Fake Southern Border Crisis – Page 3 – immigrationcourtside.com

TRUMP’S DUMB & UNLAWFUL POLICIES INCREASE ILLEGAL BORDER CROSSINGS & UNNECESSARILY ENDANGER REFUGEES — The DHS Lies By Calling Them “Illegitimate Asylum Seekers” & Dishonestly Implying That Their Claims Aren’t Legitimate — In Fact, Asylum Seekers Have A Right To Apply At The Border That Trump Is Unlawfully Denying — They Also Have A Legal Right To Apply Regardless Of How They Enter!

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/trump-restricted-flow-border-more-migrants-trying-sneak-through-undetected-n976356

Julia Edwards Ainsley reports for NBC News:

WASHINGTON — Undocumented immigrants are increasingly choosing to cross the U.S. border illegally rather than waiting in line to claim asylum at legal ports of entry, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection data obtained by NBC News.

Immigration lawyers and rights advocates say asylum seekers are opting for illegal crossing because they are growing frustrated with waiting lines caused by Trump administration policies. Advocates say immigrants who might otherwise have presented themselves at legal ports are now going between entry points where, if caught, they can remain in the country while awaiting an asylum hearing.

In recent months, CBP has restricted the number of immigrants who can be processed for asylum at ports of entry and has begun turning back asylum seekers, who must now wait in Mexico while their cases are decided.

CBP data shows that at the same time, the proportion of immigrants caught crossing illegally rather than through legal ports of entry has been rising.

It climbed from 73 percent of border crossings between October 2017 and January to 2018 to 83 percent for the same period ending this January 31. The percentage reporting to legal ports of entry, meanwhile, dropped from 27 percent to 17 percent, even as the overall number of border crossings rose sharply, according to the data.

An official from the Department of Homeland Security, of which CBP is a part, said those abandoning legal entry points may not have legitimate asylum claims.

“The fact that illegitimate asylum seekers may be abandoning efforts at our [ports of entry] means that legitimate asylum seekers at the [ports of entry] can receive protections far more quickly — which has been our goal from the start,” said the DHS official. The department declined to comment on the record.

WAITING IN TIJUANA

In January, U.S. officials finalized a deal with Mexico that forces asylum seekers who present themselves at the legal port of entry in San Diego back across the border to Tijuana. There they must wait months or years, often in unsafe and unsanitary conditions, while an American immigration judge determines whether asylum can be granted. The policy, known as Remain in Mexico, may soon spread to other ports of entry if Mexico agrees to shelter the immigrants at other locations.

Illegal crossers, meanwhile, do not have to wait in Mexico, even if they are caught. Two DHS officials told NBC News that there are no plans to send asylum seekers back across the border if they are caught crossing illegally, primarily because the Mexican government lacks the infrastructure to shelter them at what are often remote points.

If they are caught and do not claim asylum or pass the initial asylum screening, procedure requires that they are flown back to their home countries. Most current border crossers are not from Mexico but from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador.

Immigration advocates and lawyers say immigrants are being warned about the conditions in cities like Tijuana and are increasingly choosing to risk apprehension by the Border Patrol while crossing into the U.S. illegally instead of waiting in Mexico.

Michelle Brané, director of the Women’s Refugee Commission, said 9 out of 10 immigrants she spoke to in CBP custody would tell her and her staff they made the choice to cross illegally after other migrants told them the line to enter legally would mean a long wait in a dangerous place.

Life at the border: How a wall could impact this Arizona town

FEB. 17, 201904:50

“They would say, ‘There was a line and they told me I would get turned away,’ or, ‘People told me it’s too dangerous and you can’t get in that way,'” Brané said.

The most notorious line is in Tijuana, where thousands of immigrants have waited in shelters and tent camps since last fall, hoping to claim asylum to enter San Diego.

The government of Mexico closed a large migrant shelter there in December due to unsanitary conditions and another was shut down last month, forcing families to disperse and often to live on the streets. Also in December, two migrant boys were lured out of their shelter and murdered.

Immigrants in Tijuana keep what is known as “la lista,” or the list, to decide who can approach the U.S. border each day to claim asylum, according to affidavits by immigration lawyers. Due to a U.S. policy known as metering, only about 40 to 100 immigrants per day are permitted to enter. CBP is only permitting a maximum of 20 migrants per day to cross into Eagle Pass, Texas, where another group of about 1,800 immigrants has recently arrived.

DHS says metering is a result of only being able to process so many asylum seekers per day, due to limited resources. However, the Trump administration has not increased its manpower for processing asylum claims at the border, though it has increased border enforcement officers and numbers of military troops.

A CALCULATED RISK

The number of undocumented immigrants attempting to enter the U.S. from Mexico is not near levels seen in the early 2000s. But the overall number of undocumented immigrants crossing the southern border has risen since a year ago. From October 2017 to January 2018, according to CBP figures, 150,346 crossed the border, a number that surged to 242,667 in the same four-month period ending in January 2019.

The biggest surge has come in the numbers who are crossing illegally. CBP apprehended more than 200,000 crossing illegally between October 2018 and this January, compared to 109,543 a year earlier — nearly doubling the total of illegal crossings.

Working with asylum seekers in Tijuana in December, Kennji Kizuka, senior researcher and policy analyst at Human Rights First, said he saw some immigrants grow frustrated with the wait and try their luck at crossing illegally.

Lawmakers call for investigation after deaths of migrant children

DEC. 27, 201802:04

“People were leaving and saying they were about to cross. They had just given up on waiting their turn to get on the list after finding out how long it was and how many months they would be there and how horrible the conditions were,” Kizuka said.

But crossing between legal ports of entry also comes with dangers.

Late last year, two children who crossed with their parents died in CBP custody after being picked up in remote areas after making long journeys, where access to water and other basic needs are severely limited.

Border Patrol Chief Carla Provost told Congress on Tuesday that for the first time in U.S. history, families and unaccompanied children make up 60 percent of those arrested between ports of entry. Also, Provost said border patrol is noticing that families and unaccompanied children are traveling in larger numbers: Nearly 68 groups ranging from 100-350 so far in 2019, compared to 13 last year and two the year prior.

Immigration advocates say the large groups are due in part to a “safety in numbers” strategy as families and children are being warned about the dangers not only on the journey but as they await entry to the U.S. in northern Mexico.

Julia Ainsley

Julia Ainsley is a national security reporter for NBC News.

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

They AREN’T “illegitimate” asylum seekers! They are individuals seeking to exercise their legal rights under U.S. and international law to be granted protection as refugees. They are entitled to fair and humane treatment.

What IS “ILLEGITIMATE” is the scofflaw Trump Administration’s failure to recognize these legal rights and their intentional mistreatment of those seeking asylum. What is also “illegitimate” is having Government employees lie about asylum seekers. The folks putting out these bogus and pejorative statements about asylum seekers should be fired!

In enacting the Refugee Act of 1980, Congress recognized, as had the international community in the Refugee Convention, that manner of entry into a signatory country has little if anything do with whether or not one qualifies under the “refugee.” Desperate people do desperate things. And refugees are the very definition of “desperate people.”

The claim that this Administration is fairly processing asylum seekers is absurd. As this article points out: 1) conditions in Mexico are known to be dangerous for asylum seekers; and 2) although willing to spend money on bogus “stunts” like “the Wall,” unnecessary troops, and cruel and mindless detention, this Administration has totally failed to do the obvious things to facilitate asylum processing: work with the private bar and NGOs to get lawyers involved for the applicants; increase the numbers of Asylum Officers, Immigration Judges, Port of Entry Inspectors; use sensible “prosecutorial discretion” to clear the hundreds of thousands of “low priority cases” that should be administratively closed off the Immigration Court docket so that judges can deal fairly and efficiently with newly arrived asylum seekers in accordance with the constitutional requirement of Due Process; and perhaps most important, revoke incorrect and misguided precedents so that asylum law can be applied and interpreted in the generous manner originally intended by the Refugee Act and reinforced by the Supreme Court in Cardoza-Fonseca.

If that were done, many of these individuals could be granted asylum, receive legal status, and commence working, paying taxes, and contributing the full measure of their skills to the common good of our country. We’d actually be generating revenue rather than wasting it on misplaced and dishonest “enforcement initiatives” aimed at individuals who mean us no harm and could do us much good if we would let them.

Actually, this Administration’s toxic border policy operates much like Sessions’s program to destroy the U.S. Immigration Courts to promote extreme nativist “solutions.” Rather than working diligently to process asylum seekers fairly under the law, the Administration chooses to “break” the system and then declare a bogus “emergency” that supposedly justifies draconian (yet actually unnecessary and counterproductive) enforcement actions.

Meanwhile, the NY Times reports that the Mexican Government is carrying out the Trump Administration’s “dirty work” by blocking asylum seekers from approaching the U.S. Border. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/01/world/americas/mexico-migration-trump.htm

I predict that the Administration’s lawless and mindless approach to border enforcement and asylum adjudication will eventually convince asylum applicants (and the professional smugglers that the Trump Administration promotes, enriches, and enables) to simply avoid the border all together. There are lots of ways of getting folks into the interior without having them turn themselves in at ports of entry or to the nearest Border Patrol Agents, particularly when legitimate law enforcement has been diverted by Trump to concentrating (and promoting with false narratives and scenarios) on a “crisis that isn’t.”

Trump’s diversion of resources and attention should also be a boon for real criminal activity crossing the border. In other words, the Trump Administration has been great for the business of cartels, druggies, human trafffickers, and other “bad guys” taking advantage of incompetent leadership and lack of concern for protecting America from real crime.

Sure it will cost more, probably kill some more asylum applicants, and make enforcement and administration of our immigration laws more difficult and less effective. But, that’s pretty much what Trump’s “dumb” White Nationalist agenda is about anyway. Doubling down on failed policies to stoke racism, hate, and “fake” rule of law arguments for the benefit of those either too biased or ill-informed to grasp the realities of human migration and basic human rights.

Back to Julia’s article, I’ve always enjoyed her timely and very clear reporting. It’s also great to see her on NBC TV more these days. Her previous stint on the “immigration beat” at Reuters its a perfect “tie-in” to her current national security beat.

PWS

03-02-19

MARIA SACCHETTI @ WASHPOST WITH A “SOFTER PORTRAIT” OF US BORDER PATROL: Despite The White Nationalist Lies, Fear Mongering, & False Narratives Hurled By Trump Politicos, At The Border, Reality, Kindness, & Simple Humanity Sometimes Win Out!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/immigration/you-want-a-cookie-as-families-arrive-en-masse-border-agents-offer-snacks-and-medical-checks/2019/02/19/1b334d5c-1dd7-11e9-9145-3f74070bbdb9_story.html

Maria writes

ORGAN PIPE CACTUS NATIONAL MONUMENT, Ariz. — This cactus forest on the U.S.-Mexico border was quiet one recent day. No mass crossings of migrant families. No sprinters. Just two men caught sneaking into the Arizona desert.

Then U.S. Border Patrol Agent Daniel Hernandez spotted a youth alone under a juniper tree, dressed as if he were headed to church. When the agent approached, the boy quickly surrendered.

“Are you afraid?” Hernandez asked in Spanish. The youth nodded and said his name was Marco and that he was from Guatemala. He was 14 but looked small in an oversize jacket, pressed shirt and pants, and too-large black oxford shoes.

Hernandez lifted his sunglasses to appear less intimidating. He asked Marco who had left him, how he knew where the border was, and whether he carried food and water.

“Are you hungry?” he asked. “When was the last time you ate? Yesterday? You want a cookie?”

The deaths of two Guatemalan children in December and the massive groups of Central American families crossing the border are increasingly transforming the Border Patrol’s role from national security to humanitarian relief, even as President Trump declares the situation a national emergency.

Well over half the people taken into custody in recent months have been parents and children, with hundreds surrendering at a time, often in isolated locations. In other cases, youths such as Marco are dropped off by themselves. More than 1,800 Central American parents and children, a record high, crossed illegally last week on the day Trump went to El Paso to tout the need for a border wall.

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen promised “extraordinary protective measures” following the deaths of Jakelin Caal, 7, and Felipe Gómez Alonzo, 8, who crossed into the United States with their fathers. Since then, the federal government says it has dramatically increased its medical staff at the border.

A Mexican man detained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection died this week at a medical facility, however. And advocacy groups warn that the remote areas where families are crossing, and the agency’s crowded detention facilities, still pose serious risks — especially for young children.

[Meet Felipe, the boy from Guatemala who died after crossing the U.S. border]

Medical teams from the Coast Guard, the Department of Health and Human Services, and new private contractors have been triaging and examining migrant children on the border. Border agents, hundreds of whom are also paramedics, are patrolling more far-flung areas, backed up by helicopters, buses and SUVs. The U.S. military has also helped with the evaluation and treatment of migrants.

“We’ve been adapting to these new realities,” said a senior adviser for Customs and Border Protection who was allowed to speak only on the condition of anonymity.

The deaths of Jakelin and Felipe remain under investigation, and the official said the Department of Homeland Security so far hasn’t found any sign of a widespread public health crisis on the border. The biggest challenge, Border Patrol agents say, are the large groups of migrants — 200 to 300 people at a time — crossing in distant locations, swamping the agency’s resources.

U.S. Border Patrol agents monitor the border Jan. 18 in Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument in Arizona. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

Border Patrol Agent Daniel Hernandez speaks with Marco, a 14-year-old from Guatemala, who was arrested after illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

A U.S. Border Patrol agent drags tires to ease the search for footprints of people crossing the border in Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

Fifty-eight large groups crossed from October to January, compared with 13 groups over the same period last year.

Some migrants arrive with colds, sprained ankles, broken bones, chicken pox and “gripe,” otherwise known as the flu. A toddler who fell from a moving vehicle in Mexico was brought to the U.S. border in January with a possible broken arm. A teenage girl cracked several vertebrae after slipping from an 18-foot-high border wall in December.

CBP has given Border Patrol agents “enhanced” field guidance to check every child — including those arriving in large groups — and ask if they are sick, injured, dehydrated or hungry. Agents have also stocked up on baby formula, diapers and women’s sanitary supplies in sectors such as Yuma, where 90 percent of border crossers in January were family members and unaccompanied minors.

Migrants who are ill are sent to a hospital. The rest are taken to Border Patrol stations for more-comprehensive screenings. Doctors and nurses check their vital signs, take their medical histories and administer medicine.

In one instance, on Jan. 24, the DHS flew in a physician and other staff via helicopter to a Border Patrol station in the Tucson sector to examine 130 minors. Two youths with high fevers were taken to a hospital.

Still, the huge numbers of families arriving carry significant risk, officials say, because many cross into the United States in less-populated areas, with few agents and limited or no medical facilities.

The CBP official said the agency is deploying general-practitioner physicians who can treat a wide array of people — including children and pregnant women. But the American Academy of Pediatrics said it has urged CBP Commissioner Kevin McAleenan to hire medics trained in pediatrics, or at least accept volunteer pediatricians, because children require more specialized care.

“Sick children are very different from adults,” said Colleen Kraft, the immediate past president of the academy, whose term ended Dec. 31. “If you don’t have the pediatric training . . . you’re going to miss those children who are becoming very, very ill.”

Doctors and advocates said young children should not be housed in cold and crowded processing cells, where migrants describe sleeping on mats on the floor under silver Mylar blankets.

[The ‘hielera’: A battle for control of thermostats at the U.S. border]

“It’s a law enforcement mentality,” said Marsha Griffin, a pediatrician who volunteers at a shelter in McAllen, Tex., and the co-chair of the academy’s special-interest group on immigrant health. “They are treating people as prisoners, not as children and families.”

On a tour of the Border Patrol’s Tucson sector in January, agents did not allow a Washington Post reporter to visit the cells where migrants are held, citing privacy concerns. But some migrants recently released from those cells and dropped off in vanloads at a Tucson shelter praised the medical attention their children received in federal custody.

Julio, a schoolteacher from Guatemala, said his daughter Jakeline, 15, was taken to the hospital with the flu and had recovered.

“The care was excellent,” he said, speaking at Casa Alitas, a Catholic Community Services of Southern Arizona shelter on a palm-tree-lined street. Shelter officials asked that the migrants be identified only by their first names to protect their privacy.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of Maria’s excellent article at the above link.

Imagine what could be achieved if the Administration simply followed the law by getting enough Refugee Officers, Inspectors, Asylum Officers, Immigration Judges, Court Clerks, and Private Attorneys to process the cases fairly, efficiently, and in accordance with the law, our international obligations, and Due Process. Folks would be encouraged to apply abroad or at ports of entry. The Border Patrol could actually return to real law enforcement duties.

It wouldn’t cost anything close to $8 billion. And it wouldn’t tie up the Federal Courts with avoidable litigation because of the Administration’s disrespect for the law, our Constitution, and Congressional intent.

It could happen. But, not unless we change to a Non-White-Nationalist Regime. Essentially, everyone including the Border Patrol is being adversely affected by Trump’s bad, and ultimately unsustainable, restrictionist immigration policies.

PWS

02-20-19

LITHWICK & STERN @ SLATE: Will California’s Appeal To Conservative Jurisprudence Convince Conservative Judges In Litigation Against Trump’s Fake National Emergency?

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/02/california-lawsuit-trump-emergency-wall-conservative-gorsuch.html

Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern write in Slate:

Last Friday, President Donald Trump declared a national state of emergency at the southern border, adding that it wasn’t one of those emergencies he actually “needed” to declare and then saying a bunch of other things. As he predicted, a coalition of 16 states filed a federal lawsuit on Monday night, seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the president from acting on his emergency declaration. As he also predicted, that suit was filed in federal district court in California.

What Trump did not predict—and probably could not, given his tenuous grasp on the legal limitations of executive authority—is that Monday’s lawsuit is, at bottom, extremely conservative. The suit does not appeal to the justices’ empathy for vulnerable immigrants or question whether Trump’s racist motives might undermine the declaration’s legality. Instead, it relies upon ancient principles of separation of powers to make a very strong case that Trump has short-circuited the Constitution. It is not a lawsuit about equality, or dignity, but about the nuts and bolts that undergird the constitutional lawmaking process. It is wonky, and formal, terse, and unromantic. And if the Supreme Court’s conservatives have any consistency, Monday’s lawsuit should persuade them to block Trump’s wall.

The 16 plaintiff states center their 57-page complaint around a basic argument: that the president has violated the cardinal principle of separation of powers by trammeling Congress’ will to achieve his policy preferences. Trump, the lawsuit alleges, “has used the pretext of a manufactured ‘crisis’ of unlawful immigration to declare a national emergency and redirect federal dollars appropriated for drug interdiction, military construction, and law enforcement initiatives toward building a wall on the United States-Mexico border.” There is “no objective basis” for this declaration, as Trump himself has essentially admitted. Further, “[t]he federal government’s own data prove there is no national emergency at the southern border that warrants construction of a wall,” and unauthorized entries are “near 45-year lows.”

Much of the complaint details funding that will be diverted from National Guard and drug-interception projects favored by the states in order to build the wall instead. The plaintiffs say that grants them standing to sue in federal court since the president is redirecting money that would benefit their interests to a project that will not. But the states aren’t simply upset because they would have preferred that the money be used for military construction and law enforcement. They are upset because, they allege, the money has been taken from these projects and from their citizens to be used illegally.

Trump, the plaintiff states write, has “violated the United States Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine by taking executive action to fund a border wall for which Congress has refused to appropriate funding.” By “unilaterally diverting funding that Congress already appropriated for other purposes to fund a border wall for which Congress has provided no appropriations,” the president has run afoul of the Presentment Clause.

This lawsuit joins a series of others that have already been filed by watchdog groups. While they all argue that there is no actual emergency at the southern border, that is not the gravamen of their complaint. Instead of asking the courts to second-guess Trump’s intent, these challengers ask them to decide whether Trump had authority to act in the first place.

The answer, they assert, is no. The Presentment Clause is straightforward: For a bill to become law, it must pass both houses of Congress, then be presented to the president for approval. Yet Congress never passed a bill authorizing and funding the border wall Trump now demands. It never presented such legislation to the president for his signature. This is the stuff of Civics 101. Whatever powers the National Emergencies Act may grant to the president, a federal statute cannot override the Constitution. The executive cannot use funds Congress did not appropriate. He cannot amend statutes himself to create money for pet projects. Trump asked Congress for a large sum of money to construct a border wall; Congress resoundingly and provably said no. The National Emergencies Act does not give him leeway to contravene Congress’ commands.

These problems ought to be catnip for SCOTUS’ conservative justices—particularly Justice Neil Gorsuch. In his very first dissent on the Supreme Court, Gorsuch extolled the virtues of this pristine constitutional system. “If a statute needs repair,” he wrote, “there’s a constitutionally prescribed way to do it. It’s called legislation.” Gorsuch continued:

To be sure, the demands of bicameralism and presentment are real and the process can be protracted. But the difficulty of making new laws isn’t some bug in the constitutional design: it’s the point of the design, the better to preserve liberty.

A year later, in his rightly celebrated opinion in Sessions v. Dimaya, Gorsuch hammered this same point home again. “Under the Constitution,” he wrote, “the adoption of new laws restricting liberty is supposed to be a hard business, the product of an open and public debate among a large and diverse number of elected representatives.” The courts abdicate their responsibility when they ignore the Constitution’s “division of duties” between the branches of government. These “structural worries” form the bedrock of American constitutional governance, whose ultimate goal is to safeguard “ordered liberty.” These new challenges demonstrate that Trump is circumventing these “structural worries” and harming “ordered liberty” in the process.

There’s also clear precedent for allowing states to take up this kind of challenge. When President Barack Obama tried to defer deportation for the undocumented parents of American citizens and legal residents, the Supreme Court’s conservatives threw a fit. They accused the president of legislating from the Oval Office and acting without congressional approval. And they succeeded in blocking that program after Texas and 25 other states sued based on an allegation of the flimsiest of hypothetical harms. In that case, Obama was merely executing a statute that allowed him to set “national immigration enforcement policies and priorities,” not building a border wall by fiat in defiance of congressional appropriators. If a president can violate the cardinal principle of separation of powers by stretching congressional guidance, and the states can sue him for it, surely he commits the same constitutional sin against those states by flouting congressional commands.

Litigants have learned well, after two long years of arguing over the travel ban, that the five conservatives have little to no interest in probing what lies in the president’s heart. They simply don’t care about what might or might not be a pretext, or whether tweets should count. They want clinical analysis of formal constitutional authority and presidential power. California v. Trump offers that up on a silver platter: Whatever the president can do—whether his name is Obama or Trump—he cannot take funds Congress refused to appropriate and use them to thwart the will of Congress. No tears, no drama, no probing of the executive’s soul. Just the cornerstone of the Framers’ plan.

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

The appeal to “conservative jurisprudence” certainly appeared to “score” with Circuit Judge Jay Bybee of the 9th Circuit and Chief Justice John Roberts in the recent East Bay Sanctuary case (asylum regulations). Can it bring over Justice Neil Gorsuch and others in California v. Trump?

On the other hand, Professor Aziz Huq, writing in Politico says the case is already over and Trump has won because of the Supremes’ prior “what me worry” tank job in Hawaii v. Trump, the so-called “Travel Ban 3.0 Case” which also involved a “Trumped up bogus national emergency” to fulfill a political campaign promise. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/02/19/trump-national-emergency-border-wall-225164

With due respect to Professor Huq, I think this case is different because Congress specifically considered Trump’s request and “reasoning” for wanting more “Wall money” and rejected it. Whether that difference “makes a difference,” in terms of result, remains to be seen. Stay tuned!

PWS

02-20-19

NOTE: An earlier version of this post misidentified the subject of the East Bay Sanctuary case — it was about the Trump Administration’s attempt to circumvent the asylum statute, NOT DACA, in which the Court has taken no action on the Government’s pending petition.

16 STATES SUE TRUMP ON BOGUS NATIONAL EMERGENCY — Nolan Says Trump Ultimately Likely To Prevail — “Slate 3” Appear To Agree!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/coalition-of-states-sues-trump-over-national-emergency-to-build-border-wall/2019/02/18/9da8019c-33a8-11e9-854a-7a14d7fec96a_story.html

Amy Goldstein reports for WashPost:

A coalition of 16 states filed a federal lawsuit Monday to block President Trump’s plan to build a border wall without permission from Congress, arguing that the president’s decision to declare a national emergency is unconstitutional.

The lawsuit, brought by states with Democratic governors — except one, Maryland — seeks a preliminary injunction that would prevent the president from acting on his emergency declaration while the case plays out in the courts.

The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, a San Francisco-based court whose judges have ruled against an array of other Trump administration policies, including on immigration and the environment.

Accusing the president of “an unconstitutional and unlawful scheme,” the suit says the states are trying “to protect their residents, natural resources, and economic interests from President Donald J. Trump’s flagrant disregard of fundamental separation of powers principles engrained in the United States Constitution.”

. . . .

Read the rest of Amy’s article at the above link.

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

But, over at The Hill, Nolan Rappaport predicts that Trump ultimately will prevail:

Nolan writes:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer claim that President Donald Trump’s Southern Border National Emergency Proclamation is an unlawful declaration over a crisis that does not exist, and that it steals from urgently needed defense funds — that it is a power grab by a disappointed president who has gone outside the bounds of the law to try to get what he failed to achieve through the constitutional legislative process.

In fact, this isn’t about the Constitution or the bounds of the law, and — in fact — there is a very real crisis at the border, though not necessarily what Trump often describes. It helps to understand a bit of the history of “national emergencies.”

As of 1973, congress had passed more than 470 statutes granting national emergency powers to the president. National emergency declarations under those statutes were rarely challenged in court.

n Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, which was decided in 1952, the Supreme Court overturned President Harry S. Truman’s proclamation seizing privately owned steel mills to preempt a national steelworker strike during the Korean War. But Truman didn’t have congressional authority to declare a national emergency. He relied on inherent powers which were not spelled out in the Constitution.

Trump, however, is using specific statutory authority that congress created for the president.

In 1976, Congress passed the National Emergencies Act (NEA), which permits the president to declare a national emergency when he considers it appropriate to do so. The NEA does not provide any specific emergency authorities. It relies on emergency authorities provided in other statutes. The declaration must specifically identify the authorities that it is activating.

Read more at https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/430340-national-emergency-declaration-a-legal-fight-trump-is-likely-to-win

Published originally on The HIl.

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

While many of us hope Nolan is wrong, his prediction finds support from perhaps an odd source: these three articles from Slate:

Nancy Pelosi Put Her Faith in the Courts to Stop Trump’s Emergency Wall

Big mistake.

By Daniel Hemel

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/02/nancy-pelosi-trump-emergency-wall-fail.html

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

Trump Is Trying to Hollow Out the Constitutional System of Checks and Balances

The other two branches might let him.

By PETER M. SHANE

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/02/national-emergency-tragedy-trump-wall.html

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

JURISPRUDENCE

Trump Isn’t Just Defying the Constitution. He’s Undermining SCOTUS.

The president defended his national emergency by boasting that he’ll win at the Supreme Court because it’s full of his judges.

By DAHLIA LITHWICK

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/02/donald-trump-national-emergency-undermine-scotus-unconstitutional.html

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

We’ll see what happens. While the arguments made by Trump in support of his “Bogus National Emergency” were totally frivolous (and, perhaps, intentionally so), the points made by Rappaport, Hemel, Shane, and Lithwick aren’t. That could spell big trouble for our country’s future!

Trump doesn’t have a “sure fire legal winner” here; he might or might not have the majority of the Supremes “in his pocket” as he often arrogantly and disrespectfully claims. Nevertheless, there may be a better legal defense for the national emergency than his opponents had counted on.

Certainly, Trump is likely to benefit from having a “real lawyer,” AG Bill Barr, advancing his White Nationalist agenda at the “Justice” Department rather than the transparently biased and incompetent Sessions. While Barr might be “Sessions at heart,” unlike Sessions he certainly had the high-level professional legal skills, respect, and the “human face” necessary to prosper in the Big Law/Corporate world for decades.

Big Law/Corporate America isn’t necessarily the most diverse place, even today. Nevertheless, during my 7-year tenure there decades ago I saw that overt racism and xenophobia generally were frowned upon as being “bad for business.” That’s particularly true if the “business” included representing some of the largest multinational corporations in the world.

Who knows, Barr might even choose to advance the Trump agenda without explicitly ordering the DOJ to use the demeaning, and dehumanizing term “illegals” to refer to fellow human beings, many of them actually here with Government permission, seeking to attain legal status, and often to save their own lives and those of family members, through our legal system.

Many of them perform relatively thankless, yet essential, jobs that are key to our national economic success. Indeed, it’s no exaggeration to say that like the Trump Family and recently exposed former U.N Ambassador nominee Heather Nauert, almost all of us privileged and lucky enough to be U.S. citizens who have prospered from an expanding economy have been doing so on the backs of immigrants, both documented and undocumented. Additionally, migrants are some of the dwindling number of individuals in our country who actually believe in and trust the system to be fair and “do the right thing.”

But, a change in tone, even if welcome, should never be confused with a change in policy or actually respecting the due process rights of others and the rule of law as applied to those seeking legally available benefits in our immigration system. That’s just not part of the White Nationalist agenda that Barr so eagerly signed up to defend and advance

It’s likely to a long time, if ever, before “justice” reasserts itself in the mission of the Department of Justice.

PWS

02-19-19

NOTE: An earlier version of this post contained the wrong article from Dahlia Lithwick. Sorry for any confusion.

THERE IS INDEED A HUMAN RIGHTS CRISIS TO OUR SOUTH – But It Has Little To Do With Trump’s Lies, Nonsense, & Racist Ramblings & Certainly Won’t Be Solved By His Latest Round Of Contempt For Congress & Our Constitution!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/you-want-to-see-a-real-emergency-mr-president-visit-me-in-honduras/2019/02/16/4650383c-3151-11e9-8ad3-9a5b113ecd3c_story.html

Amelia Frank-Vitale is a doctoral candidate in anthropology at the University of Michigan. She writes in the Washington Post:

Since I moved to San Pedro Sula, Honduras, in September 2017 to do research for my doctoral dissertation, I’ve accompanied a 16-year-old with three bullet holes in his body to the hospital, only to find that there was no blood for transfusions. I’ve looked in the face of a young mother, anguished over whether she should try to make it the United States, because the gang that she used to be a part of but had left behind wanted to pull her back in. I’ve gotten tearful phone calls from a single mother and her two children, who have been told by a gang that they want her house — and she has nowhere else to go. I’ve talked to many families whose teenagers have been taken away by police, never to be seen again. And I’ve also talked to police officers who have given up on law enforcement here, as their superiors undermine honest work and reward corruption.

On Friday, President Trump declared a national emergency as a pretext to allow him to begin construction of a border wall. But the real national emergency is here, in Honduras.

I arrived shortly before a likely fraudulent election installed Juan Orlando Hernández in a second, unconstitutional term as president. Rather than protest irregularities in the vote-counting process, the Trump administration congratulated Hernández on his victory.

Honduras was already in bad shape: a devastating hurricane in 1998; a coup d’etat in 2009; becoming the world’s most homicidal nation in 2010; and a long history of U.S. intervention. In 2015, the ruling National party was implicated in stealing millions of dollars from the nation’s social security fund. Honduras is also on the primary route for cocaine trafficking to the United States. The Drug Enforcement Administration has arrested many alleged narcotraffickers, among them the president’s brother, Tony Hernández. The country ranks high in corruption, impunity, poverty and inequality. It ranks low for literacy, employment and life expectancy.

The 2017 election, though, brought things to a head. There were massive protests, the country was shut down for more than a month, and at least 31 protesters were killed. Honduras has erupted in moments of insurrection since then, though the most visible aftereffects of the election have been a crackdown on dissidents, especially the young and students, and the caravans heading for the United States. People had staked their hope for a better future in a different electoral outcome. When that was taken from them, they went back to leaving the country.

Honduran migration isn’t new; what is new is that they are doing it publicly, in large groups, and asking, collectively, for protection. The real humanitarian crisis is that, mostly, Hondurans are denied this protection and deported.

So many young Hondurans — especially the urban poor — feel like they have no future here. Eight out of 10 violent deaths here are of young people. A young man told me, at 21 years old, that he once had a dream but it’s over. He has no dreams now. He was recently deported from the United States after losing an asylum claim. Yet, back in Honduras, he has to hide in the trunk of a car to be able to visit his mother. The gang there would kill him if they saw him enter her house.

At least he came back alive.

A week ago, I went with a family to receive the remains of their 16-year-old son, who had been murdered in Mexico. He had traveled as part of a caravan and was killed in Tijuana. We picked up the small coffin at the San Pedro Sula airport and loaded the slight white box into the back of a borrowed, barely running pickup truck. As I drove to the airport with his grandmother that day, her eyes had filled with tears as she told me how his father used to paint his face and take him on the bus, performing simple clown routines, hoping to be given a few lempiras. She also told me how two of her three sons were murdered in their early 20s. The third one was disappeared. An unasked question hung in the air: whether her grandson would have lived to adulthood had he stayed in Honduras.

Human history is one of migration; we are exceptionally good at moving around when the conditions for life become tenuous. Neither walls nor deserts nor oceans have ever deterred us from seeking safer horizons and better opportunities for survival.

Under these circumstances, Hondurans’ drive to seek safety elsewhere is not an emergency; that there may be no place in the world where they are allowed to find refuge is the real crisis.

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

I used to get folks from San Pedro Sula in Immigration Court. Horrible place! Most of them qualified for asylum, withholding of removal, or some other form of relief from removal. Or the DHS Assistant Chief Counsel, having better things to do, and actually not wanting to see decent folks get hurt, offered them prosecutorial discretion (“PD”).

Of course that was in the “pre-Trump days” when Immigration Judges were generally free to properly apply asylum law (if they chose to do so, which, sadly, not all did) and the ICE Chief Counsel in Arlington was taking a stab at working with the courts and the private bar to make the system operate as reasonably and humanely as it could under the circumstances. Not perfect by any means; but, a world away from the intentional cruelty, irrationality, lawlessness, and intentional bias that the Trump regime has used to destroy any semblance of justice, due process, and functionality in the Immigration Courts.

PWS

02-17-19

IEVA JUSIONYTE @ LA TIMES: Border Walls, Fences, & Barriers Are, At Best, Marginal To Real Law Enforcement – But, They Are Absolutely Guaranteed To Cause Fractures, Trauma, & Amputations For Refugees Fleeing Persecution & Other Desperate People Just Looking For A Better Life!

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-jusionyte-border-emergency-responders-20190217-story.html

Jusionyte writes in the LA Times:

We found her in a ditch a few steps away from the rusted border fence on the east side of Nogales, Ariz., an inch-and-a-half laceration on her swollen forehead. She came from Guerrero, one of the most violent states in Mexico, and could not remember how she landed on the rugged surface after her grip on the top of the barrier failed and she fell.

Six firefighters carried her to the ambulance, which took her to a helicopter bound for the regional trauma center in Tucson. Captain Lopez recorded the incident in the logbook when we returned to the firehouse: “1107 Medic 2, Engine 2: Dead End Freeport — Jumper/Head Injury.” This was two lines below an entry logged earlier that morning, for a teenage boy who had come down with a 102-degree fever while locked in a cell at the Border Patrol station after agents apprehended him in the desert: “0951 Medic 2: 1500 West La Quinta Rd — High Fever.”

Emergency responders are the first on the scene in any life-threatening situation: car accidents, drug overdoses, heart attacks, shootings. In the southern United States, the list of routine trauma scenarios includes border-related injuries.

For more than a year, while I was volunteering as an EMT and paramedic in Arizona, I witnessed ambulances pick up wounded border crossers so frequently that some of my peers were casually referring to the cement ledge abutting the fence as “the ankle alley.”

Such reinforcements don’t contribute to national security. Instead, they erode the foundations of public safety in communities on both sides of the border.

From EMTs to emergency room doctors, medical professionals see firsthand how, as the design of the barrier changes, so do the patterns of injury: While the previous, shorter fence, built in the 1990s and made of sharp corrugated sheet metal, amputated the fingers of those who tried to scale it, the current 20-foot-tall bollard barrier causes orthopedic fractures and multi-system trauma.

Emergency responders also see that, no matter its design, the fence does not deter unauthorized migrants. Even more often than ambulances are dispatched to “the ankle alley,” they are sent to help those choosing the dangerous journey across what the Border Patrol calls “hostile terrain,” where enforcement is outsourced to the extreme environment.

Migrants rescued in the desert are often severely dehydrated and face a life with permanent kidney damage. Lucky ones, nevertheless: In the last two decades, more than 7,000 people have died crossing the increasingly militarized Southwest border region, some of them from head trauma suffered when they fell off the fence in Nogales.

The border fence, now enhanced by spools of concertina wire, is a key component of “tactical infrastructure,” a term Customs and Border Protection uses to refer to the assemblage of materials and technologies that regulate movement in the name of national security. CBP doesn’t have metrics to assess whether fencing contributes to their border enforcement operations, as the Government Accountability Office noted in a report released last year.

The ineffectiveness of current fences has nothing to do with their size or their length. Barriers along the border have doubled in height since the 1990s and now cover nearly 700 miles, or about one-third of the length of the U.S. Southwest border. But they have failed to stop unauthorized migrants or illegal drugs.

Still, as we can see from the ongoing debate on border security among lawmakers, there are no plans to abandon this brutal and ineffective enforcement strategy.

The stubborn focus on barriers is shortsighted, and it obscures how the deployment of tactical infrastructure harms and threatens the safety of communities that straddle the international boundary, such as Nogales. The same emergency responders who splint broken legs and give IV fluids to wounded border crossers depend on partnerships with fire departments in Mexico. Wildfires and flash floods, air pollution and toxic spills spread from one country to another without regard for borders. Walls don’t stop them.

Arizona is downhill, downwind and downstream from the Mexican state of Sonora. Towns on both sides have their public utilities and transportation systems intermeshed. In Nogales, Ariz., and Nogales, Sonora — together known as Ambos Nogales — an arroyo and a sewage pipeline cross the border through a drainage tunnel underneath the port of entry, where residents line up for passport control steps away from railcars carrying sulphuric acid. Aware of this intertwining, emergency managers and first responders have developed binational partnerships.

Enter the Fray: First takes on the news of the minute »

The U.S. Forest Service and Mexico’s National Forestry Commission jointly fight wildfires within 10 miles of the border. Sister cities have mutual aid agreements, which allow them to share resources in cases of emergency on either side. While Americans push fire hoses through the gaps in the fence, supplying their peers in Mexico with water, Mexican volunteers come to the U.S. side to provide manpower in large structure fires and search-and-rescue operations. Such cooperation is more than a century old. It precedes the fence that divides the communities.

Building barriers undermines these achievements and imperils border residents. To speed up the construction of the wall after Sept. 11, 2001, the Department of Homeland Security was authorized to waive more than 30 environmental and other federal laws, including regulations preserving clean air and clean water. Tactical infrastructure, deployed at any human, social or ecological cost, exacerbates the potentially disastrous consequences of natural phenomena.

We saw it happen a decade ago, when the CBP installed a 5-foot concrete barrier inside the drainage tunnel under Nogales. The barrier formed a bottleneck. With heavy rain, water pressure kept rising, until about 1,000 feet of the tunnel collapsed and inundated the city. Mexican authorities declared the area a disaster zone, citing damage to hundreds of homes, while the CBP recovered two bodies, suspecting the drowned were unauthorized migrants. Despite calls for investigations and reparations, the U.S. government’s only concession was an offer to lower the barrier by a foot and a half.

Such reinforcements don’t contribute to national security. Instead, they erode the foundations of public safety in communities on both sides of the border. As U.S. soldiers added more concertina wire to the fence in Nogales earlier this month, an EMT told me he dreads the day he may be called to help someone entangled in its razor-sharp coils.

Ieva Jusionyte is an assistant professor of anthropology and social studies at Harvard University and the author of “Threshold: Emergency Responders on the U.S.-Mexico Border.” She has volunteered as an emergency medical technician, paramedic and firefighter in Florida, Arizona and Massachusetts.

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

On the “real border,” Trump’s lies and White Nationalist nonsense don’t just waste money and create artificial barrier to international cooperation; they actually harm folks on both sides every day. And, they most certainly bring us no closer to the rational solutions needed to manage a shared border and reasonably control and channel human migration.

PWS

02-18-19

TRUMP TAKES “LIEFEST” TO EL PASO BORDER — Many Protest Against His White Nationalist Baloney!

TRUMP TAKES “LIEFEST” TO EL PASO BORDER — Many Protest Against His White Nationalist Baloney!

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-beto-border-rallies-20190211-story.html

Eli Stokols & Molly Hennessy-Fiske reports for the LA Times:

President Trump falsely told a raucous rally in El Paso on Monday night that he is already building a wall on the adjacent border with Mexico, as a potential Democratic challenger assailed him at a large protest nearby and, in Washington, congressional negotiators announced a tentative funding deal without the billions he demanded for a wall.

Beneath banners reading “Finish the Wall,” Trump hailed what he called a “big, beautiful wall right on the Rio Grande,” though no such construction is known to be underway. When supporters launched into a chant of “Build the wall!” — standard at his rallies for years — Trump corrected them: “You mean finish the wall.”

The president alluded to lawmakers’ announcement of a deal, which came moments before he took the stage, but did not give it his blessing. Nor did he disparage it though one of his foremost confidants, Fox News host Sean Hannity, came on the air midway through the president’s rally and condemned the reported agreement as “this garbage compromise.”

Without the president and Congress agreeing to a border security funding bill by midnight Friday, the government could be partially shuttered again, just three weeks after a shutdown that at 35 days was the longest ever. The “agreement in principle” called for $1.375 billion for 55 miles of new barrier on the 2,000-mile border — less than a quarter of the $5.7 billion Trump demanded.

He told the crowd that he hadn’t bothered to find out the particulars of the agreement because he was eager to take the stage. “I could have stayed in there and listened, or I could have come out to the people of El Paso, Texas,” he said. “I chose you.”

Outside the El Paso County Coliseum, thousands of protesters, bundled against the evening chill, marched along the Rio Grande to a nearby park. There, El Paso’s former congressman and a possible Democratic 2020 presidential candidate, Beto O’Rourke, joined other locals who spoke of El Paso and neighboring Juarez, Mexico, as one community and expressed indignation over Trump’s false characterization of their city as a violent one in last week’s State of the Union address.

“With the eyes of the entire country upon us, all of us together are going to make our stand. Here in one of the safest cities in the United States of America — safe, not because of walls but in spite of walls,” O’Rourke said, in the sort of rousing speech that brought nationwide attention to his Senate race last year, though he lost to Republican Sen. Ted Cruz.

“Let’s own this moment and the future and show this country there’s nothing to be afraid of when it comes to the U.S.-Mexico border,” O’Rourke said to cheers. “Let’s make sure our laws, our leaders and our language reflect our values.”

Late Monday, the House-Senate committee bargaining over border security funding and trying to avert another shutdown reached an “agreement in principle,” according to Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.), chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Talks had stalled on the weekend, Republicans said, over Democrats’ demands to limit the detention of undocumented immigrants, many of them seeking asylum.

Should Congress pass a compromise, the onus would be on the president to accept it, or risk taking blame again for a partial federal shutdown. Before arriving in El Paso, Trump sought to preemptively shift blame to Democrats should the legislative effort ultimately fail. After the recent shutdown, polls showed the public put the blame squarely on him, and his approval rating slid.

With both his rally and the protest featuring O’Rourke receiving national coverage, the split-screen moment promised something of an audition of a hypothetical 2020 matchup, effectively creating a live debate between the president and a charismatic potential challenger on the issue that most animated Trump’s followers in 2016 and probably will again in his reelection bid.

Before leaving the White House, the president signaled that he too saw the dueling rallies as an early competition, with his familiar emphasis on crowd sizes. “We have a line that’s very long already,” Trump told reporters at the White House, referring to people waiting to enter his El Paso venue. He added, “I understand our competitor’s got a line too, but it’s a tiny little line.”

At his rally, Trump bragged that 10,000 supporters were inside the arena and 25,000 more were standing outside. According to the El Paso Fire Department, 6,500 people — the building’s capacity — were allowed inside, while at least 10,000 attended the protest rally. Organizers, however, had a slightly lower estimate.

“We have 35,000 people tonight and he has 200 people, 300 people,” Trump said. “Not too good. That may be the end of his presidential bid.”

While the border visit was intended as an opportunity for Trump to promote his signature issue, he wandered widely in his remarks — attacking Democrats repeatedly, including on abortion and on a so-called Green New Deal environmental platform that some are advocating, and mocking Virginia Democrats for controversies that have roiled the state’s government.

Trump’s drumbeat on immigration has yet to pay political dividends beyond his own supporters, and it has further galvanized his opponents. His fear-mongering during campaign rallies last fall over caravans of immigrants failed to prevent a Democratic wave that cost Republicans a net 40 seats and their majority in the House.

And during his State of the Union address, his incorrect portrayal of El Paso — he said it had “extremely high rates of violent crime” and was “one of our nation’s most dangerous cities” until the government built a “powerful barrier” there — touched a nerve among civic leaders and citizens.

The El Paso County Commissioners Court on Monday approved a resolution assailing the president and his administration for misinformation and lies about a “crisis situation” on the U.S.-Mexico border, and noting that the federal government said “no crisis exists” and that “fiscal year 2017 was the lowest year of illegal cross-border migration on record.”

Yet Trump, at the rally, denounced his critics and media fact-checkers who disputed his claims that existing border fencing had slashed crime rates in El Paso. “They’re full of crap when they say it doesn’t make a difference,” he said, suggesting that local officials tried to “pull the wool over everybody’s eyes” by reporting low crime rates.

Lyda Ness-Garcia, a lawyer and founder of the Women’s March of El Paso, said organizers of Monday night’s protest were motivated to counteract Trump’s “lies” about their city.

“There was a deep sense of anger in our community, from the left and the right. It’s the demonization of our border. It’s the misrepresentation that the wall made us safe when we were safe long before,” she said.

Referring to the Mexican city just over the border, Garcia added: “We’re connected to Juarez. People forget. We’re not separate. We’re one culture.”

In truth, violent crime dropped in El Paso after a peak in 1993. It was at historic lows before Congress authorized a fence along the Rio Grande in 2006. Crime began to rise again over the next four years, after the fencing went up.

The city’s Republican mayor, Dee Margo, admonished Trump after the State of the Union speech, saying during an appearance on CNN that the president’s depiction of El Paso is “not factually correct.”

Fernando Garcia, executive director of the Border Network for Human Rights, said organizers intended the march as a community celebration rather than an anti-Trump or pro-O’Rourke political event. “The administration, they didn’t believe our community would react, that people would get upset about the lies,” he said. “Our community spoke in numbers.”

Garcia noted that residents had seen the fallout from the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” immigration policies firsthand, both in family separations and in asylum-seekers being turned away from border bridges and required to remain in Mexico while they await hearings.

In December, two Guatemalan migrant children died in Border Patrol custody in the El Paso area after seeking asylum.

“Trump has created policies and strategies that have created deep wounds in our region,” Garcia said. “We are not a violent city. We are not criminals. We are part of America and we deserve respect from this president.”

Although the protest event brought together roughly 50 local groups, O’Rourke’s political star power generated significant media coverage.

“If you’re Beto, there couldn’t be a better, more visual contrast,” said Jen Psaki, a former communications director to President Obama. “By leading a march, he gets back to his grass-roots origins and it allows him to stand toe to toe with the president of the United States and to echo a message that even local Republicans agree with. It gives him a platform and a megaphone at a beneficial time.”

Not willing to cede the moment completely to O’Rourke, Julian Castro — a former mayor of San Antonio, an Obama Cabinet member and already a declared presidential candidate — went Monday to the border checkpoint where his grandmother entered the United States as a young girl. He filmed a video denouncing the president and calling Trump’s visit to El Paso an effort “to create a circus of fear and paranoia” and “to tell lies about the border and about immigration.”

Speaking directly into the camera, Castro added, “Don’t take the bait.”

Politics Newsletter

Twice-weekly

Analysis and breaking news from our award-winning journalists in Sacramento and Washington, D.C.

Eli Stokols

CONTACT

Eli Stokols is a White House reporter based in the Los Angeles Times Washington, D.C., bureau. He is a veteran of Politico and the Wall Street Journal, where he covered the 2016 presidential campaign and then the Trump White House. A native of Irvine, Stokols grew up in a Times household and is thrilled to report for what is still his family’s hometown paper. He is also a graduate of UC Berkeley and the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism.

Molly Hennessy-Fiske

CONTACT

Molly Hennessy-Fiske has been a staff writer for the Los Angeles Times since 2006. She won a 2018 APME International Perspective Award;2015 Overseas Press Club award; 2014 Dart award from ColumbiaUniversity; and was a finalist for the Livingston Awards and Casey Medal. She completed a Thomson Reuters fellowship in Lebanon in 2006 and a Pew fellowship in Mexico in 2004. Hennessy-Fiske grew up in Upstate New York and graduated from Harvard College. She spent last year as Middle East bureau chief before returning to cover foreign/national news as Houston bureau chief.

COMMENTS (41)

Please enable JavaScript to view the <a href=”http://solidopinion.com/”>comments powered by SolidOpinion.</a>

MOST READ

ADVERTISEMENT

LATEST POLITICS

Gavin Newsom has been more antagonistic to Trump than Jerry Brown was. And he’s just getting started
5h

Border showdown: Trump and Beto O’Rourke hold dueling rallies on immigration in El Paso
FEB 11, 2019

Lawmakers announce a deal to prevent another government shutdown, but prospects remain uncertain
FEB 11, 2019

Border funding fight bogs down over detention beds. Here’s why
FEB 11, 2019

Slamming Trump’s ‘political theater,’ California Gov. Gavin Newsom pulls National Guard from border
FEB 11, 2019

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

The racist lies about immigration just keep spewing forth from Trump and his White Nationalist support groups, including the “right wingnut” media.

We’re not being invaded by foreign criminals. Actually, we’re experiencing a quite predictable and potentially manageable influx of refugees seeking to exercise their legal rights to lawfully apply for asylum in the US. Not surprising, given that we have no viable refugee program in or near the Northern Triangle and have undoubtedly contributed to the breakdown of the rule of law and society in those “failed states.”

The idea that real criminals, terrorists, drug smugglers, or human traffickers will be stopped or even materially deterred by a Wall is beyond absurd. Walls generally “reroute migration” and kill more innocent people. Real threats to our security are laughing at Trump and his base while they view the diversion, wasted time and money, and the failure to beef up intelligence, undercover, and anti-smuggling operations as a free gift.

And, I’m sure they cheer the focus on “rounding up” and detaining asylum applicants who turn themselves in to apply for asylum (because Trump has intentionally disabled reasonable processing through legal ports of entry) instead of doing the real law enforcement work of breaking up criminal enterprises.

“Numbers” aren’t everything, particularly when the majority of the apprehensions have little to do with criminals or other “bad guys. But, it’s easier to “chalk up big numbers” and support a bogus White Nationalist narrative about “loss of border security” by apprehending asylum applicants who are in search of ever more elusive justice in the U.S.

Unfortunately, outright fibs and bogus racist narratives seem to work for our “Lier-in-Chief!” Here is an article from today’s NY Times by native Texan Richard Parker actually suggesting that Trump succeeds because Texans are as addicted to “Tall Tales” as Trump is to “Big Lies!” In other words, a “match made in Heaven.” https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/12/opinion/el-paso-trump-beto.html

Rather an unhappy commentary, if true. Who am I as a “mere Badger” to say, but I would suspect that these tall tales of fake invasions and bogus fear mongering directed mostly at the growing Latino community appeal more to some Texans than to others.

Just shows the importance of the work of the New Due Process Army (“NDPA”) in defending our laws and Constitution! Also illustrates the importance of committing ourselves to “regime change” in 2020. The immigration nonsense from Trump and his supporters and the intentional divisiveness, chaos, and anarchy that flow from it is an existential threat to our national existence — much greater than his mostly fake “border emergency.”

PWS

02-12-19

DENNIS ROMERO @ NBC NEWS WITH A MORE NUANCED LOOK AT A BORDER WALL — It’s Highly Effective At “Re-Routing” Migrants, But Causes More Deaths, Enriches Smugglers, & Is Ineffective Against Drug Smuggling — Bottom Line: “[E]ffective at deterring crowds of migrants that will ultimately be undeterred.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-says-san-diego-s-border-barrier-works-it-pushes-n965681

Dennis Romero reports for NBC News from San Diego:

When President Trump argues that the United States needs a wall along the southern border, he likes to point to San Diego’s success.

There, double and triple barriers fortify the westernmost stretch of the nearly 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border as U.S. Border Patrol agents drive SUVs along frontage roads and hover overhead in helicopters.

The militarized border touching the communities of Imperial Beach, San Ysidro and Otay Mesa contributed to a 75 percent decline in crossings in the years immediately after fencing was installed in the 1990s, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection data.

The decline mirrors a border-wide decrease.Apprehensions of those suspected of illegally crossing the entire Southwest border experienced an uptick in 2018 over 2017 to nearly 467,000 but remained at less than half their peak in the 1980s and 1990s, when the Border Patrol racked up 1 to 1.6 million apprehensions.

President Donald Trump, who’s in a protracted battle to secure congressional funding for his campaign promise to build a wall along the entire length of the Southern border, on Thursday pointed to San Diego’s Mexican neighbor, Tijuana, as an example of what can happen with and without a barrier.

Trump’s proposed wall, based on one of eight prototypes in San Diego, is yet to be authorized by Congress.

“If you go to Tijuana and you take down that wall, you will have so many people coming into our country that Nancy Pelosi will be begging for a wall,” he said from the Oval Office. “She will be begging for a wall. She will say, ‘Mr. President, please, please give us a wall.'”

While it seems unlikely the House speaker would ever beg for a wall, the president has a valid point about fencing’s impact on the border region. Although San Diego’s barrier may stem illegal crossings, its impact is more complicated than Trump’s statement that “walls work” suggests.

From the 1980s to the early 1990s the Border Patrol’s San Diego sector was overrun with people illegally crossing the border. Hundreds of migrants would gather on a Tijuana River levee known as “El Bordo” and, much like the climactic border crossing scene in 1987’s “Born in East L.A.,” rush the few Border Patrol agents brave enough to try to stop them.

In the 1980s, about 40 percent of the Southwest’s illegal border crossings took place at San Diego, said Victor Clark-Alfaro of San Diego State University’s Center for Latin American Studies. The peak year for border apprehensions in the San Diego sector was 1986, when 628,000 migrants were nabbed.

“Tijuana was like a fiesta,” Clark-Alfaro said. “On a single day on a weekend at El Bordo you could find about 1,000 migrants ready to cross to the U.S. side. There was liquor, marijuana, human smugglers, street vendors.”

The defunct bureaucracy known as the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, since replaced by three agencies under the Department of Homeland Security, built fencing along the border at San Diego in 1990, but it was no match for desperate Mexicans.

The migrants created a huge wave of south-of-the-border crossings into the U.S. that was addressed by Republican Pete Wilson, a onetime San Diego mayor who won re-election as California governor in 1994 based on a Trump-like platform of deterring illegal immigration.

“Bill Clinton had to respond,” said David Shirk, director of the University of San Diego’s master’s program in international relations.

In 1994, President Bill Clinton initiated Operation Gatekeeper, a crackdown at the border, and Congress followed up two years later with 14 miles of “triple-layered fence,” according to congressional records. Some of those first fences were made from Vietnam War-era landing mats intended for makeshift helicopter airstrips.

In 2006, Congress authorized “double-layered fencing” along at least 700 miles of border. The full length has yet to be covered with fencing because of delays in acquiring private property, often through court battles. But the San Diego sector received fresh fencing in the mid-1990s and again in the late-2000s.

Experts, many critical of Trump’s overall stand on border security, acknowledge the San Diego barriers, now made of steel bollards and surplus military landing mats, have more or less done their job. The sector went from being the top location for border crossings to a relative ghost town with 26,086 apprehensions in fiscal year 2017, according to the Border Patrol.

A migrant from Honduras passes a child to her father after he jumped the border fence to get into the U.S. side to San Diego, Calif., from Tijuana, Mexico on Jan. 3, 2019.Daniel Ochoa de Olza / AP file

The hardened border, however, pushed migrants to remote areas that have few man-made impediments and are often just World War II-style vehicle barriers known as Normandy fencing, Clark-Alfaro said. Arizona has become a hotbed of crossings, but migrants often die of dehydration. The mountains east of San Diego have also become a crossing zone, where migrants have died from hypothermia.

Some migrants head for the cold Pacific and end up dead or arrested.

“Our beach was invaded by people on pangas, boogie boards,” said Imperial Beach Mayor Serge Dedina, adding that the fortified fencing “didn’t stop the tunnels” used by cartels to ship drugs into California and beyond.

The San Diego-area border security measures have also enticed cartels to dive deeper into smuggling because the barriers drive up prices for guides or coyotes, experts say. Prices have gone from as little as $75 in the 1990s to as much as $7,000 today, said San Diego State’s Clark-Alfaro.

“We’ve made it more profitable for human traffickers along the border,” added Shirk, of the University of San Diego.

However, narcotics continue to make it across the Southwest border, with seizures of heroin in the San Diego sector increasing 59 percentfrom 2016 to 2017, according to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.

The San Diego sector was the top target along the southwest border for heroin smuggling outside points of entry, the DEA said. Eighty-five percent of the synthetic opioid fentanyl that crossed in 2017 entered through the San Diego area, according to DEA data.

Experts argue that one of the biggest influences on border crossings has been the Mexican economy, which has improved enough that many workers would rather just stay home. In Tijuana, home to a booming appliance and TV manufacturing sector, thousands of jobs are up for grabs.

And many of the immigrants from that huge wave in the 1980s and 1990s settled in the United States rather than crossing back and forth for seasonal work, experts say. In effect, they were walled in by the increased border security and are now staying put.

The boosted federal presence along the border also includes an exponential increase in the number of Border Patrol agents since 1990 to more than 20,000 today. At least 85 percent are stationed along the border, according to Shirk’s research.

Much of that increase in personnel came in the years following 9/11, when the Department of Homeland Security was created and crossing the border legitimately became much less casual, Shirk said. Passports are now required for travel in both directions.

The new border-crossing population comes mostly from Central America, where migrants have formed caravans to travel north. People fleeing murderous gangs — some, like MS-13, were born in the U.S. — have mostly sought asylum in the United States legally, although the Border Patrol U.S. Customs and Border Protection says groups of Central Americans have recently tried to rush into the country illegally.

The bottom line on San Diego’s beefed up border, some of which is slated for replacement, is a mixed bag effective at deterring crowds of migrants that will ultimately be undeterred.

“It’s effective at re-routing people,” said John Fanestil, a Methodist minister who has offered communion on the United States side of the fence. “We made it harder to cross the border illegally — more deadly, more costly. But when circumstances are as extreme as they are in Central America, people will demonstrate great determination to cross the border.”

Dennis Romero

Dennis Romero writes for NBC News and is based in Los Angeles.

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

As we used to say at the Arlington Immigration Court, “Desperate people do desperate things.” Or, as I have said on “Courtside,” “We can diminish ourselves as a nation, but it won’t stop human migration.”

What would actually help:

Technology, intelligence, undercover resources to combat drug smuggling;
More appropriate and generous application of our existing refugee and asylum laws at the border and in or near the Northern Triangle;
More resources for processing asylum applications at the Ports of Entry;
Expanded legal immigration opportunities, particularly for needed workers, that would more accurately reflect market forces driving today’s “extralegal immigration system;”
Working more closely with the UNHCR, Mexico, and other countries in the Hemisphere to solve the humanitarian problems driving refugee flows.

Why not “get smart” instead of continuing to “play dumb” on migration issues?

PWS

02-02-19

A PRESIDENCY WITHOUT INTELLIGENCE IS A THREAT TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY: By Contrast, Individuals Seeking Asylum Through Our Legal System @ Our Southern Border Are No Such Thing — “None of the [U.S. intelligence] officials said there is a security crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border, where Trump has considered declaring a national emergency so that he can build a wall.”

James Hohmann from the “Daily 202” in today’s WashPost:

— Here are five of the main issues where the intelligence community leaders broke with Trump:

Coats “said that North Korea was ‘unlikely to completely give up its nuclear weapons and production capabilities,’ which the country’s leaders consider ‘critical to the regime’s survival.’ That assessment threw cold water on the White House’s more optimistic view that the United States and North Korea will achieve a lasting peace and that the regime will ultimately give up its nuclear weapons.’”
“None of the officials said there is a security crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border, where Trump has considered declaring a national emergency so that he can build a wall.”
“Officials also warned that the Islamic State was capable of attacking the United States and painted a picture of a still-formidable organization. Trump has declared the group defeated and has said he wants to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria as a result.”
“The officials assessed that the government of Iran was not trying to build a nuclear weapon, despite the Trump administration’s persistent claims that the country has been violating the terms of an international agreement forged during the Obama administration. Officials told lawmakers that Iran was in compliance with the agreement.”
“Officials also warned, as they did last year, about Russia’s intention to interfere with the U.S. political system. … Trump continues to equivocate on whether Russia interfered in the 2016 election on his behalf, contradicting the unanimous assessment of all the top intelligence officials currently serving.”

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

Here’s a more detailed story by Shane Harris from today’s Post setting forth just how “out to lunch” our “Intelligence professionals,” whom Trump himself appointed, think the President’s “threat assessment” is, specifically including, but not limited to, his “manufactured security crisis” at the Southern Border. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/intelligence-officials-will-name-biggest-threats-facing-us-during-senate-hearing/2019/01/28/f08dc5cc-2340-11e9-ad53-824486280311_story.html?utm_term=.5b8041d6dc0a

I’ve been saying on “Courtside” for some time that the real existential threat to our national security is Trump. While the Administration has undoubtedly completely screwed up our asylum system at the border and in the U.S. Immigration Courts that has almost nothing to do with “national security.”

It’s simply a matter of common sense: We know (or should know) almost exactly what the number oF arrivals is going to be, particularly when they travel in slow-moving “caravans” that easily can be tracked and anticipated. We certainly could “funnel” almost all of them into the legal screening system for asylum.

Get the Inspectors and Asylum Officers down there to do the screening, and the necessary Immigration Judges, ICE lawyers, and defense counsel to decide cases of those screened in! Take lower priority cases, most involving long-term residents who have been here and likely will continue to be here for years, off the overcrowded Immigration Court dockets!

This would allow processing of the “new influx” in a timely manner, with full due process, and without creating more “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” in the Immigration Courts. It would also avoid the always ineffective, wasteful, and usually illegal “gimmicks” that the Administration has used to “game” the asylum system against applicants. And, certainly in this respect, getting more pro bono lawyers involved would be a much bigger help than more unneeded troops or Border Patrol Agents. Let the Border Patrol go back to their job of apprehending those border crossers who aren’t turning themselves in at or near the border to apply for asylum. Stop wasting resources and solve the problem!

Meanwhile, we should all be scared by Trump’s disregard of the prudent advice of his “national security and intelligence team.”

PWS

01-30-19

BUZZFEED NEWS: “Our Gang” Leader Judge Jeffrey Chase Blasts Nielsen’s Latest Disingenuous Attack On Legal Asylum Seekers — “Outrageous Move”

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/hamedaleaziz/the-trump-administration-will-start-sending-some-asylum

Hamed Aleaziz reports:

SAN FRANCISCO — Central American migrants seeking asylum at the US–Mexico border will be forced to remain in Mexico while their cases in the US are being processed, the Trump administration said Thursday.

The unprecedented policy change will take effect on Friday with the return of the first group of migrants at the border crossing between San Diego and Tijuana, Mexico, according to Vox.

The policy, titled the Migrant Protection Protocols, is the latest attempt by the Trump administration to discourage migrants, including asylum-seekers, from trying to enter the United States. Previous attempts, such as banning asylum for those who crossed without authorization, were blocked by the courts, and this effort also is likely to face a challenge in court.

Under the policy, certain migrants at the border will receive a “notice to appear” in US immigration court and will be returned to Mexico until their hearing, according to a Department of Homeland Security fact sheet. The Mexican government, according to the agency, has provided the ability for those individuals to stay in the country until their court dates in the US. On the day of their hearing, migrants will be taken to US immigration courts for their cases to be heard.

Unaccompanied children will be excluded from the policy and those from “vulnerable populations” may be excluded on a case-by-case basis.

“We have implemented an unprecedented action that will address the ongoing humanitarian and security crisis at our Southern border,” said Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen. “For far too long, our immigration system has been exploited by smugglers, traffickers, and those who have no legal right to remain in the United States. The Migrant Protection Protocols represent a methodical commonsense approach to exercising our statutory authority to require certain individuals to await their court proceedings in Mexico.”

A US official close to the process who is critical of the policy told BuzzFeed News it would lead migrants to “revert to sneaking in rather than going to ports of entry” and cause “more deaths in the desert.”

The Trump administration informed the Mexican government that it was going to be enacting the policy based on a statute stating that certain individuals can be sent back to the contiguous country they arrived from.

BuzzFeed News first reported that the administration was considering such a policy back in November.

Trump administration officials have accused asylum-seekers of gaming the US system, requesting asylum that they know they won’t qualify for so that they can remain in the country for months or years while immigration courts hear their cases.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a California Democrat, said the policy was a circumvention of the country’s immigration laws.

“Today’s announcement creates more questions than answers. Even putting aside the unlawfulness of this action, we do not know where these asylum-seekers will be held, who will be responsible for their safety, how and where their hearings will take place, or how access to counsel will be handled,” she said in a statement Thursday.

Jeff Chase, a former immigration judge, said the move was outrageous.

“We should be allowing asylum-seekers to enter and pursue their claims according to the international legal norms,” he said. “It will obviously be much more difficult for asylum-seekers to obtain counsel and to meaningfully participate in increasingly complex legal claims from outside the country.”

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

Right on, Jeffrey! Thanks for expressing our outrage in the dishonest, deceitful, inhumane, and counterproductive actions of shallow Trump sycophant Nielsen. Another mess is sure to follow. Despite her claims, and Nielsen is an established liar, everything I’ve read indicates that Mexico is unready to implement this if it involves more than a few hundred individuals. And, if the program were that small, it wouldn’t be worth doing. The Trump Administration of incompetents has yet to carry out any major new program without screwups.

What if Trump, Nielsen, DOJ, and EOIR just did their jobs by generously and efficiently granting asylum as mandated by the Refugee Act, the Supremes in Cardoza–Fonseca, and, ironically, the BIA’s own well-established but seldom enforced precedent Mogharrabi?

What if we took 50,000 refugees directly from the Northern Triangle, as we easily could and should do?

What if the Administration worked with, rather than against, pro bono groups and NGOs so that asylum seekers could fairly and efficiently move through the system consistent with Due Process?

What if DHS enforcement actually concentrated on potential “bad guys” rather than getting sidetracked by treating refugee families like criminals?

What if Trump treated refugees like the deserving and productive human beings that they have been throughout our history and welcomed and integrated them into our society?

What if he stopped using false narratives and restrictionist White Nationalist racist lies to make policy?

What if he cut the often illegal, always “built to fail,” and grossly fiscally wasteful gimmicks, smoke, mirrors, and job avoidance and just got the job done?

We’d actually be on the way to making America great again. Too bad that neither the Trump Administration nor the GOP seems interested in doing the real work of making government function within the law and advancing the real general public interests!

PWS

01-25-19

Julia Edwards Ainsley @ NBC: DHS Set To Launch “Wait in Mexico” Program For Asylum Seekers — Expect Another Disaster!

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/dhs-plans-begin-turning-asylum-seekers-back-mexico-await-court-n962401

Julia Ainsley

Julia reports:

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration plans to begin turning asylum-seekers back across the southern border on Friday to wait in Mexico under a new policy designed to crack down on immigration by Central American families, according to three Department of Homeland Security officials familiar with the matter.

Customs and Border Protection officers will begin returning asylum-seekers trying to enter at the San Ysidro port of entry in California from Tijuana, Mexico, where thousands of migrants from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador are already waiting in poor conditions.

Under current policy, immigrants who pass an initial “credible fear” interview are allowed to remain in the U.S. while they wait for immigration judges to decide their cases. Single adults are detained while they await their hearing, but a federal court decision in 2015 mandates that families with children be detained no longer than 20 days.

The Trump administration has blamed that court decision, known as the Flores settlement, for being a magnet that is driving record numbers of immigrant families to apply for asylum at the southern border. Last summer under the “zero tolerance” policy, DHS separated asylum-seeking parents from their children at the border, sparking international outcry.

Overall numbers of undocumented immigrants apprehended or stopped from legally entering the United States are lower than the historic highs reached in the early 2000s.

Children who travel without a guardian, immigrants who appear ill as well as other “vulnerable populations” will be exempt from the policy and allowed to wait in the U.S. for an immigration hearing.

Immigrant and civil rights organizations have threatened to sue the Trump administration over the policy, known as Migration Protection Policy, which Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen announced was coming in her congressional testimony in December.

The policy is a unilateral move by the U.S. and not part of an agreement with Mexico, two officials said, though Mexico has agreed to care for immigrants who are waiting to apply. The Lopez Obrador administration in Mexico has been vocal about its opposition to the policy in the past.

Beginning Friday, the asylum-seekers who come to the San Ysidro port of entry will be sent back to Tijuana with a notice to appear in court in San Diego. On their court dates, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement will provide transportation from the port of entry to immigration court. Asylum-seekers will also be given a 24-hour hotline to call for the status of their asylum cases.

SHUTDOWN HAS FURLOUGHED IMMIGRATION COURT JUDGES

Due to a backlog in U.S. immigration courts of more than 800,000 cases, asylum-seekers currently have to wait months or even years to see a judge. DHS has asked the Justice Department to expedite the cases of immigrants waiting in Mexico, and two officials said they expect the asylum-seekers affected by the new policy to wait no more than a year.

Agents fire tear gas at migrants at the border

NOV. 26, 201802:26

The partial government shutdown over President Donald Trump’s plan for a border wall has furloughed immigration judges, however, so the backlog of cases is expected to rise.I

Conditions for Central Americans waiting in Tijuana are already poor. CBP officers on the U.S. side are practicing “metering” where they let in somewhere from 40 to 100 immigrants per day. Shelters for families and children in Tijuana are overcrowded and many are struggling to meet migrants’ basic needs.

They also face backlash from Tijuana residents who do not want their city overrun with Central Americans. Two boys were lured out of a camp and murdered late last year.

Human rights organizations have warned that turning back the small number of immigrants who are allowed to cross into the U.S. to claim asylum will only worsen the problem and force asylum-seekers to either wait in poor conditions or resort to dangerous routes to cross illegally.

Two children died in the custody of U.S. Border Protection in December after traveling with their parents through rough terrain in remote areas.

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

With the Trump Administration, what they say is seldom what you get. Remember sycophant and “frequent liar” Nielsen falsely claiming that there was “no family separation policy.”

So, I would be surprised if officials on either side of the border actually are prepared to carry this out without major problems. Indeed, almost every major restrictionist immigration initiative announced by the Trump Administration has proved to be 1) wholly illegal; 2) partially illegal; and/or 3) incompetently administered, as well as dumb and in many cases intentionally cruel. An Administration of Clowns doesn’t turn into a troupe of trapeze artists overnight. The question really isn’t whether DHS will screw this up, but rather how.

First, it’s not clear what provisions have been made for attorney access. And, of course processing all cases at a few ports of entry, rather than distributing them across the U.S., could limit the pool of available, mostly pro bono, attorneys.

On the flip side, concentrating cases at a limited number of ports of entry might make it more possible for NGOs and pro bono organizations to concentrate resources and create representation programs. Still, a real asylum project carried out by a Government legitimately interested in complying with the law and Due Process would not be implemented without working with pro bono groups in advance to set up a representation and access system. Clearly, the failure to do that shows bad faith on the part of the Administration. Because individuals are entitled to representation (but not appointed counsel) in removal proceedings that, in and of itself, ought to be a reason for enjoining the program on statutory and Due Process grounds until there is a realistic plan for giving reasonable access to counsel.

The second thing that jumps out at me as unlikely is the promise that ICE will “taxi” individuals from the border to their hearings and back. One might wonder why a supposed law enforcement agency is operating a “taxi service.” Beyond that, my experience on the detained docket in Immigration Court was that ICE sometimes struggled to get detainees to court on time when they were residing in the same facility as the courtroom. It seems unlikely that ICE will be able to produce individuals from the Mexican border in a timely manner for their court hearings. And remember folks, these are the clowns who don’t even know how many children they have in their custody and where they all are!

Third, if these cases are “prioritized” by the toadies at EOIR, at the demand of DHS, it will lead to yet another round of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and arbitrary delays in the captive and already failed Immigration Court System which the Trump Administration essentially has destroyed and ground into the dirt.

Fourth, since the Administration has already had detainees die in the U.S., and has also allowed individuals to die in Mexico while awaiting intentionally delayed interviews, I hope that advocacy groups are preparing civil suits to hold Nielsen and other officials personally liable for very predictable unconstitutional harm inflicted on individual asylum applicants.

A major recurring problem with running a White Nationalist regime is that policy is built upon false narratives, outright lies, and racist-inspired myths. So instead of working with folks with real expertise to solve problems, they waste our taxpayer money on endless gimmicks and illegal schemes. All are “built to fail” and many are proven failures. But, that’s what a Kakistocracy does.

At some point, Nielsen’s disgraceful record of dishonesty, sycophancy, and incompetence is likely to come back to haunt her. She truly is a “Child of the Kakistocracy.”

PWS

01-24-19

HOW INEFFECTIVE IS THE WALL? — Here Are 376 Reasons Why The Wall As “Border Security” Is A Total Farce!

qhttps://abcnews.go.com/US/largest-single-group-migrants-tunnels-border-wall-arizona/story?id=60462672

Matt Gutman reports for ABC News:

The largest single group of asylum seekers ever to cross into the U.S. tunneled beneath the border wall near San Luis, Arizona, on Monday, voluntarily turning themselves into Customs and Border Protection, according to the agency.

Migrants can be seen marching toward Border Patrol agents by the hundreds, according to video obtained by ABC News. Smugglers dug a series of seven holes, only a few feet long beneath the steel border fence, with hundreds going beneath the wall and a smaller number clambering over it, according to CBP.

The fresh sand and scuff marks of shoes on the rusty steel were still there when ABC News visited the site on Thursday.

The agency says 179 of the record 376 people who crossed were children, including over 30 unaccompanied minors — children under 18 traveling on their own.

The overall number of unauthorized crossings has plummeted since its peak in the 2001, when CBP logged about 1.6 million apprehensions, according to government statistics. However, the demography of those crossing has changed dramatically.

(MORE: Leaked memo shows Trump administration weighed separating families at border, despite saying it was never policy)

Parents with children now comprise over 80 percent of the total apprehensions of those crossing the 2,000-mile long border with Mexico. The vast majority of them, like the group near Yuma Monday, surrender immediately or seek out Border Patrol agents in order to begin the asylum process.

CBP Yuma Border Sector Chief Anthony Porvaznik said his unit needs better border barriers, but more urgently it needs funding to provide for these families.

“That’s our No. 1 challenge that we have here in the Yuma sector, is the humanitarian problem,” Porvaznik said. “As I mentioned, 87 percent of the apprehensions here are family units and unaccompanied alien children.”

The mass crossing this week took place in a sparsely populated stretch of the border — where an old model of border barrier rises about 12 feet from the sandy ground. The stretched agency only had three agents patrolling that 26-mile-long section of the border.

It took hours to process the families, most of which were sent to the area’s chronically overcrowded central processing center in Yuma.

“In my 30 years with the Border Patrol, I have not been part of arresting a group of 376 people,” Porvaznik said. “That’s really unheard of.”

(MORE: Under President Donald Trump’s administration, more kids separated at border than originally estimated: Report)

On Thursday, hundreds of asylum seekers were being held in cinderblock cells with thick glass windows that overlooked a central bullpen where CBP agents worked to process them and provide humanitarian needs. The asylum seekers were separated into cells: fathers with sons, fathers with daughters, unaccompanied minors and mothers with children.

As in all such facilities, the CBP said it works to process them as quickly as possible, and provides basic medical care. Still, detainees eat, sleep and use the bathroom in the same room. Scraps of food mingled with silvery space blankets on the floor. In one cell, several boys had balled up the blankets into a makeshift soccer ball they were kicking around.

One man in the group said he left Guatemala eight days ago and made most of the trip by bus along with his 12-year-old daughter. They were planning to leave the processing center destined for San Diego — plane ticket in hand.

The father said he saved about $5,000 to pay a coyote to quickly get them to the border. He left a wife and two younger daughters back in Guatemala. Next to them were a mother and two daughters on their way to Cincinnati, also from Guatemala. They too traveled by bus and the journey took about eight days.

(MORE: A grandmother’s 2,700-mile journey to Tijuana’s migrant shelter and her wait for a family reunion)

Just two days after the group tunneled under the border wall in Yuma, the Border Patrol took in another huge group of migrants in New Mexico. The 247-person group, including unaccompanied minors, crossed near the Antelope Wells Port of Entry and immediately surrendered to authorities for processing.

The CBP said 24 large groups — quantified as 100 or more — have crossed the border near Lordsburg, New Mexico, just since Oct. 1, 2018.

ABC News’ Ignacio Torres and Mark Osborne contributed to this report.

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to say Customs and Border Protection.

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

Even the Border Patrol admits that the first priority should be humanitarian aid, something totally lost on the Trump Administration. Trump sometimes “mouths” the words “humanitarian crisis” — obviously written for him by someone else — but he doesn’t have the faintest idea of what it means or how to address it.

PWS

01-19-19

NY TIMES: How Trump’s Toxic Use Of “The Wall” Has Destroyed Bipartisan Dialogue & Compromise On Border Security

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/12/us/politics/trump-wall-border-security-debate.html

Michael D. Shear reports for the NYT:

Washington used to know how to have a serious debate about border security.

Republicans demanded more money for Border Patrol agents and necessary fences. Democrats argued for better surveillance technology and more resources at the ports of entry. The two parties squabbled over how much to spend, how to pay for it and how it all fit into the broader struggle to overhaul the nation’s broken immigration system.

But President Trump has demolished the decades-old, bipartisan understanding about how to bargain over the border. In Mr. Trump’s world, there are no alternatives that can form the basis of a legislative give-and-take, much as his allies and adversaries might hope for them. For the president, the only way to stop what he calls an “onslaught” of illegal immigrants is to erect a massive, concrete or steel barrier across the nearly 2,000-mile border with Mexico.

“Drones and all of the rest are wonderful and lots of fun, but it is only a good old fashioned Wall that works!” he tweeted last month.

By conjuring images of a towering stone edifice around a medieval fortress — and branding those on the outside as invaders threatening to bring crime, drugs and disease to the United States — Mr. Trump has transformed what used to be a complicated, nuanced negotiation into a take-it-or-leave-it demand, laced with xenophobia, that has shuttered nearly a quarter of the government for weeks.

“He turns a debate that is fundamentally about more or less, measured in dollars, and makes it a debate that is wall or not,” said Frank Sharry, a pro-immigration activist who has battled over border security for decades in the nation’s capital. “It’s become cartoonish.”

For decades, immigration has been an emotional and bitterly fought battle in Washington and around the country. But even so, there has been a consensus among most Republicans and Democrats that securing the southern border requires a mix of costly strategies. That included a large number of Border Patrol agents posted at key points along the vast stretch of land from San Diego to Brownsville, Tex., fences in urban areas and barriers to stop vehicles from crossing and high-tech surveillance gear to alert the Border Agents to the presence of migrants and drugs.

Until Mr. Trump was elected, the sticking points had largely been about other parts of the broader immigration debate — cracking down on people who stay longer than their visas allow; preventing companies from hiring illegal immigrants; expanding opportunities for legal immigration; and providing status to those already in the country illegally, including immigrants brought to the United States as children.

Such a comprehensive deal is completely out of reach now. But Mr. Trump’s behavior during the past several weeks suggests that even reaching a smaller, more targeted agreement on security arrangements at the border is more elusive than ever before.

The current government shutdown, which began just before Christmas, is now the longest one ever in United States history. In the 22 days since the government shut down, there have been virtually no negotiations by congressional lawmakers or the White House. There have been no marathon, pizza-fueled sessions in back rooms at the Capitol. Lawmakers have not traded detailed proposals with each other. Mr. Trump refused to give an inch in his Oval Office speech, and has spent more time in an extended photo-op at the border than he has at the negotiating table.

It has all left veterans of past border debates exasperated and frustrated.

“We know how to secure borders,” said Alex Conant, a Republican strategist who was a top aide to Senator Marco Rubio in 2013 when the Republican senator from Florida helped lead the last major, bipartisan effort to overhaul immigration. “The 2013 immigration plan had what everybody agreed was the most effective way possible to secure borders and other points of entry.”

With the backing of President Barack Obama, a bipartisan group of eight senators that year succeeded in passing a comprehensive overhaul of the nation’s immigration system. But the legislation, which passed with 68 votes, prompted fierce opposition from conservative Republicans, who condemned it as amnesty for 11 million undocumented immigrants. It was never brought up for a vote in the House.

Still, the Senate legislation was an indication of where the two parties could agree on border security. It doubled the number of Border Patrol agents, from 19,000 to almost 40,000, an increase that even the authors of the proposal agreed was overkill but was designed mostly as an enticement to win Republican support.

Senators from both parties also agreed on money for technological improvements along the border. The bill allocated $3.2 billion for drones, infrared ground sensors and long-range thermal imaging cameras to give Border Patrol agents advance notice when migrants cross illegally, especially at night. It also included money for an electronic employment verification system for all employers and upgrades at airports to catch immigrants who overstay their visas.

And the consensus included some physical barriers — what Mr. Trump might call walls and others would call fencing. Years earlier, the Secure Fence Act of 2006 allocated money to build about 650 miles of barriers along the border. The 2013 bill, had it been signed into law, would have increased that total to almost 700 miles, mostly along the eastern half of the border with Mexico.

Almost all of the fencing that Congress has approved has already been built. In populated areas, the fence is tall and steel or chain-link and designed to keep people out. In other places, the barrier is nothing more than short, metal poles spaced out to keep vehicles from driving through, or low, wooden fences that run alongside pedestrian paths.

In 2011, a Government Accountability Office report concluded that despite 649 miles of completed fencing, the “the southwest border continues to be vulnerable to cross-border illegal activity, including the smuggling of humans and illegal narcotics.”

The report recognized that barriers have mostly not been built in the vast, empty stretches in Texas, where rivers and mountains as natural borders have prevented cars from crossing into the United States and made the trek by foot difficult, if not impossible. But Mr. Trump seizes on conclusions like the G.A.O. report’s about the continued influx of illegal immigrants at the southern border as proof that he is right in demanding a continuous wall.

In remarks to reporters after a meeting with Democrats at the White House earlier this month, Mr. Trump insisted that the only way to prevent immigrants from crossing between the 25 official ports of entry is to erect fences everywhere else.

“We can’t let gaps. Because if you have gaps, those people are going to turn their vehicles, or the gangs — they’re going to coming in through those gaps,” the president said. “And we cannot let that happen.”

But there continue to be questions about the wisdom of building a wall from “sea to shining sea,” even from inside Mr. Trump’s administration.

A different G.A.O. report, released last year, examined the preliminary cost estimates by Customs and Border Protection of what it would cost to extend the wall along the entire border. The report criticized the border agency, saying that the cost estimates did not take into account that costs would vary depending on the kind of terrain where they were built.

In recent days, the rhetoric between the two sides has become more strident than ever. Mr. Trump and his Republican allies have pointed out that Democrats supported fencing in the past, though they purposefully ignore the context of those votes and the difference between the fencing that Democrats supported and the all-or-nothing wall that the president has demanded.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California has called the wall “immoral,” cementing her position against it.

“At this point, the idea we could overlook the rhetoric and get a deal done is much harder,” Mr. Sharry, the pro-immigration activist, said.

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

No surprise that the “Clown in Chief” has turned the dialogue “cartoonish” in the words of Frank Sharry.

“The Wall” has become a symbol for racism, xenophobia, the White Nationalist restrictionist agenda, immoral Government expenditures, and pandering to Trump’s political “base.” That makes it difficult for the Dems to give Trump what he wants unless they get something equally big and symbolic in return (e.g., Dreamer relief).

And, what Pelosi says makes perfect sense: If Trump couldn’t get “the Wall” when the GOP was in change, it’s unrealistic to think that the Democrats, having finally regained control of the House, are going to give it to him. Not to mention that the Wall is unpopular with the majority of Americans.

PWS

01-13-19

NOT IN OUR BACK YARDS! – Border Residents Pledge To Fight Inch By Inch To Keep Trump From Grabbing Their Land For Wall!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/texas-landowners-dig-in-to-fight-trumps-border-wall/2019/01/09/89bb3b4e-145a-11e9-ab79-30cd4f7926f2_story.html

Nomaan Merchant of AP reports in WashPost:

HIDALGO, Texas — As President Donald Trump travels to the border in Texas to make the case for his $5.7 billion wall, landowner Eloisa Cavazos says she knows firsthand how the project will play out if the White House gets its way.

The federal government has started surveying land along the border in Texas and announced plans to start construction next month. Rather than surrender their land, some property owners are digging in, vowing to reject buyout offers and preparing to fight the administration in court.

“You could give me a trillion dollars and I wouldn’t take it,” said Cavazos, whose land sits along the Rio Grande, the river separating the U.S. and Mexico in Texas. “It’s not about money.”

. . . .

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

Read the complete story at the above link.

I remember a “time long ago and far away” when the GOP was the staunch champion of private property rights against the incursions of Government (having had some contact with eminent domain, vehicle and vessel seizure, and entry onto “open lands” for law enforcement purposes during my past life at the “Legacy INS”). That was then; this is now! Does the GOP really believe in anything these days? Not apparent to me.

PWS

01-13-19

THE ABSURDITY OF TRUMP’S SHUTDOWN & ITS DEVASTATING EFFECT ON OUR ALREADY CRUMBLING IMMIGRATION COURT SYSTEM DETAILED IN OPEN LETTER TO CONGRESS BY NAIJ PRESIDENT, HON. A. ASHLEY TABADDOR

01092019senate

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF IMMIGRATION JUDGES
President A. Ashley Tabaddor c/o Immigration Court 606 S. Olive Street, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90014 (213) 534-4491
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ January 9, 2019
Dear Senator,
As has been widely reported, the current government shutdown over U.S. immigration policy has placed an unmanageable burden on our nation’s Immigration Courts. As an Immigration Judge in Los Angeles presently on furlough and as President of the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), I am acutely aware of the impact of the current government shut down on our Immigration Courts, Immigration Judges and the parties who appear before us.
There is currently a backlog of more than 800,000 pending immigration cases (an increase of 200,000 cases in less than two years, in spite of the largest growth in the number of judges in recent history – from under 300 to over 400 U.S. Immigration Judges). We, as Immigration Judges, are responsible for determining whether claimants can remain in the United States or must be deported or detained.
Because of the crushing backlog of cases, our individual court calendars are booked, morning and afternoon, every day of the week, multiple years in advance. Some days our judges have more than 80 cases on their dockets. Every day that our courts are closed, thousands of cases are cancelled and have to be rescheduled. However, the likely re-scheduling option is – as Washington Post editorial writers suggest – plucked from a New Yorker cartoon: “Never. Does never work for you?” While this is hyperbole, it is not far from the truth. Since it is impossible to predict when these cases can reasonably be rescheduled, it might as well be “never.”
The concept of “never” cannot be accepted and does not work for the United States. It is unacceptable to prevent those who should be deported to remain here indefinitely or to prevent those who are eligible for relief from being granted relief and receive the benefit they deserve. When a hearing is delayed for years as a result of a government shutdown, individuals with pending cases can lose track of witnesses, their qualifying relatives can die or age-out and evidence already presented becomes stale. Those with strong cases, who might receive a legal
1

immigration status, see their cases become weaker. Meanwhile, those with weak cases – who should be deported sooner rather than later – benefit greatly from an indefinite delay.
Judges, as public servants, along with our fellow federal employees and people across the country, are also being asked to carry the burden of a government shut-down. Every Immigration Judge across the country is currently in a “no-pay” status. Those who have been furloughed are anxious about having been prevented from continuing to work and earn their living. The judges who have been deemed as “excepted” are serving the American people without pay and doing so with added unnecessary pressures, including the Department’s recent announcement that most hearings will no longer be accompanied with in-person interpreters, and that the judges’ previous compressed work schedules and administrative time to review cases has been cancelled. On behalf of the NAIJ, I urge you to bring a rapid end to the current shutdown.
The root cause, however, of an increasing backlog of cases, the delays, uncertainty and unfairness in U.S. Immigration Courts is that our Immigration Court and judges are directly accountable to the U.S. Attorney General, the federal government’s lead prosecutor. This underlying structural flaw has led to repeated violations of the basic tenants of our American judicial principles, that of an independent and impartial judge and court. While we are grateful to Congress for the recent allocation of additional funding to our resource starved courts, such as added Immigration Judge teams, history has proven that the issues plaguing our Immigration Courts will not be corrected simply through more funding. The enduring solution, which has been publicly supported by multiple prominent legal organizations and scholars, is to remove the Immigration Court from the Justice Department and afford it with the true independence it needs and deserves. It is long past time to vest U.S. Immigration Judges – like our counterparts in U.S. tax and bankruptcy courts – with full judicial independence under Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution.
We are available at your convenience to discuss these critical issues. Sincerely,
Hon. Ashley Tabaddor
President, National Association of Immigration Judges
2

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

Wow! Trump is taking “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” — the REAL primary cause of the unmanageable court backlog — to new heights.

And, Judge Tabaddor isn’t even counting the 300,000 or so already closed cases that EOIR Director McHenry includes in his backlog count (undoubtedly on orders from his DOJ “handlers”)!

Nor does she include more than 300,000 Central Americans and Haitians that the Administration is mindlessly (and perhaps illegally) trying to boot out of their current status. Of course, the vast majority of the TPSers would have strong claims for “Cancellation of Removal.” So, in truth, they are not going anywhere except into the Court’s backlog. Trump will be long gone before the Immigration Courts even get to,the first of those cases!

Running hearings without in person interpreters! That’s almost a prima facie Due Process violation. I can virtually guarantee that it will result in many inadequate or disputed translations, meaning remands by the BIA and the Article IIIs for “redos.” Haste makes waste!

What if we actually invested in a system that “does Due Process right” the first time around? Certainly, it would make the system fairer and more efficient. It wouldn’t cost $5.7 billion either. Indeed some of that money could be spent on providing universal representation for asylum seekers. Or how about a functioning e-filing system which almost all other high volume courts in America also have?

Could it get any dumber than Trump shutting down the Immigration Courts, essential to immigration administration and enforcement, over immigration enforcement? No, it couldn’t!

PWS

01-12-19

WAITING IN TIJUANA

A CALCULATED RISK

They AREN’T “illegitimate” asylum seekers! They are individuals seeking to exercise their legal rights under U.S. and international law to be granted protection as refugees. They are entitled to fair and humane treatment.

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Nancy Pelosi Put Her Faith in the Courts to Stop Trump’s Emergency Wall

Big mistake.

NOTE: An earlier version of this post contained the wrong article from Dahlia Lithwick. Sorry for any confusion.

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

SHUTDOWN HAS FURLOUGHED IMMIGRATION COURT JUDGES

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: