodriguez Hernandez was released in October 2020, after 13 months in detention, Yerdon said.

“As a law student, being able to step into court for the first time via teleconference and win, knowing my client would walk free as a result, was just an incredible experience,” Yerdon said. She also took on Lazaro’s case, successfully litigating a motion to reopen his case, and eventually securing him asylum, she said. Yerdon was recently honored with the Law School’s Freeman Award for Civil-Human Rights, in part in recognition for her clinical work.

Meryls’ case shows that some of the most harmful flaws in the immigration system can be addressed by applying basic rights principles, Kysel said.

Rodriguez Hernandez and her husband are now living in Kentucky as they work to appeal the denial of her request for asylum. She said she hopes to become an advocate for immigrants who remain detained during the pandemic. Meanwhile, the legal team has continued its efforts to engage in other advocacy and to amplify the impact of their legal work on the doctor’s case, Kysel and Yale-Loehr said.

Recently, Rodriguez Hernandez told her story in a first-person essay in the New England Journal of Medicine, with the support of her Cornell Law clinic team and a team from the Weill Cornell Center for Human Rights, led by Pilato and Dr. Gunisha Kaur, assistant professor of anesthesiology.

“As one of our colleagues in the medical field, Merlys’ harrowing experience deserved attention from a medical-legal perspective,” said Pilato and Kaur. “The inhumane conditions in ICE detention centers have triggered some of the worst COVID-19 outbreaks in the country.”

In the piece, Rodriguez Hernandez wrote, “It is a bitter irony that while the first waves of the pandemic ravaged the U.S., I remained in a detention system when I could have made a difference to patients in a health care system in dire need of providers.”

Owen Lubozynski is a freelance writer for Cornell Law School.

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

Thanks to my good friend and renowned Immigration “Practical Scholar/Expert” Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr @ Cornell Law for alerting me to this item. And, many many congrats to these amazing students and members of the NDPA!😎👍

Note that in the dangerous and defective “court system” being run by Garland, the Respondent continues to struggle with appeals of her asylum denial even though her husband’s identical case was GRANTED! Worse yet, both cases should have been “no brainer” asylum grants that could have been rapidly granted by the Asylum Office without detention or Immigration Court in a properly functioning system with expert judges setting correct asylum precedents at the BIA.

No wonder this system is continuing to deny justice, threaten lives, waste resources, and create backlogs under Garland! As noted in the above posting, even the New England Journal of Medicine is up in arms about this outrageous situation and mockery of our legal process!

But, Garland and his merry band at DOJ and EOIR seem impervious to criticism, rationality, or the rule of law! And to date, they have shown little or no willingness to engage constructively with progressive human rights and Immigration experts. I guess that’s what “Miller Lite Justice” is all about!

Garland continues to get his immigration advice from this source rather than inviting progressive experts in immigration, due process, and human rights, as well as rational administration, to his “Happy Hour @ EOIR.” “Miller Lite” – Garland’s Vision of “Justice @ Justice” for Communities of Color

There is simply no excuse for Garland’s continued mishandling of EOIR and asylum law generally! And, bureaucratic “Dedicated Dockets” run from the Falls Church Tower won’t solve the problem. Not by a long shot!

Progressive advocates and members of the NDPA need to stay energized, stay angry, and keep letting the Biden Administration feel the outrage at Garland’s inexcusable continued mishandling of EOIR! These problems will NEVER be solved with the group currently calling the shots at EOIR!

So, the question remains, with all this expertise available and some obvious solutions to some really dumb and life-threatening procedures and policies, why are Garland and Mayorkas “groping in the dark” rather than bringing in and empowering the progressive experts who will solve these problems?

Due Process Forever! Let your continuing outrage at EOIR’s failure to deliver due process and fundamental fairness with efficiency and humanity be heard and felt by the Biden Administration! Don’t take “Good Enough for Government Work” as Equal Justice in America from Democrats or Republicans! “Just say no” to more “Miller Lite Dred Scottification” of asylum seekers and other migrants! Wonder why our nation is struggling with racial justice? Look no further than Garland’s mishandling of EOIR!

President Biden has put Vice President Harris in charge of border issues and racial justice reforms. Progressive advocates should let her know directly that Garland is NOT getting the job done at Justice, and that they are sick and tired of not being consulted and having their expert candidates for EOIR snubbed in favor of Trump holdovers and non-progressives! If her “legacy” includes EOIR’s racially and gender insensitive, due-process denying, intentionally non-diverse “Kangaroo Courts” carrying out the Miller/Sessions/Barr White Nationalist nativist agenda, it won’t be a “good look” for her or her future! And, it most certainly will be bad, perhaps fatal, for our nation’s future as a liberal democracy!

PWS

06-02-21

👎🏻BIA BOMBS 💣AGAIN IN 11th Cir. — Cuban Journalist Latest Victim Of BIA’s Sloppy Work, 🤡Anti-Asylum Bias ☠️— Cabrera-Martinez v. Att’y Gen. — “Heck, the only ‘refugees’ Garland is protecting are Stephen Miller’s ‘burrowed in cronies’ @ EOIR, including the Sessions/Barr ‘Asylum Denial Society’ hiding out in the ranks of ‘Appellate Judges’ at the BIA!”🤮🏴‍☠️

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca11-on-cuba-journalists-well-founded-fear-cabrera-martinez-v-atty-gen

Dan Kowalski reports in Lexis-Nexis Immigration Community:

CA11 on Cuba, Journalists, Well-Founded Fear: Cabrera Martinez v. Atty. Gen.

Cabrera Martinez v. Atty. Gen.

“Because the IJ and the BIA failed to provide reasoned consideration of Martinez’s evidence of his well-founded fear of future persecution based on a pattern or practice of persecution toward dissident journalists in Cuba, we grant in part his petition, vacate the BIA’s decision in part, and remand this case for further proceedings.”

[There was also a good dissent by Judge Martin. Hats off to Derek M. Stikeleather!]

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

Congrats, Derek! Thanks, CLINIC!

And, here’s a little more insight from Michelle Mendez @ CLINIC on how the NDPA is making a difference in people’s lives, even as our public officials of both parties try to sweep the lawless and unprofessional behavior of our dysfunctional Immigration Courts under the carpet.

Greetings,

Thanks, Dan, for circulating this decision! This is actually a CLINIC BIA Pro Bono Project case represented by Derek Stikeleather of Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann, LLP. In this published decision, the Eleventh Circuit held that the BIA failed to give reasoned consideration to a Cuban asylum seeker’s claims that he had a well-founded fear of future persecution. The court noted that the IJ and BIA ignored evidence that the petitioner was persecuted for being a political journalist. Congratulations to Derek Stikeleather and thank you to our BIA Pro Bono Project Attorney Rachel Naggar for guiding and mentoring Derek on this case!

As Judge Martin, concurring and dissenting, cogently explains, the BIA actually got everything wrong in this case.

Mr. Martinez has made the case that he suffered two years of threats and abuse at the hands of the Cuban government because he is a journalist for a dissident magazine (Convivencia) that is critical of the government. Although the immigration officials who heard Mr. Martinez’s account found him to be credible, they gave him no relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) said Mr. Martinez must be returned to Cuba because the story he truthfully told did not sufficiently show either that he had been persecuted in the past, or that he had a well-founded fear of being persecuted in Cuba in the future.

Now the majority opinion gives Mr. Martinez relief on one of the grounds rejected by the immigration authorities, but not the other. Maj. Op. at 2. The majority says the BIA failed to give reasoned consideration to Mr. Martinez’s claim that he has a well-founded fear of future persecution. See id. at 16–20. I agree and join in that part of the opinion. However, I would give Mr. Martinez broader relief because I think Martinez’s experiences as he tried to live and work in Cuba show that he suffered past persecution as well. I therefore respectfully dissent.

The dissent highlights the real ongoing problem here: A system with unqualified judges, particularly the BIA’s Appellate Judges, searching for specious reasons to deny compelling, well-documented asylum claims!

EOIR is NOT dispensing expert adjudication that complies with the due process clause of our Constitution! Not by a long shot, as any real expert in immigration and human rights laws would tell you!

Yet, the farce and perversion of justice goes on, day after day, case after case @ EOIR. Only by “Dred Scottification” — viewing asylum applicants and migrants, mostly people of color, as something other than “persons” entitled to fair and respectful treatment under the law, can we explain failures such as this!

So far, Judge Garland has neither recognized the fundamental problems in his courts nor shown any serious interest in providing justice for asylum seekers and other migrants. Heck, the only “refugees” Garland is protecting are Stephen Miller’s “burrowed in cronies” @ EOIR, including the Sessions/Barr “Asylum Denial Society” hiding out in the ranks of “Appellate Judges” at the BIA! Disgusting, but true!

Garland’s failure to take an interest in due process for migrants has come to the attention of some of the folks @ EOIR who actually believe in due process, fundamental fairness, and human decency. There is a growing sense of outrage and betrayal as they watch neo-Nazis and incompetent, biased restrictionists continue to draw fat salaries and abuse migrants courtesy of “Team Garland,” while asylum seekers continue to suffer and their attorneys are treated like dirt by EOIR! The folks who should have been put in charge of aggressively reforming and rebuilding this disgrace to American justice are still on the outside looking in, while “Clowns 🤡and political hacks (incredibly, holdovers from the “Trump regime”) rule!”

Garland’s ancestors were fortunate. Today’s refugees and asylees, not so much. But, hey, no need to “pay It forward” once “you’ve got yours” and your life is no longer subject to the institutionalized bias, racism, and grotesque inconsistencies of America’s immigrant “justice” system.

There is hope here! Through the continuing outstanding efforts of folks like Derek, Michelle, CAIR, and the rest of the NDPA, we can eventually grind Garland’s Deadly Clown Courts 🤡to a halt! No matter how much you “turn up the dial” or expand these dysfunctional and fundamentally unfair courts to railroad folks out, every reversal, remand, and injunction that the NDPA gets will further clog the 1.3 million case pipeline while saving individual lives in the process and setting favorable precedents that can be used to combat the current assault on justice and mistreatment of people of color and women by DOJ and EOIR.

Additionally, if the pace keeps up, Circuit Courts, even the most conservative ones, like the 5th and 11th Circuits, might tire of serving as a substitute BIA. There won’t be much else on their dockets.

Maybe they will finally take a serious look at the clear unconstitutionality of the system. That will throw a monkey wrench unto Garland’s apparent plans to pretend like institutionalized racism, unprofessionalism, bias, and gross unfairness aren’t operating under his auspices. Ideally, at some point he will decide that it’s easier to fix the mess than to try to pretend that it’s not happening.

Also, if Garland chooses to go with the same gang of DOJ attorneys who got beaten up in court on a fairly regular basis by the NDPA, the NDPA is likely to continue to feast. That’s particularly true because Garland shows every sign of stubborn determination to keep “the best due process lawyers in America” off his team, and therefore dedicated to opposing his attempt to run the Immigrtion Courts as if “elections don’t matter.”

Sure doesn’t sound like a winning strategy to me. But, hey, what do I know? I’ve only been practicing law for about the past 50 years.

At any rate, it’s important for the NDPA to adjust from the short-term mindset that things might be better under the Biden Administration and ramp the litigation, public critique/exposure, immigrant assistance, and “resistance to evil” machines into even higher gear.

Vulnerable human lives and the future of our democracy are at stake. The Biden Administration to date has demonstrated neither capacity nor interest in addressing the real, festering problems in American justice in a constructive manner.

That’s highly unfortunate. As little as they wish to recognize it, the Administration’s racial justice efforts will go nowhere as long as Garland continues to operate a “court system”where institutionalized racism, intentional perversion of the law, and degradation of humanity are the operating principles. Certainly enlightened, competent leadership on Immigration Court reform is conspicuously absent!

Sometimes, the only way to get attention from the tone-deaf folks in charge is to break their entire corrupt system by using the tools still available under the law strategically and effectively to end scofflaw behavior and force constructive, long, long, long overdue change.

😎⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-12-21

WSJ: 47 Years Have Passed, But The Mariel Boatlift Is Still Generating Controversy!

https://www.wsj.com/article_email/the-great-mariel-boatlift-experiment-1497630468-lMyQjAxMTI3NTEyNzIxMDc0Wj/

Ben Leubsdorf writes in the WSJ:

“In the spring and summer of 1980, some 125,000 Cuban refugees sailed from the port town of Mariel on fishing boats and pleasure craft toward the U.S., many destined to settle in Miami.

Nearly four decades later, that exodus is at the center of an unresolved, sometimes bitter argument among economists, hinging on a basic question: When foreigners come to the U.S., does their presence drive down the wages of native workers? The long-running dispute has gained new relevance as the Trump administration tries to implement and enforce a stricter immigration policy.

Research published a decade after the Mariel boatlift, as well as more recent analyses, concluded that the influx of Cuban migrants didn’t significantly raise unemployment or lower wages for Miamians. Immigration advocates said the episode showed that the U.S. labor market could quickly absorb migrants at little cost to American workers.

But Harvard University’s George Borjas, a Cuban-born specialist in immigration economics, reached very different conclusions. Looking at data for Miami after the boatlift, he concluded that the arrival of the Marielitos led to a large decline in wages for low-skilled local workers.

“This is his moment,” said David Card, the author of the early research on the boatlift that Dr. Borjas is seeking to upend. (The Justice Department declined to comment, and the White House didn’t respond to requests for comment.)

Dr. Borjas has sparred for years with Dr. Card, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, as well as with Giovanni Peri of the University of California, Davis. In 2015, Dr. Borjas and Dr. Peri released papers three months apart that arrived at wildly different conclusions about Mariel.

The argument among the academics—all immigrants themselves—has escalated into charges of bias and bad faith. Dr. Peri and a co-author dismissed Dr. Borjas’s study as having “serious limitations.” Dr. Borjas fired back that “sloppiness” in their own paper “helps obfuscate what your eyes can clearly see and leads to a claim that nothing at all happened in post-Mariel Miami.”

Dr. Card and Dr. Peri, reviewing a textbook by Dr. Borjas several months later, said that he only “presents half the story about the economics of immigration.” Last fall, in another book, Dr. Borjas compared Dr. Peri to Marxist-Leninist teachers in his native Cuba: “They believed. All that was left was to compel everyone else to believe as well.”

The real-world stakes in the dispute are considerable. More than 43 million U.S. residents were born somewhere else, and most of the rest are descended from immigrants. Still, for more than two centuries, waves of migration have provoked backlashes from Americans worried about the nation’s economy, culture and social makeup.

Among economists today, there is little controversy about the benefits of immigration for the economy as a whole. A roughly 500-page assessment last year by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, which reviewed decades of research, concluded that immigrants are “integral to the nation’s economic growth” and have little or no effect on overall employment and earnings for workers already in the U.S.

A Cuban refugee rests on his cot in Miami’s ‘tent city,’ Aug. 18, 1980. At the time, five out of every six working-age Cuban refugees in Florida’s Dade County were without a job.PHOTO: ASSOCIATED PRESS

The report said that experiences aren’t the same for everyone and noted that some studies have found “sizable negative short run wage impacts” for U.S.-born high-school dropouts, the group most likely to compete for work with low-skilled immigrants.

“There’s no free lunch. There’s going to be some effect of immigration” on wages, said Pia Orrenius, a senior economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas and a member of the panel that wrote the 2016 report. But, she added, the flexible U.S. economy adapts and should render any hit to the wages of native workers “a short-run phenomenon.”

Those most exposed to competition from new arrivals have long been a focus for Dr. Borjas. “Immigration is not like manna from heaven,” he said. “It can be great on average, but it doesn’t mean that every single person benefits.”

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

Read the entire article at the link.

First, I find it interesting that Dr. Borjas, who came here as an immigrant, seems so highly motivated to prove that those who came after him weren’t as “worthy.” Sort of a “I’m OK, but you guys not so much” approach.

Second, none of these studies seem to go into the human element of immigration. What were to forces that drove the Marielitos to come? What have they accomplished in the long run? Did Americans in low wage jobs in Miami really sink into poverty and go on welfare, or did they just move on to other types of work that perhaps paid more?

Third, why don’t economists spend less time on analyzing the past and more time on figuring out how to minimize or avoid any adverse effects of immigration, even if those effects are only short-term and unequally distributed across the working population.

Fourth, I was at the “Legacy INS” during the boatlift and was involved in an intense effort to stop it. We used arrests, mass detention, vessel seizures, fines, criminal prosecutions, deterrents, warnings and public service announcements, and exclusion proceedings. But, frankly, nothing really worked until Castro closed the port of Mariel again. The Cuban Adjustment Act, which is still in effect, also made it difficult or impossible to return Cubans who had no prior criminal records.

Eventually, the Reagan Administration came up with controversial policy of high seas interdiction, which has been used in the Caribbean to some extent by every succeeding Administration. Although interdiction survived Supreme Court review, it has criticized by many and is inconsistent with at least the spirit, if not the letter, of the UN Convention and Protocol, to which we are a party. I doubt, however, that interdiction could have stopped the Cuban boat lift, given the large number of boats and American citizens of Cuban descent who participated in going to Mariel to transport relatives, friends, or former neighbors or co-workers who wanted to leave Cuba.

Fifth, and finally, I find the Mariel Boatlift to be one of the “major events” of modern U.S. refugee history. It has left a legacy of four enforcement strategies that are still with us today:

* The use of long-term mass civil immigration detention as a deterrent;

* High seas interdiction;

* Overall negative vibes and case law on asylum applicants who are part of a so-callled “mass migration situation” (“Scarface Syndrome,” a reference to the Al Pacino movie about a Cuban drug kingpin who used the boatlift to get a foothold in the U.S.);

* A belief that the case-by-case adjudication procedures established by the Refugee Act of 1980 are inadequate to handle mass migrations (probably one of the origins of “expedited removal” procedures).

PWS

06-18-17

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Charles Lane writes in WashPost:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

😎⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts: