"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
A HOLIDAY MESSAGE FROM US POLITICOS OF BOTH PARTIES TO LEGAL ASYLUM SEEKERS: “Suffer & Die!” Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Here are some relevant portions of Judge Sullivan’s opinion in Huisha-Huisha v. Mayorkas, D.D.C., Nov. 22, 2022, to keep in mind as the bogus claims and misleading reporting continue to mushroom ahead of the Dec. 22 (Wednesday) date for re-establishing the rule of law @ our Southern Border:
It is unreasonable for the CDC to assume that it can ignore the consequences of any actions it chooses to take in the pursuit of fulfilling its goals, particularly when those actions included the extraordinary decision to suspend the codified procedural and substantive rights of noncitizens seeking safe harbor. See Huisha-Huisha, 27 F.4th at 724-25 (describing the “procedural and substantive rights” of aliens, such as asylum seekers, “to resist expulsion”); cf. Regents, 140 S. Ct. at 1914-15 (holding that agency should have considered the effect rescission of DACA would have on the program’s recipients prior to the agency making its decision). As Defendants concede, “a Title 42 order involving persons will always have consequences for migrants,” Defs.’ Opp’n, ECF No. 147 at 42, and numerous public comments during the Title 42 policy rulemaking informed CDC that implementation of its orders would likely expel migrants to locations with a “high
29
probability” of “persecution, torture, violent assaults, or rape.” See Pls.’ Mot., ECF No. 144-1 at 27; see also id. at 27- 28 (listing groups subject to expulsion under Title 42, including “survivors of domestic violence and their children, who have endured years of abuse”; “survivors of sexual assault and rape, who are at risk of being stalked, attacked, or murdered by their persecutors in Mexico or elsewhere”; and “LGBTQ+ individuals from countries where their gender identity or sexual orientation is criminalized or for whom expulsion to Mexico or elsewhere makes them prime targets for persecution” (citing AR, ECF No. 154 at 28-29, 47, 153) (cleaned up)). It is undisputed that the impact on migrants was indeed dire. See, e.g., Huisha-Huisha, 27 F.4th at 734 (finding Plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm if expelled to places where they would be persecuted or tortured).
The CDC “has considerable flexibility in carrying out its responsibility,” Regents, 140 S. Ct. at 1914, and the Court is mindful that it “is not to substitute its judgment for that of the agency,” FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 513 (2009). But regardless of the CDC’s conclusion, its decision to ignore the harm that could be caused by issuing its Title 42 orders was arbitrary and capricious.
30
3. The Title 42 Policy Failed to Adequately
Consider Alternatives
Plaintiffs also argue that the Title 42 policy is arbitrary and capricious because CDC failed to adequately consider alternatives and the policy did not rationally serve its stated purpose. See Pls.’ Mot., ECF No. 144-1 at 10-11.
(29-31)
However, despite the above, Defendants have not shown that the risk of migrants spreading COVID-19 is “a real problem.” District of Columbia v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 444 F. Supp. 3d 1, 27 (D.D.C. 2020) (citing Nat’l Fuel Gas Supply Corp. v. FERC, 468 F.3d 831, 841 (D.C. Cir. 2006)). “Professing that an agency action ameliorates a real problem but then citing no evidence demonstrating that there is in fact a problem is not reasoned decisionmaking.” Id. (cleaned up); see Huisha-Huisha, 27 F.4th at 735 (“[W]e would be sensitive to declarations in the record by CDC officials testifying to the efficacy of the § 265 Order. But there are none.”). As Plaintiffs point out, record evidence indicates that “during the first seven months of the Title 42 policy, CBP encountered on average just one migrant per day who tested positive for COVID-19.” Pls.’ Mot., ECF No. 144-1 at 22 (citing Sealed AR, ECF No. 155-1 at 23). In addition, at the time of the August 2021 Order, the rate of daily COVID-19 cases in the United States was almost double the incidence rate in Mexico and substantially higher than the incidence rate in Canada. See 86 Fed. Reg. at 42831 (noting 137.9 daily cases per 100,000 people in the United States, compared to 68.6 in Mexico and 8.0 in Canada). The lack of evidence regarding the effectiveness of the Title 42 policy is especially egregious in view of CDC’s previous conclusion that “the use of quarantine and travel restrictions, in the absence of evidence of their utility, is detrimental to efforts to combat the spread of communicable disease,” Control of Communicable Diseases, 82 Fed.
39
Reg. 6890, 6896; as well as record evidence discussing the “recidivism” created by the Title 42 policy, which actually increased the number of times migrants were encountered by CBP, see AR, ECF No. 154 at 45 (commenter describing recidivism); AR, ECF No. 155-1 at 4 (January/February 2021 statistics showing nearly 40% of family units DHS encountered in January-February 15, 2021 were migrants who had attempted to cross at least once before).
(39-40)
Particularly in view of the harms Plaintiffs face if summarily
expelled to countries they may be persecuted or tortured, the Court
42
therefore vacates the Title 42 policy. Cf. Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250, 1262–64 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (Randolph, J., concurring) (“A remand-only disposition is, in effect, an indefinite stay of the effectiveness of the court’s decision and agencies naturally treat it as such.”).
(42-43)
Meanwhile, Plaintiffs have presented evidence demonstrating that the rate of summary expulsions pursuant to the Title 42 policy has nearly doubled since September 2021. See Pls.’ Mot., ECF No. 144-1 at 30 (“At the time of this Court’s original decision, approximately 14% of
45
families encountered at the southwest border were being summarily expelled pursuant to the Title 42 policy. . . . Now, the rate of expulsions is nearly twice as high, reaching 27%.”); see also Pls.’ Reply, ECF No. 149-1 at 31 (“[I]n the month of July 2022 alone, 9,574 members of family units encountered at the southern border were summarily expelled pursuant to the Title 42 policy.”). And “[i]n Mexico alone, recorded incidents” of “kidnapping, rapes, and other violence against noncitizens subject to Title 42” have “spiked from 3,250 cases in June 2021 to over 10,318 in June 2022.” Pls.’ Mot., ECF No. 144-1 at 30 (citing Neusner Decl., ECF No. 118-4; Human Rights First, The Nightmare Continues: Title 42 Court Order Prolongs Human Rights Abuses, Extends Disorder at U.S. Borders, at 3-4 (June 2022)). Accordingly, even if the Court accepts Defendants’ unsupported statement that the “situation for class members has improved,” the evidence demonstrates that Plaintiffs continue to face irreparable harm that is beyond remediation. See Huisha-Huisha, 27 F.4th at 733 (“[T]he record is replete with stomach-churning evidence of death, torture, and rape.”).
N
(45-46)
Because “there is an overriding public interest . . . in the general importance of an agency’s faithful adherence to its statutory mandate,” Jacksonville Port Auth. v. Adams, 556 F.2d 52, 59 (D.C. Cir. 1977); the Court concludes that an injunction in this case would serve the public interest, see A.B.-B. v. Morgan, No. 20-cv-846, 2020 WL 5107548, at *9 (D.D.C. Aug. 31, 2020) (“[T]he Government and public can have little interest in executing removal orders that are based on statutory violations . . . .”).
Moreover, Defendants do not contend that issuing a
permanent injunction would cause them harm or be inconsistent
with the public health. Indeed, “CDC recognizes that the current
public health conditions no longer require the continuation of
47
the August 2021 order,” Defs.’ Opp’n, ECF No. 147 at 44; see also Pls.’ Mot., ECF No. 144-1 at 30, in view of the “less burdensome measures that are now available,” 87 Fed Reg. at 19944; id. at 19949–50. The parties also do not dispute that Plaintiffs continue to face substantial harm if they are returned to their home countries, notwithstanding the availability of USCIS screenings. See, e.g., Human Rights First, The Nightmare Continues: Title 42 Court Order Prolongs Human Rights Abuses, Extends Disorder at U.S. Borders, at 3-4 (June 2022). As the Supreme Court has explained, the public has a strong interest in “preventing aliens from being wrongfully removed, particularly to countries where they are likely to face substantial harm.” Nken, 556 U.S. at 436.
(47-48)
***********************************
So, when you hear guys like Abbott, Ducey, DeSantis, Manchin, Cuellar, Gonzales, GOP nativist AGs, and the like use this holiday season during which we are supposed to be celebrating messages of hope, faith, mercy, and “goodwill toward men” to extol the virtues of illegal expulsions under Title 42, remember what their are REALLY saying:
“I want the US to continue violating domestic and international laws protecting refugees and asylum seekers, to continue to knowingly violate the human rights and human dignity of asylum seekers, and to place our fellow humans in danger zones where they will suffer stomach-churning episodes of death, torture, and rape. I don’t believe our nation is capable of complying with our duly-enacted laws to protect refugees and asylum seekers that have been in effect since 1981 until 2020 when they were illegally suspended by the Trump Administration using a public health pretext, as found by a Federal Judge. I urge the Biden Administration, which has already illegally expelled hundreds of thousands of migrants with no due process, to continue committing grotesque violations of the law and human rights and to increase the violations so that more men, women, and children will suffer rape, torture, an dearth as a consequence. This is my holiday season message to America and humanity: Peace on earth and goodwill toward all mankind, EXCEPT those seeking legal asylum by applying at our Southern Border. To them: rape, torture, and death without due process!
Title 42 expulsions of asylum seekers are a clear violation of Judeo-Christian ethics. To be advocating for its continuing application at any time, let alone during this season, is the height of hypocrisy; so is characterizing the largely self-inflicted mess at the Southern Border as a “humanitarian emergency” and then proposing to “solve” it by sending legal asylum seekers back to rape, torture, kidnapping, robbery, extortion, and death in Mexico and other nations in turmoil without any type of process to determine whether they have a “credible fear” of persecution, as required by law.
Is she the “Debbie Anker of Entertainment?” PHOTO: Mason Poole, CC BY 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons
Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” S. Chase writes:
What a beautiful tribute to a true giant and hero. I can’t even begin to state the influence Debbie has had on me. But think of how many NDPA heroes out there are former students of hers, and how many immigration law clinics around the country relied on Debbie’s clinic at Harvard as its model. It’s impossible to overstate her impact.
Clinical Professor Deborah Anker LL.M. ’84, ‘one of the architects of modern refugee law’ and founder of the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program, moves to emerita status
By Debbie/HLS Correspondent, July 20, 2022
Credit: Kathleen Dooher
As Harvard Law School Clinical Professor Deborah Anker LL.M. ’84 moves to emerita status, she and her many students and colleagues can reflect on her formidable record of achievement — as a pioneer in the study of refugee and asylum law, the author of the seminal text on the subject, and a tireless advocate for the rights of refugees, particularly women and children. As her former student Molly Linhorst ’16 puts it — quoting a sentiment voiced by many of Anker’s admirers — “She’s the Beyoncé of asylum law.”
“As founding director of the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinic, Deborah Anker has played a pivotal role at Harvard Law School, not only by founding our clinic but in helping build our clinical program,” Harvard Law School Dean John F. Manning ’85, the Morgan and Helen Chu Dean and Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. “Her work in the clinic enabled countless clients to enjoy freedom and escape persecution by remaining in the U.S., and she trained and inspired scores of other lawyers to work to those same ends.”
“Debbie wins the prize for tenacity in terms of standing up for refugee rights in America,” says James Hathaway, prominent international refugee law scholar and founding director of Michigan Law’s Program in Refugee and Asylum Law. “Literally nobody has fought the good fight as often as she has done. But she is also an intellectual trailblazer, having, in particular, developed a gender-inclusive understanding of refugee status, and having made the case for the alignment of American understandings of asylum with our international obligations. She truly is a hero.”
Groundbreaking scholarship and litigation
A pioneer in the development of clinical legal education in the immigration field, Anker joined the Harvard Law faculty in the early ’80s, as a lecturer on law and later clinical professor of law in 2008. Along with her colleagues Nancy Kelly and John Wilshire-Carrera, Anker founded the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program, or HIRC, which has since become a model for similar clinics nationwide. Her book, “Law of Asylum in the United States,” first published in 1998 under the editorship of former student Paul Lufkin and now updated annually with a cadre of HLS student editors, remains the key authoritative text in the area. She also has authored numerous amicus curiae briefs in major refugee litigation, served as an expert witness before national and international fora, and helped draft national gender refugee guidelines.
Harvard Law Clinical Professor Sabrineh Ardalan ’02, Anker’s former student and the current faculty director of HIRC, credits its significant expansion over the decades to Anker’s “commitment to advocating for immigrants’ rights and dedication to responding to the evolving challenges facing immigrants and refugees in the U.S.”
In addition to the clinical work at Greater Boston Legal Services, overseen by Kelly and Willshire Carrera, “HIRC now includes two clinics, a student practice organization [SPO], and the Harvard Representation Initiative, which serves members of the Harvard community whose immigration status is at risk. In addition to the flagship Immigration and Refugee Advocacy Clinic, there is now a Crimmigration Clinic, led and directed by Phil Torrey, which focuses on cutting-edge appellate and district court advocacy at the intersection of immigration and criminal law. And through the HLS Immigration Project, the student-practice organization, students can hit the ground running with hands-on immigration and refugee advocacy their 1L year,” said Ardalan. “Debbie built a team at HIRC that now supervises over 140 HLS students each year through the two clinics and SPO and in so doing, centered immigration and refugee law as a core component of HLS’s clinical program.”
Credit: Tsar Fedorsky Anker (left) in 2011 with HIRC students Gianna Borotto ’11 and Defne Canset Ozgediz ’11, and Sabrineh Ardalan ’02. Ardalan is Anker’s former student and the current faculty director of HIRC.
Committed to justice from an early age
Raised in New York, Anker graduated magna cum laude from Brandeis University, and went on to earn her J.D. from Northeastern before continuing her legal studies at Harvard. Even before she began formal studies, Anker was invested in the study of and advocacy for human rights. She credits that in large part to her family history and values: Her Jewish grandparents crossed the Atlantic to escape the persecution leading to the Holocaust, and both of her parents were committed public school educators. Her father was a New York City Schools chancellor during desegregation. “The belief in the equality of all people was central to how I was raised,” she said.
“From my family I got deep beliefs and commitment to anti-racism. I have a strong memory of my father telling me about Ralph Bunche, a Nobel Peace Prize recipient, one of the founders of the United Nations, leading actor in the mid-20th-century decolonization process and U.S. civil rights movement, and recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom,” said Anker. According to her father, Anker reports, Bunche was discriminated in obtaining housing, and refused membership in a neighboring tennis club in the area of Queens where Anker’s family moved in her early teenage years. “That was something that stuck with me,” she said. Early in her legal career, Anker represented a Black family that had moved into Dorchester during desegregation and was subject to violent attacks; this was one of the cases covered in J. Anthony Lukas’ classic 1985 book, “Common Ground.” “For me personally, a commitment to racial justice was central to my identity,” she says.
Anker credits the late Harvard Law School public interest professor Gary Bellow ’60, founder and former faculty director of Harvard Law School’s clinical programs, with advising, advocating and paving the way for her engagement in clinical education at the law school.
She also credits the ‘extraordinary determination and integrity’ of Lisa Dealy, former assistant dean of clinical education, with whom Anker worked closely, in helping to expand the school’s clinical program.
In 1984, when Anker, along with Kelly and Willshire Carrera founded the Immigration and Refugee Advocacy Clinic, the study of immigration law was still in its infancy, and clinical education was relatively new in legal education.
And, according to Kelly, Anker was writing the law from the beginning. “The article she co-authored on the legislative history of the Refugee Act [and] shaped how that law would be interpreted, with the U.S. Supreme Court citing it in support of an internationalist approach to refugee and asylum law, grounded in our treaty obligations, as signatories to the U.N. Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees,” said Kelly. “She authored some of the first empirical studies of immigration adjudication and co-authored the first study of the expedited removal process for addressing the claims of asylum seekers at the U.S. border.”
According to Willshire Carrera, Anker “believes in bringing the reality of the law as it is experienced by real people into the classroom and into scholarship. We developed an approach of ‘legal change from the bottom up,’ changing ground-level legal institutions, which set the stage for changes at higher levels, including in precedent decisions in the federal courts.” From its earliest years, HIRC worked to bring administrative decision-making out of the shadows, publishing administrative asylum decisions, which were otherwise inaccessible to advocates and researchers.
During these early years, Anker also worked with Hathaway, who developed a structured human rights approach to interpretation of refugee law, an approach HIRC would adopt including in much of its women’s refugee work.
Credit: Kris Snibbe/Harvard Staff Photographer Anker (pictured here in 2014) with (from left) Julina Guo ’14, John Wilshire Carrera, and Nancy Kelly. Wilshire Carrera and Kelly founded the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinic with Anker in 1984.
Anker’s background in racial justice led her to work with Haitian refugees beginning in the mid 1980s. “I got to know civil rights lawyer Ira Kurzban, who was leading the charge on behalf of Haitian refugees fleeing a horrible and violent dictatorship, which the U.S. had backed.” Among other work, Kurzban engaged Anker as an expert witness on U.S. asylum law, in challenges he brought based on discriminatory detention and treatment generally of Haitian refugees. She would continue to be called in as an expert, including later in challenges brought by Canadian NGOs in 2005 and 2017 to exclusionary policies of the Canadian government, refusing entry to asylum seekers coming from the U.S. under the Safe Third Country Agreement.
The Canadian Supreme Court will soon issue a ruling on whether the Canadian policy of returning asylum seekers to the U.S. complies with the Canadian Charter and international law. Canadian attorney Andrew Bouwer praised Anker’s work on the Safe Third Country Agreement and says he looks forward to her continued advocacy on these issues. “Professor Anker is a force of nature! Working with her on Canada-US border issues, especially the inhumane Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement, these past 17 years has been an incredible honor and a highlight of my practice.”
Also in the 1980s, Anker helped found the Boston Committee against Deportation, defending a group of Haitians who were arrested by immigration authorities as they attempted to organize a union at Faneuil Hall market place.
HIRC continued this work with Haitian refugees who fled again during the 1990s after the violent overthrow of Haiti’s first democratically elected president, Jean Bertrand Aristide. HIRC’s early engagement with Haitian refugees led to groundbreaking work on gender asylum. “After President Aristide was deposed, there were security forces who went into women’s houses (the men had mostly fled) and raped them, because they were known, or assumed to be, supporters of Aristide,” explained Anker. “So it was really rape used as punishment based on ‘political opinion,’ one of the grounds of protection in the refugee treaty to which the U.S. is a party.”
Working in conjunction with other groups, HIRC got the administrative Board of Immigration Appeals to recognize that this was a form of what the agency called “grievous harm,” which HIRC argued fit the concept of persecution. “This case, Matter of D.V., was the first administrative gender asylum decision; along with others, we were able to convince the board to publish it as a precedent decision,” said Anker.
Meanwhile, the group traveled to Haiti to collect affidavits; their work ultimately led the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to make the first finding by an international human rights body that rape could constitute torture.
This in turn contributed to greater global awareness of violence against women within a human rights framework. Canadian NGOs and academics took the lead, particularly through the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board. “The Canadians worked up an amazing series of guidelines, and we [the HIRC] took those and adapted them to American law,” Anker said. “We published these and asked the U.S. government to take our guidelines and issue official government guidelines, based on them — and in fact, they did that.” Later, HIRC led a major amicus effort, drafting a brief to the then-attorney general signed by 187 organizations and individuals, arguing that violence against women in the “domestic” sphere, that is, in the home by sexual intimates, could be the basis for protection. Eventually the attorney general reversed an original denial and the petitioner, represented by the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies, was granted asylum.
(HIRC was) committed to having legal education grounded in actual clients’ experiences of persecution. … We set a precedent that law school clinics are not just a place to do policy work or major litigation, but also a place to engage with clients, to get to know them and to help them articulate their experiences. … I am grateful to the law school for allowing us to advance that approach to legal advocacy and education.
Deborah Ankernone
Personal involvement became key in Anker’s approach to teaching. “We were committed to having legal education grounded in actual clients’ experiences of persecution. Students represented clients and learned to help them tell their stories. We then gave them the time to reflect in class and to write about it. We set a precedent that law school clinics are not just a place to do policy work or major litigation, but also a place to engage with clients, to get to know them, and to help them articulate their experiences,” said Anker. “I am grateful to the law school for allowing us to advance that approach to legal advocacy and education. We now have such a rich and diverse clinical education program at the law school, which has developed in many different directions – client work, policy advocacy, regulatory reform, as well as litigation.”
Anker also points to the clinic’s work with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to develop general guidelines for international refugee law.
“My perception was that few academics and major practitioners around that time, the mid to late 1990’s, were thinking conceptually about this. Jim Hathaway’s work was a major force in bringing a principled, and importantly structured, human rights approach to interpretation of refugee law,” said Anker. “We got the UNHCR to adopt general guidelines recognizing gender itself as a category of protection within the refugee treaty’s ‘particular social group’ ground. In the amicus work we have done over the years, we have stuck to this approach and increasingly federal courts as well as some administrative decision makers are recognizing that gender itself can be a basis for protection, including in the ground-breaking 2020 First Circuit decision in De Pena-Paniagua v.Barr, which directly adopted language from HIRC’s lead amicus brief.”
HIRC has continued to expand its scope, working in recent years with students who were eligible for DREAM Act protection. Most recently, Anker and the group have worked on climate change and refugee law, pushing for interpretations of the law to account for the large-scale climate-based displacement that is already occurring in Central America and is expected to worsen. “We need to show decision makers and policy makers that displacement is caused by multitudes of factors and a person can qualify for protection if part of the cause is environmental,” said Anker.
“Our work has always been informed by what is happening,” Kelly said. “The gender work came from a sense of, ‘Where are the women in this system? They don’t seem to be represented’. The Haiti work was geared toward what happened to Haitian women after the coup in 1991. That brought the reality home of what was happening to Haitian women, and got that recognized in a legal context that could then be brought back to cases in the US. The two are integrally connected.”
“We pride ourselves on doing work from the ground up,” Willshire Carrera said. “We’ve had a large number of students who have gone on to be major contributors in the development of asylum law in the country. One thing for sure is that the clinic is now very well recognized. So much of that has to do with Debbie.”
Former students pay tribute
Ardalan, who now directs HIRC, acknowledges a significant personal influence. “Debbie has shaped the course of my life. I have learned so much from her advocacy and scholarship, from her empathy in working with clients, from her tremendous care for her students and colleagues, and from her incredible persistence in continuing to fight against injustice no matter what the odds. She has modeled for me how to approach teaching and lawyering with dedication, humility, strength, and compassion.”
Anker’s influence also goes far beyond Harvard Law School. According to Mark Fleming ’97, who studied with her at Harvard Law and is now a partner at WilmerHale, “Debbie’s contribution to how young lawyers thought about immigration law really can’t be overstated. She was the first person I met at HLS who was not only a gifted academic, but devoted to using her knowledge to represent clients. She used her knowledge to manage a significant group of people who were trying to push immigration law in a good direction and to help people who needed it. That was a new thing to me.”
Fleming currently does pro bono work in the immigration field and cites this as an example of Anker’s influence. “One of the more important lessons she taught me is that immigrants who come to our country are thrown into a very complicated system without anybody to help them. She showed me that things immediately change when a lawyer shows up, so a pro bono lawyer can make an enormous difference.” This, he said, goes back to his days at Harvard Law. “As a law student, the opportunity to walk down the street, to what used to be called Cambridge and Somerville Legal Services, had an impact. First of all, it was terrifying, because I had no idea what to do. But also very rewarding, because people in the system are otherwise forced to navigate it by themselves.”
“Debbie’s seminar influenced the way I think about asylum,” said Fatma Marouf ’02, who now directs the Immigration Rights Clinic at Texas A&M University School of Law. “The way she talked about absorbing each person’s story, I never forgot that. She walked us through each element of her incredible text about the law of asylum, and made sure we had a great understanding of it. She helped us connect the cases we were working on with the thinking behind it. And I loved that she really got in an international perspective — not just U.S. asylum law but how the U.K., Canada, Australia might approach it.”
Marouf particularly credits Anker with emphasizing the connection between asylum and human rights law. “When I teach my own clinic I talk about the importance of bringing in a comparative perspective of what asylum should be, versus how it is — and that’s all Debbie’s. I don’t know if I could have gone into immigration law without her, much less fallen in love with teaching.”
Credit: Brooks Kraft
“She built a program at a time when immigration clinics were not found at many law schools,” said David B. Thronson ’94, who went on to teach international human rights law at Michigan State University. “Part of what impressed me from the beginning is that her work is absolutely compelling and consequential; it changes peoples’ lives. You’re talking about people who are going to face persecution in their home countries if they are returned. It’s not an equal fight, the stakes and the consequences are high and their resources are often minimal; the government is always well represented but the migrant seldom is. To find someone with Debbie’s expertise and willingness to take on those issues — and who is also a tremendously human person that you can get to know — makes a huge difference, and it was a really defining law-school experience for me.”
That experience stuck with Thronson through his career. “I got the realization that things could go together; I could be a professor and still make a difference in the real world, representing clients — and hopefully I can do that in a way that lets my students grow and have good experiences. Debbie taught me that those aren’t mutually exclusive things to do.”
Another former student, Rebecca Sharpless ’94, now directs the immigration clinic at the University of Miami School of Law. “Debbie was the single most influential professor during my time at HLS. As I started my first year, I knew that I wanted to be a social justice lawyer, but I didn’t know what kind. Debbie taught me the urgency and importance of working with immigrants. Her work on some of the most difficult issues relating to the protection of refugees has been pathbreaking, but to me she is first and foremost a teacher and mentor. Under her guidance, I argued in immigration court, organized a trip to Miami to help Haitian refugees, and contributed to federal court briefing. Without a doubt, she made me into the immigration lawyer and teacher that I am today.”
Looking back on a lifetime of impact
Anker has been designated a Woman of Justice by the Massachusetts Bar Association, and in 2011 was elected as a fellow to the American Bar Foundation. The HIRC’s Women’s Refugee Project, which spearheaded work on gender asylum, received the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s (AILA) most prestigious “Founders Award.” HIRC also received AILA’s Human rights award for its work in clinical legal education and advocacy on behalf of refugees. Anker has received AILA’s Elmer Fried Excellence in Teaching Award; two awards for gender asylum work from the Federal Bar Association; the Massachusetts Governor’s New American Appreciation Award; and the CARECEN Award from the Central American Refugee Center.
Presenting her with the latter honor, lead attorney Patrick Young called Anker “one of the architects of modern refugee law. She really defined the field from its inception and her essays and her seminal treatise, ‘Law of Asylum in the United States,’ have helped educate and train two generations of asylum lawyers. Without her thoughtful guidance, it is doubtful CARECEN and many other refugee defense programs could have succeeded in protecting the persecuted as effectively as we have.”
In addition to those already mentioned, Anker notes that “HIRC and I are so fortunate to have on staff attorneys Sameer Ahmed, Jason Corral, Tiffany Lieu, Mariam Liberles and Cindy Zapata. HIRC’s staff also includes our head of social work, Liala Buoniconti; paralegal Karina Buruca; Mary Hewey; and Anna Weick, our chief administrator.” Anker credits her faculty assistant, Sophie Jean, as being an incredible resource, organizing work on “Law of Asylum” research with students, among other invaluable assistance. “Not much can be accomplished without her amazing intelligence and commitment, and of course thank you to those who have come and gone like the incomparable Jordana Arias, a force of nature, and all my assistants going way back to wonderful Delona Wilkins.”
In entering emerita status, Anker reflects back with much gratitude at the opportunities she has been given. “I love this community and I love this work. It truly has been an honor. I am so very grateful.”
***************************
Thanks and many congrats, Debbie, my long-time friend, for all you have done for due process, justice, humanity, and the future generations of the “New Due Process Army!” I wholeheartedly concur in the comments of my friend and Round Table colleague “Sir Jeffrey!” Through your intellectual brilliance, moral courage, extraordinary leadership, and ability to teach and inspire others, you have certainly left a permanent mark on the worldwide, eternal quest for justice!
Make no mistake: Democracy may have survived this year, but President Biden and Vice President Harris were elected despite, not thanks to, weakened electoral systems. Together with the Democratic Congress, they now have the opportunity to implement reforms that reaffirm our nation’s promises that our country represents and works for everyone. We as Democrats must act before it is too late.
Our democratic system faces extraordinary threats today because of sustained attacks from Republican leaders who throw up roadblocks to voting and, among the worst actors, stoke the flames of white supremacy and hyper-nationalism to cling to power. There can be no clearer example than the covid-19 pandemic. The deaths of more than 450,000 people in the richest country in the world are symptomatic of a democracy in crisis and a political system that rewards cronyism over competence. Despite strong public support for the Centers for Disease Control’s work, the Affordable Care Act, and other economic justice and safety-net policies that could save lives, millions nevertheless continue to contract the disease without adequate access to health care.
No thinking person can deny that the communities of color disproportionately suffering and dying from this pandemic are also the people whose votes — and ability to hold failed leaders accountable — have been continuously suppressed.
The pandemic has been a collision of tragedy and corroded institutions, and the challenge is in how we respond. We can either engage in collective amnesia about what we have just lived through, and leave an unaccountable government in place, or we can rise to meet this moment by fixing the broken social compact. Defeating Trump was not enough. Meaningful progress on health care, racial justice and the economy requires aggressive action on voting rights, partisan gerrymandering and campaign finance.
One of the first steps must be an overhaul of the Senate filibuster, which has long been wielded as a cudgel against the needs of millions who struggle. Today, the parliamentary trick creates a more sinister threat to our nation: the ability of a minority of senators, who represent 41.5 million fewer people than the Senate majority, to block progress favored by most Americans.
Democrats in Congress must fully embrace their mandate to fast-track democracy reforms that give voters a fair fight, rather than allowing undemocratic systems to be used as tools and excuses to perpetuate that same system. This is a moment of both historic imperative and, with unified Democratic control of the White House and Congress, historic opportunity.
The agenda to restore democracy also includes passing the For the People Act to protect and expand voting rights, fight gerrymandering and reduce the influence of money in politics; the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to restore the full protections of the 1965 Voting Rights Act; and the Protecting Our Democracy Act to constrain the corruption of future presidents who deem themselves above the law. These landmark bills have broad-based support, and would have passed long ago were it not for obstructionist leaders who fear losing their own influence if the American people have more power of their own.
. . . .
********************
The Trump GOP lies, insurrections, and blatantly false claims attempting to undermine the very clear Biden-Harris victory have been a smokescreen for the real voting problems — the unrelenting efforts of the GOP — “The Party of the New Jim Crow” — to suppress the votes of Americans of color. Read the rest of Abrams’s op-ed at the link.
And, as Abrams cogently points out, one reason for the denial, downplaying, and maliciously incompetent mishandling of the pandemic by the Trump regime was that so many of the victims were among communities of color — those they never cared about and whose humanity they continuously tried to deny and disparage. Death is a great way of disenfranchising minority voters. Not to mention a little fear and intimidation thrown in for a good measure.
There is a very clear connection between the dehumanization of asylum seekers and other migrants and the disenfranchisement of voters of color. It’s all part of “Dred Scottification” — a disgraceful practice sanctioned by none other than the GOP’s Supremes’ majority!
Our future as a nation depends on Judge Garland, Vanita Gupta, and their incoming team at DOJ “connecting the dots” — beginning with dismantling and replacing the White Nationalist nativist kakistocracy at EOIR. Immigrants’ rights are civil rights are human rights!The GOP actually “gets” that (in a purely negative way)! Will the Dems finally show that they do too!
Elizabeth Gibson Attorney, NY Legal Assistance Group Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
COVID-19 & Closures
Note: Policies are rapidly changing, so please verify information with the government and colleagues.
EOIR Status Overview & EOIR Court Status Map/List: Hearings in non-detained cases at courts without an announced date are postponed through, and including, February 19, 2021. NYC non-detained remains closed for hearings.
Vox: The Biden administration announced that, starting Thursday, it will no longer enroll asylum seekers newly arriving on the southern border in a Trump-era program that has forced tens of thousands to wait in Mexico for a chance to obtain protection in the United States. The Homeland Security Department urged anyone currently enrolled in the program, known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) or colloquially as the “Remain in Mexico” policy, to “remain where they are, pending further official information from U.S. government officials.”
AP: With the clock winding down on his term, U.S. President Donald Trump shielded tens of thousands of Venezuelan migrants from deportation Tuesday night, rewarding Venezuelan exiles who have been among his most loyal supporters and who fear losing the same privileged access to the White House during the Biden administration.
ImmProf: There’s a lot to unpack there. First: eliminating one-year deadline for filing asylum claims. Second: increasing “protections for U visa, T visa, and VAWA applicants.” Third: raising the cap on U visas for 10,000 to 30,000. Fourth: expanding protections for foreign nationals assisting U.S. troops. But see GOP Lawmakers Propose Major Immigration Restrictions.
WaPo: Homeland security nominee Alejandro Mayorkas told senators he would carry out President-elect Joe Biden’s immigration overhaul while intensifying efforts to combat domestic extremism, during a hearing Tuesday that highlighted Republican opposition to his confirmation.
TRAC: While the Trump administration hired many new immigration judges and implemented a range of different strategies aimed in part at reducing the Immigration Court backlog, the backlog grew each month. Some of Trump’s changes in court operations arguably slowed case processing. However, the primary driver of the exploding backlog was not only the lack of immigration judges but the tsunami of new cases filed in court by the Department of Homeland Security.
SFChron: Interviews with dozens of attorneys across the country and current and former government officials, as well as internal documents obtained by The Chronicle, show the problems have festered for years. The Justice Department has long lacked a strong system for reporting and responding to sexual harassment and misconduct.
Vera: Gov. Cuomo reaffirmed his commitment to funding the Liberty Defense Project, which provides essential legal services for immigrants across New York State. This is excellent news for families facing separation, deportation and other horrors caused by the federal government’s actions.
A district court judge issued a nationwide stay of the effective date of the 12/18/20 EOIR final fee review rule and a preliminary injunction to enjoin most of its implementation. The rule was set to go into effect on 1/19/21. (CLINIC, et al., v. EOIR, et al., 1/18/21) AILA Doc. No. 21011933
White House Chief of Staff Ronald A. Klain issued a memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies instituting a regulatory freeze pending review. AILA Doc. No. 21012090
Advance copy of a document that will be published in the Federal Register on 1/25/21, delaying the effective date of the final rule “Security Bars and Processing,” which was scheduled to become effective on 1/22/21. The effective date is delayed until 3/21/21. AILA Doc. No. 21012143
Acting DHS Secretary Pekoske issued a memorandum directing DHS components to conduct a review of immigration enforcement policies, and setting interim policies for civil enforcement during that review. Beginning 1/22/21, DHS will pause removals of certain noncitizens ordered deported for 100 days. AILA Doc. No. 21012136
President Biden issued an Executive Order revoking EO 13768 of 1/25/17, and directing the DOS Secretary, the Attorney General, the DHS Secretary, and other officials to review any agency actions developed pursuant to EO 13768 and to take action, including issuing revised guidance, as appropriate. AILA Doc. No. 21012135
President Biden issued a proclamation revoking EO 13780, PP 9645, PP 9723, and PP 9983. The proclamation directs the DOS secretary to direct embassies/consulates, consistent with visa processing procedures, including any related to COVID-19, to resume visa processing consistent with the revocations. AILA Doc. No. 21012002
President Biden issued an EO, which, among other things, directs government officials to assess CDC’s order requiring a negative COVID test from airline passengers traveling to the U.S., and to take “further appropriate regulatory action” to implement public health measures for international travel. AILA Doc. No. 21012300
In light of a CDC order issued on 1/12/21, President Trump issued a proclamation on 1/18/21, effective 1/26/21, removing travel restrictions from the Schengen Area, the U.K., Ireland, and Brazil. (86 FR 6799, 1/22/21) AILA Doc. No. 21011930
DHS announced that it is suspending new enrollments in the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) Program and will cease adding individuals into the program effective 1/21/21. DHS advised current MPP participants to remain where they are, pending further information. AILA Doc. No. 21012001
On 1/20/21, President Biden issued a memorandum directing the DHS Secretary, in consultation with the Attorney General, to take all actions he deems appropriate, consistent with applicable law, to preserve and fortify DACA. (86 FR 7053, 1/25/21) AILA Doc. No. 21012130
On 1/20/21, President Biden issued a memo deferring through 6/30/22, the removal of any Liberian national, or person without nationality who last habitually resided in Liberia, who is present in the U.S. and who was under a grant of DED as of 1/10/21. (86 FR 7055, 1/25/21) AILA Doc. No. 21012131
On 1/20/21, President Biden issued an executive order revoking prior presidential actions that sought to exclude undocumented immigrants from the apportionment base following the 2020 census. (86 FR 7015, 1/25/21) AILA Doc. No. 21012134
President Biden issued a proclamation terminating the national emergency declared by Proclamation 9844, and continued on 2/13/20 and 1/15/21. The proclamation directs officials to pause work on construction on the southern border wall and to develop a plan to redirect funds and repurpose contracts. AILA Doc. No. 21012132
On 1/19/21, President Trump issued a memo directing DHS and DOS to defer, with certain exceptions, for 18 months the removal of any Venezuelan national, or individual without nationality who last habitually resided in Venezuela, who is present in the U.S. as of 1/20/21. (86 FR 6845, 1/25/21) AILA Doc. No. 21012030
The U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari, vacated the judgment of the Ninth Circuit, and remanded for further consideration in light of DHS v. Thuraissigiam. (ICE, et al. v. Padilla, et al., 1/11/21) AILA Doc. No. 21011934
The BIA ruled that §58-37-8(2)(a)(i) of the Utah Code, which criminalizes possession or use of a controlled substance, is divisible with respect to the specific “controlled substance” involved in a violation of that statute. Matter of Dikhtyar, 28 I&N Dec. 214 (BIA 2021) AILA Doc. No. 21012237
The court vacated and remanded the BIA’s denial of the asylum and withholding of removal claims of the petitioner, who feared that he would be subjected to harm on account of his work as a paid contractor for the U.S. Army during the war in Iraq. (Al Amiri v. Rosen, 1/11/21) AILA Doc. No. 21012039
Vacating in part the district court’s decision, the court held that the plaintiffs had pled sufficient facts to allege a plausible claim that DHS unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed adjudication of their U visa petitions. (Fernandez Gonzalez, et al. v. Cuccinelli, et al., 1/14/21) AILA Doc. No. 21012048
The court upheld the BIA’s conclusion that the petitioner did not demonstrate due diligence because he had waited approximately eight months after the court’s decision in Lugo-Resendez v. Lynch to file his current motion to reopen under INA §240(c)(7). (Ovalles v. Rosen, 1/6/21) AILA Doc. No. 21011943
The court held that even if the BIA had erred in denying withholding of removal to the petitioner, inadmissibility was not a collateral consequence of the BIA’s decision, because the petitioner would still be subject to his February 2012 removal order. (Mendoza-Flores v. Rosen, 12/29/20) AILA Doc. No. 21011942
The court held that, based on the totality of the circumstances, including petitioner’s young age and her inability to travel from New York to Memphis for the hearing, the petitioner had established exceptional circumstances justifying her failure to appear. (E. A. C. A. v. Rosen, 1/12/21) AILA Doc. No. 21012040
The court held that the BIA’s ultimate hardship conclusion is the type of mixed question over which it has jurisdiction to review after the Supreme Court’s decision in Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, but found that petitioner failed to show the requisite hardship. (Singh v. Rosen, 1/7/21) AILA Doc. No. 21011944
The court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s determination that the petitioner had failed to establish the requisite nexus between his fear of persecution from the Sinaloa Cartel upon return to Mexico and his family membership. (Meraz-Saucedo v. Rosen, 1/15/21) AILA Doc. No. 21012044
The court held that the petitioner was entitled to have his request for administrative closure considered as a proper exercise of discretion under law, including BIA precedents and the factors set forth in Matter of Avetisyan and Matter of W-Y-U. (Zelaya Diaz v. Rosen, 1/15/21) AILA Doc. No. 21012041
The court affirmed the BIA’s decision denying petitioner’s request for deferral of removal to Somalia, finding that substantial evidence supported the IJ’s and BIA’s conclusions that he was unlikely to be tortured by Al-Shabaab due to his minority-clan membership. (Hassan v. Rosen, 1/15/21) AILA Doc. No. 21012045
The court held that, in seeking the petitioner’s removal, DHS could choose to rely on a claim that the petitioner had committed crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMTs), rather than on the alternative claim that she had committed immigration fraud. (Herrera Gonzalez v. Rosen, 1/4/21) AILA Doc. No. 21011945
The court ordered rehearing en banc and vacated its prior decision in Cheneau v. Barr, which held that the petitioner did not derive citizenship from his mother’s naturalization because his claim was foreclosed by the court’s precedent. (Cheneau v. Rosen, 1/6/21) AILA Doc. No. 21011948
The court held that the district court had correctly concluded that the Flores Settlement Agreement was not terminated by new regulations adopted by HHS and DHS in 2019, and that the government did not show that changed circumstances justified termination. (Flores v. Rosen, 12/29/20) AILA Doc. No. 21011946
The court held that, under the Special Agricultural Worker program (SAW), a noncitizen who was inadmissible at the time of his adjustment to temporary resident status may be removed after his automatic adjustment to permanent resident status. (Hernandez Flores v. Rosen, 12/30/20) AILA Doc. No. 21011947
Where the petitioner had filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 8 USC §2241 arguing that his immigration arrest and re-detention was retaliation for his protected speech, the court reversed the district court’s denial of the petition and remanded. (Bello-Reyes v. Gaynor, 1/14/21) AILA Doc. No. 21012047
The court held that the IJ had provided the pro se petitioner with a full opportunity to present testimony, and found the BIA did not err in concluding that petitioner’s description of generalized violence failed to meet his burden to show targeted persecution. (Hussain v. Rosen, 1/11/21) AILA Doc. No. 21012046
The court upheld the BIA’s finding that petitioner’s Florida convictions for money laundering and workers’ compensation fraud were aggravated felonies because each conviction involved fraud in which the amount of loss to the victim exceeded $10,000. (Garcia-Simisterra v. Att’y Gen., 12/30/20) AILA Doc. No. 21012038
The NY County Supreme Court approved a proposed settlement in Colaj v. Roberts benefiting a class of asylum applicants with work authorization who were denied Safety Net Assistance between 8/7/14 and 11/21/17. Under the agreement, the applicants will get a certain amount of back benefits.AILA Doc. No. 21011935
EOIR issued guidance on the implementation of an enhanced case flow processing model for non-status, non-detained cases with representation in removal proceedings. Memo is effective 12/1/20. AILA Doc. No. 20120130
DOS provided a report from the NVC showing the total number of immigrant visa applicants on the waiting list in the various family- and employment-based preference categories and subcategories subject to the numerical limit as of 11/1/20. The figures only reflect petitions received by DOS. AILA Doc. No. 21012232
EOIR issued a policy memo (PM 21-15) reiterating and memorializing EOIR’s policy regarding adjudicator independence and impartiality. The memo notes that it remains EOIR policy that adjudicator decisions should be based solely on the record before the adjudicator and the applicable law. AILA Doc. No. 21012033
Duckworth: Combat Veteran and U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) is urging President Joe Biden to take immediate action to prevent the deportation of Veterans, repatriate deported Veterans, strengthen the military naturalization process and remove barriers to accessing VA care faced by Veterans living broad.
CUNY Immigration Seminar Series, Spring 2021: Feb 5: Holding Fast, Feb 19: Hyper Education, Mar 5: Citizenship Reimagined, Mar 12: The President and Immigration Law, Mar 26: The Browning of the New South, Apr 9: Reuniting Families, Apr 23: Represented But Unequal, Apr 30: Pursuing Citizenship in the Enforcement Era.
A better Monday right off the bat, as I had predicted and hoped! But, the work has just begun!
However welcome the Biden Administration’s immediate actions are, they have barely “touched the tip of the iceberg” on the human rights, civil rights, and human dignity abuses left behind by the just-departed kakistocracy.
There is a mess in the Federal Judiciary, from the lowest levels (EOIR) to the highest levels (Supremes). For example, the Supremes’ totally wrong-headed remand of ICE v. Padilla (described in Elizabeth’s report) shows a deficient Court that overtly fails to uphold the Constitution for asylum seekers and whose false and stilted jurisprudence continues to advance Jim Crow, White Nationalism, and Dred Scottification well into the 21st Century. Totally outrageous!
Let’s think about the Supremes in “real life” terms! The most vulnerable among us — asylum seekers who are being openly abused by our Government while their lives are being trashed by our legal “system” get the shaft from El Supremos. But, yesterday the same Supremos issued corrupt traitor Prez Trump a “free pass” by going along with a corrupt scheme to “run out the clock” on “emoluments clause cases” that those seeking to uphold the rule of law had won below!
Suffering, death, and unfairness to the most vulnerable; free passes to the powerful and overtly corrupt! The problems with our failing justice system begin at the top and obviously have filtered down to places like EOIR where nobody expects any accountability for “going along to get along” with the Trump-Miller White Nationalist, racist, degradations of humanity!
Quoting Justice Sonia Sotomayor: “This is not justice!” Not even close!
Judge Garland must end the White Nationalist mess at EOIR by replacing (what passes for) administration and the BIA immediately, while quickly developing due process-expert-equal justice-human rights-diversity criteria and meaningful public participation in the judicial appointment process for the Immigration Courts. Then apply those criteria not only to new appointments, but also to retention decisions for the existing judiciary which is the product of a skewed “insider only,” “prosecutor and hard liner biased” defective system.
Some Immigration Judges are well qualified, fair, and well respected; some are not. Judge Garland needs to figure out quickly who should serve, who shouldn’t, and who the best-qualified, fairest, and most universally respected “experts” are to create “the world’s best administrative judiciary” that will serve as a model for a better Article III Judiciary!
This is also the first step to reform throughout the Federal Judiciary all the way up to the failed Supremes. A functioning due-process-oriented, practical, progressive, independent Immigration Judiciary should become a source of better Article III Judges who handle high volume and promote best practices while actually improving due process and efficiency. A big winner for America!
A “model Immigration judiciary” (in place of the “Star Chambers”) will also be the centerpiece of a new independent legislative Article I Immigration Court that Judge Garland must push aggressively to insure that his reform work is institutionalized and is not destroyed by a future DOJ kakistocracy.
As one of my esteemed judicial colleagues in the NAIJ said, immediately and radically reforming the current EOIR while pushing forward with Article 1 legislation requires the “ability to walk and chew gum at the same time.”
Surely, Judge Garland, Vanita Gupta, Lisa Monaco and the rest of the incoming team at Justice have the demonstrated ability to do just that!
It’s up to all of us in the NDPA, the human rights and immigration advocacy community, the civil rights community, and the “good government movement” to keep pressure on Judge Garland and his team to fix EOIR and get the Federal Judicial reform movement moving at full speed. Raise hell if you have to, but don’t let this issue be delayed or “back burnered!”
This is not a “tomorrow” issue! Folks are suffering, dying, and the justice system is deteriorating — from the Supremes to“America’s Star Chambers” every day that the current EOIR due process and fundamental fairness disaster remains unaddressed. Courageous lawyers who have fought to save our democracy from the “creeping and creepy kakistocracy” are being outrageously abused in “Star Chamber Courts” every day that the Biden Administration fails to take bold corrective action @ EOIR!
🇺🇸⚖️🗽Justice @ Justice Can’t Wait! Fix The EOIR Clown Show 🤡🦹🏿♂️ Now! Due Process Forever!
President-elect Joe Biden will name Katie Tobin as the senior director for transborder security on the National Security Council, according to multiple sources familiar with the appointment.
. . . .
That Tobin would be offered a job that usually prioritizes border security over the plight of asylum seekers or refugees could signal how the Biden administration sees that role. It could mean a Biden White House will emphasize helping the world’s refugees instead of giving them the cold shoulder like the Trump administration did. Personnel, as they say, is policy.
. . . .
*****************
Read Alex’s complete report at the link.
Katie is a friend and one of my “personal heroes.” A true “Renaissance person,” leader, and inspiration to the “new generation” of public policy/good government advocates, she has accomplished so much good in such a short time!
One of the many things I appreciated about about Katie was her willingness to return to Arlington regularly for our “summer brown bag career series” and inspire the upcoming generation of interns and aspiring lawyers to embrace careers in furthering sane, rational, empirically-soundpolicies that melded immigration with human rights, due process, social justice, and public service!
News like this makes me believe that under President Biden, America is finally back on track for a better and brighter future where courage, expertise, humanity, and practical problem solving for the common good will be respected and encouraged. Real leaders like Katie, with so much to offer America, the world, and humanity willpave the way for a better, brighter future for all!
As one mutual friend and colleague said on learning of the appointment, “The new Administration’s best pick yet!” I concur!
Congrats, Katie! You make us all proud and hopeful for America’s future!🇺🇸🗽⚖️👍🏼
Subject: [immprof] Amicus Brief on Behalf of Immigration Law Scholars on “Monster” Asylum Rule
Dear Colleagues:
Happy New Year! I hope you are staying well. We are pleased to share an amicus brief filed in the Northern District of California last week challenging the “monster” asylum rule, published as a final rule in December 2020. We are grateful to the immigration law scholars who signed onto this brief. The brief is focused on three aspects of the rule: 1) expansion of discretionary bars in general; 2) discretionary bars on unlawful entry and use of fraudulent documents in particular; and 3) expansion of the firm resettlement bar. The brief argues that these bars conflict with the immigration statute and further that the Departments have failed to provide a reasonable explanation for departing from past statutory interpretation with regard to these bars.
Co-counsel included Loeb & Loeb, Peter Margulies, and myself. We are grateful to the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program and other organizations who served as counsel to plaintiffs in this case.
Best wishes, Peter and Shoba
Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia (she, her)
Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
Samuel Weiss Faculty Scholar | Clinical Professor of Law
Many thanks to Peter, Shoba, Loeb & Loeb, and all the many great minds with courageous hearts ♥️ involved in this effort!
I’ve said it often: It’s time to cut through the BS and bureaucratic bungling that have plagued past Dem Administrations and put progressive practical scholars like Shoba, Peter, and their NDPA expert colleagues in charge of EOIR, the BIA, and the rest of the immigration bureaucracy. It’s also time to end “Amateur Night at the Bijou” 🎭🤹♀️and put “pros” like this in charge of developing and implementing Constitutionally compliant, legal, practical, humane immigration and human rights policies that achieve equal justice for all (one of the Biden-Harris Administration’s stated priorities), further the common interest, and finally rationalize and optimize (now “gonzo out of control”) immigration enforcement.
NOT SO long ago, asylum seekers turned to the United States, seeking refuge from repressive states. Now the United States is one of those repressive states.
That’s the gist of a Canadian federal court ruling, which would scrap a 16-year-old bilateral treaty called the Safe Third Country Agreement, under which Canada and the United States each recognize the other as a safe place to seek refuge. Justice Ann Marie McDonald ruled that Canada’s practice of turning back third-country refugees who try to cross at official points of entry along the U.S.-Canada frontier — on the theory that they have already reached a safe harbor in the United States — no longer makes sense given the atrocious treatment to which they are subjected south of the border. Canada, she wrote, can no longer turn a blind eye to the reality that the United States denies decent and dignified treatment to asylum seekers.
Justice McDonald based her ruling partly on testimony from asylum seekers who described harrowing conditions of confinement in U.S. detention, to which they are automatically taken when turned back by Canada. One of them, a refugee from Ethiopia named Nedira Jemal Mustefa, recounted what she called a “terrifying, isolating and psychologically traumatic” experience at a “freezing” facility where she was held in upstate New York. Other testimony in the Canadian court provided evidence that detainees in U.S. facilities were denied access to counsel, phone calls and translators, and some were subjected to solitary confinement.
The judge found that the “accounts of the detainees demonstrate both physical and psychological suffering because of detention, and a real risk that they will not be able to assert asylum claims” in the United States.
None of this is surprising to advocates and others who have monitored the travails of asylum seekers, especially since President Trump took office. In the past two years, his anti-immigration policies have prompted more than 50,000 asylum seekers to cross into Canada outside official ports of entry, thereby skirting the treaty’s automatic-return provision — until the pandemic forced the border’s closing this spring. After arriving in Canada and undergoing security and medical screening, they have been allowed to work and receive basic benefits such as medical care as they await adjudication of their asylum claims.
Canada is among the United States’s closest allies; gratuitous America-bashing is not the norm there. That a Canadian judge would give a failing grade to this country’s commitment to human rights where they concern refugees is a damning rebuke.
Before her ruling takes effect, the judge gave the Canadian government six months to appeal, should it choose to do so. Until now, the treaty’s supporters have justified it on the grounds that it bars “asylum shopping” by refugees. The question facing the administration of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is whether its neighbor to the south still adheres to what Western democracies regard as the basic standards of dignity and decency on which the original treaty was based. The evidence suggests it does not.
***************************
Actually, this is a “Duh” for those of us who have been speaking out for the last three years about the Trump regime’s racist White Nationalist hate inspired anti-asylum, anti-immigrant, anti-human rights agenda. The only “shocker” is that neither the Congress nor the Article III Courts have put up meaningful resistance to these clearly illegal, unconstitutional, and immoral actions.
Basically, “Brown Lives Don’t Matter” to this gang of nativist thugs and their legislative and judicial enablers. Perhaps most disgustingly, the Supremes’ majority has been an eager participant in this “Dred Scottification” of “the other” based largely on race and covered by only the most transparent pretexts of “national emergency” and the like.
America needs not only a qualified, non-racist Executive, but also better qualified legislators and judges who reject institutionalized racism and hate masquerading as “emergency justifications” for suspending the rule of law and the Constitution as it applies to human rights, human lives, and human dignity. To state the obvious, our nation is disintegrating because far too many of those we have entrusted to govern reject the basic concept that equal justice for all, ending racism, and due process for all persons in the U.S. are both Constitutional requirements and moral imperatives.
This November, vote like your life and the future of America depend on it! Because they do!
Mexico’s Capitulation to Trump Has Put Thousands of Lives in Danger
The Mexican foreign minister says his government has nothing to be ashamed of. He’s wrong.
September 20 2019 4:51 PM
In recent months, at least 3,000 immigrants have been sent back to towns along the Mexican border between Tamaulipas and Texas, one of the country’s most dangerous areas. What they have faced there defies the imagination. The city of Nuevo Laredo is a well-known hotbed of extortion and kidnapping. Immigrants make easy targets. “These people have been thrown into the lion’s den,” local journalist Daniel Rosas told me recently.
According to Rosas, President Donald Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” program has been particularly harmful, placing thousands of immigrants in imminent danger. “If even us locals are going through a very difficult time dealing with violence here, just imagine what life is like for an immigrant who doesn’t have a home and doesn’t know anyone. This place is completely unsafe,” Rosas told me. In the city of Nuevo Laredo, Rosas described a Dantean scene in which people working for cartels are tasked with identifying and abducting immigrants, who are then taken away to safehouses where they are held for ransom.
“In Tamaulipas, migrants are the most vulnerable. They suffer every kind of abuse imaginable,” he told me. Rosas seemed particularly worried for women and children in Tamaulipas. “They are completely defenseless,” Rosas told me. “When they were waiting and trying to rest under the bridge, there were kids sleeping on cardboard, without any help. They live through sheer horror,” he said.
This nightmare is the predictable result of recent actions by governments on both sides of the border. Three months ago, faced with Trump’s tariff blackmail, Mexico’s government capitulated and agreed to a series of unprecedented measures to reduce the flow of Central American immigrants reaching the United States. Terrified by the possibility of a trade war, President Andres Manuel López Obrador’s administration deployed thousands of troops along Mexico’s southern border, gave control of the country’s immigration authority to an expert in incarceration and enforcement, and pledged full cooperation with some of Trump’s more controversial immigration policies. As part of the deal, Mexican government officials agreed to return to Washington every few months with evidence of results, a recurrent humiliating pilgrimage in search of Trump’s approval and a renewed deferral of the looming tariff threat.
Ten days ago, after his first assessment in Washington with Trump’s inner circle—and, briefly, the president himself—Mexican Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard gave a victorious but ultimately unfortunate news conference. Ebrard claimedthat the much-touted downward trend in the number of immigrants reaching the United States would likely be “permanent,” although historical trends suggest the flow of immigrants will likely increase during the fall. Ebrard then said the Mexican government had demanded new and strict gun control measures in the United States. The goal, Ebrard boasted, was to “freeze” gun trafficking along the border. This is disingenuous. Ebrard knows any sort of significant reduction in gun smuggling from the United States would require legislative measures that the Trump administration and the Republican Party will not pursue.
Ebrard then concluded by saying the López Obrador administration had nothing to apologize for on immigration. “We do not regret anything of what’s been implemented,” Ebrard said. “We haven’t done anything we should be ashamed of.”
He is wrong.
The Mexican government’s cooperation with Donald Trump’s punitive immigration strategy has created a calamity along the country’s northern border. Of the many complications, none is more potentially catastrophic than the broad implementation of Trump’s Migrant Protection Protocols program, better known as the “Remain in Mexico” policy. The measure forces potential refugees to wait for months (or years) in Mexico for a slim chance at asylum in the United States. It has opened the door to the creation of a massive community of rootless and marginalized immigrants living in perilous limbo in some of Mexico’s most dangerous areas. There are now close to 38,000 immigrants waitingin Mexico because of MPP. After meeting with Ebrard, the White House announcedthe program would be expanded “to the fullest extent possible,” dramatically increasing the number of potential refugees returned to Mexico, many to regions of the country where they face almost certain peril.
No place seems safe, not even shelters run by religious organizations, one of the few reliable options in other border towns like Tijuana. In Nuevo Laredo, organized crime knows no bounds. Just last month, local pastor Aarón Méndez, who runs the “Casa del Migrante AMAR” shelter in the city, reportedly tried to protect a group of Cuban migrants from a group of abductors. They kidnapped Méndezinstead. No one has heard from him since.
Things aren’t much better in Matamoros, across from Brownsville, Texas. In recent years, the city has seen “open warfare” between rival cartels. American attorneyKristin Clarens, who has been traveling to the region over the past few months to assist potential refugees and make sense of the dire situation in the region, told me she has never met an asylum-seeking immigrant who felt safe in Mexico. “To the contrary,” Clarens said, “most of the people I’ve met described routine and regular acts of violence, such as kidnapping, assault, and extortion.” According to Clarens, migrants in Matamoros, like those in Nuevo Laredo, are facing a full-blown humanitarian crisis. “The heat is intense and unrelenting, and they lack access to sanitation, water, shade, food, and basic shelter,” she told me. “People hike down to the river and use the river to clean themselves, wash their clothes, and occasionally drink. Children and adults are sick and covered with bug bites and lesions.”
Like Rosas, Clarens believes “Remain in Mexico” has complicated the already formidable immigration challenge in the region. “The MPP sends people back to Mexico, where many have been repeatedly victimized by organized criminals or other dangerous groups,” Clarens said. “Their access to the legal system in the U.S.—which had already been severely reduced by the Trump administration—is effectively cut off. MPP will force people to remain for a significant period of time in one of the most vulnerable and dangerous living situations they’ve ever imagined experiencing.” Clarens thinks the crisis will likely worsen. “I know that Mexico can be a safe and stable place for many people, but impoverished and incredibly vulnerable Central Americans who are desperate for security and are leaving their countries of origin for the first time are not able to stay safe,” she told me.
If Mexico continues to quietly go along with the radical expansion of the MPP program, the number of immigrants waiting for asylum in the country could reach the hundreds of thousands. With Mexico’s official refugee agency operating on a ridiculous $1.3 million yearly budget, the López Obrador administration is not remotely ready for such an undertaking. The consequences could be severe. If that happens, Ebrard should be asked again if Mexico really has nothing to be ashamed of.
Those who should really be ashamed are the cowardly life-tenured judges of the Supremes, the Ninth Circuit, and the Fifth Circuit who as a group have utterly failed to protect migrants’ statutory, Constitutional, and Human Rights from lawless, invidious, and very intentional abuse by Trump’s White Nationalist regime and his DHS and DOJ sycophants.
Article III Federal Judges are absolutely immune from liability for their wrongdoing and abuses. But, they shouldn’t be immune from shame and the judgment of history for abandoning our system of justice and the most vulnerable it is supposed to protect at their greatest time of need. That’s basically the definition of legal incompetence and moral cowardice.
The Trump administration has attempted to close the door on asylum seekers who are looking for refuge in the United States. But even as it blocks entry — and sends tens of thousands of asylum seekers to Mexico to wait out their immigration proceedings — thousands of families with children are also being held in federal immigration detention facilities.
Because the administration has prohibited advocacy groups, journalists, immigration attorneys and even congressional staff from entering detention facilities to document conditions and interview detainees, the public has had only anecdotal glimpses into how detainees were treated. Now we have systematic evidence to support accounts of the harsh conditions that asylum seekers experience in immigration detention. In many ways, it is worse than we thought.
From October 2018 through June 2019, the San Diego Rapid Response Network (SDRRN) assisted approximately 7,300 asylum-seeking families at their shelters. These families, who were processed and then admitted into the U.S., totaled more than 17,000 people, including 7,900 children 5 years old or younger. My team and I at the U.S. Immigration Policy Center (USIPC) at UC San Diego independently analyzed intake data collected by the SDRRN for all of these families.
In a report released last week, we found that approximately 35% of the asylum-seeking heads of households we studied reported problems related to conditions in immigration detention, treatment in immigration detention, or medical issues. This finding is alarming since it’s very likely an underestimate, because the SDRRN was focused on providing needed services to the asylum-seeking families, not administering questionnaires. Moreover, abuses or problems in detention may be underreported by asylum seekers who are afraid that raising complaints may negatively affect their asylum case.
Of those who reported issues related to conditions in detention, approximately 6 out of 10 reported food and water problems, including not having enough to eat, being fed frozen food, being fed spoiled food, not being given formula for infants, not being given water, and having to drink dirty or foul-tasting water. Approximately half reported having to sleep on the floor, having to sleep with the lights on, overcrowded conditions, confinement, and the temperature being too cold in “la hielera,” the detention facilities known as the “iceboxes.” Approximately 1 out of every 3 reported not having access to clean or sanitary toilets, being able to shower or being able to brush their teeth.
About 1 out of 10 of the asylum-seeking heads of households — or more than 700 of them — reported verbal abuse, physical abuse or some form of mistreatment in immigration detention. Examples of verbal abuse include being told “we don’t want your kind here” and “you’re an ape,” among others. Examples of physical abuse include being thrown against the wall when attempting to get a drink of water.
The data also showed the great diversity of those who arrive at the southern border to seek refuge. The majority of the asylum-seeking families came from the “Northern Triangle” of Central America — Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador. However, many also came from other continents, 28 in all, including the Democratic Republic of Congo, Russia, Kazakhstan, India, China and Vietnam, to name a few. Any changes to U.S. asylum policies meant to deter Central Americans from entering at the southern border will affect asylum seekers from all over the world who are also looking to the U.S. for safety.
We also found that just over 1 out of 5 of these families do not speak Spanish as their primary language. The languages spoken range from indigenous Central American languages — including K’iche’, Q’eqchi’ and Mam — to Creole, Mandarin, Portuguese, Russian, Hindi, Vietnamese and Romanian, among others. This linguistic diversity presents another set of challenges.
When asylum seekers are released from detention, they are given detailed instructions on a form called the “Notice to Appear,” including instructions about their immigration court dates, times and locations. On the notice, immigration officials indicate the language that the asylum seeker was given these instructions in. For those whose primary language is not Spanish, nearly 9 out of every 10 were nevertheless given instructions in Spanish. If these families are not provided instructions about their immigration proceedings in a language they can understand, they will not be able to navigate an extremely complex legal process, which may infringe on their basic rights to due process.
From substandard conditions in immigration detention to verbal and physical abuse to serious due process concerns, the data show that the Trump administration is not abiding by its obligations under U.S. and international asylum and refugee law to treat humanely those who are seeking protection from persecution.
With the administration now determined to hold asylum-seeking families for potentially as long as it takes for their immigration proceedings to play out (which could be years), conditions may get worse. Cruelty, after all, may very well be the point.
Tom K. Wong is associate professor of political science and director of the U.S. Immigration Policy Center at UC San Diego.
********************************
What kind of country allows its leaders to impose these types of abuses on vulnerable individuals whose “crime” is seeking protection under our laws and the international conventions that they implement?
Why are “Big Mac” and other Trump sycophants at DHS allowed to lie with impunity about what is really happening in DHS detention, the real inhuman consequences of “Remain in Mexico” (a/k/a “Let ‘Em Die in Mexico”), and abuse “Safe Third Country” agreements by dishonestly pretending that Guatemala, one of the world’s most notoriously dangerous and corrupt “failed states,” meets the statutory requirements?
A key point in Professor Wong’s article is that many, probably the majority, of those released from detention receive inadequate explanations of their obligations to report current addresses and appear for both Immigration Court Hearings and separate ICE detention “check-ins.” Combined with this Administration’s obstinate refusal to work closely and cooperatively with legal services groups to maximize representation, it leads to many unnecessary, yet largely intentional on the part of DHS & EOIR, so-called “no shows.” These, in turn, get bogus “in absentia orders” from Immigration Judges operating under excruciating and inappropriate pressure to “produce numbers, not justice.” This, in turn, feeds the demonstrably false DHS narrative, oft repeated by “Big Mac With Lies” & others, that a large number of asylum seekers will “abscond” if released in the U.S.
It’s all part of a White Nationalist restrictionist immigration agenda that when finally exposed in detail after Trump and his cronies leave office will paint America as foolish, corrupt, and cowardly. Is this the “legacy” we truly want to leave to future generations?
Join the “New Due Process Army” and fight to restore the rule of law and Constitutional order and to end the corruption and daily human rights abuses of the Trump Administration!
Angelina Jolie Actress, Writer, Human Rights Advocate
Angelina Jolie writes in Time:
Angelina Jolie: The Crisis We Face at the Border Does Not Require Us to Choose Between Security and Humanity
Angelina Jolie
Jolie, a TIME contributing editor, is an Academy Award–winning actor and Special Envoy of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees
We Americans have been confronted by devastating images from our southern border and increasingly polarized views on how to address this untenable situation.
At times I wonder if we are retreating from the ideal of America as a country founded by and for brave, bold, freedom-seeking rebels, and becoming instead inward-looking and fearful.
I suspect many of us will refuse to retreat. We grew up in this beautiful, free country, in all its diversity. We know nothing good ever came of fear, and that our own history — including the shameful mistreatment of Native Americans — should incline us to humility and respect when considering the question of migration.
I’m not a lawyer, an asylum seeker, or one of the people working every day to protect our borders and run our immigration system. But I work with the UN Refugee Agency, which operates in 134 countries to protect and support many of the over 70 million people displaced by conflict and persecution.
We in America are starting to experience on our borders some of the pressures other nations have faced for years: countries like Turkey, Uganda and Sudan, which host 6 million refugees between them. Or Lebanon, where every sixth person is a refugee. Or Colombia, which is hosting over 1 million Venezuelans in a country slightly less than twice the size of Texas. There are lessons — and warnings — we can derive from the global refugee situation.
The first is that this is about more than just one border. Unless we address the factors forcing people to move, from war to economic desperation to climate change, we will face ever-growing human displacement. If you don’t address these problems at their source, you will always have people at your borders. People fleeing out of desperation will brave any obstacle in front of them.
Second, countries producing the migration or refugee flow have the greatest responsibility to take measures to protect their citizens and address the insecurity, corruption and violence causing people to flee. But assisting them with that task is in our interest. Former senior military figures urge the restoration of U.S. aid to Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador, arguing that helping to build the rule of law, respect for human rights and stability is the only way to create alternatives to migration. The UN Refugee Agency is calling for an urgent summit of governments in the Americas to address the displacement crisis. These seem logical, overdue steps. Our development assistance to other countries is not a bargaining chip, it is an investment in our long-term security. Showing leadership and working with other countries is a measure of strength, not a sign of weakness.
Third, we have a vital interest in upholding international laws and standards on asylum and protection. It is troubling to see our country backing away from these, while expecting other countries, who are hosting millions of refugees and asylum seekers, to adhere to a stricter code. If we go down this path, we risk a race to the bottom and far greater chaos. An international rules-based system brings order. Breaking international standards only encourages more rule-breaking.
Fourth, the legal experts I meet suggest there are ways of making the immigration system function much more effectively, fairly and humanely. For instance, by resourcing the immigration courts to address the enormous backlog of cases built up over years. They argue this would help enable prompt determination of who legally qualifies for protection and who does not, and at the same time disincentivize anyone inclined to misuse the asylum system for economic or other reasons. The American Bar Association and other legal scholars and associations are calling for immigration court to be made independent and free from external influence, so that cases can be fairly, efficiently and impartially decided under the law.
There are also proven models of working with legal firms to provide pro-bono legal assistance to unaccompanied children in the immigration system without increasing the burden on the U.S. taxpayer. Expanding these kinds of initiative would help to ensure that vulnerable children don’t have to represent themselves in court, and improve the effectiveness, fairness and speed of immigration proceedings. Approximately 65% of children in the U.S. immigration system still face court without an attorney.
We all want our borders to be secure and our laws to be upheld, but it is not true that we face a choice between security and our humanity: between sealing our country off and turning our back to the world on the one hand, or having open borders on the other. The best way of protecting our security is by upholding our values and addressing the roots of this crisis. We can be fearless, generous and open-minded in seeking solutions.
TIME Ideas hosts the world’s leading voices, providing commentary on events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors.
********************************************
Wow! Great thoughts on how caring people might actually help to constructively address human migration issues rather than cruelly making them worse through “malicious incompetence.”
It’s painfully clear that we have the wrong “celebrity” leading our nation. But, Jolie wasn’t on the ballot (not will she be). Nevertheless, in a saner and more law-abiding Government, there should be a place for ideas and leadership from Jolie and others like her.
HISTORICAL NOTE: If my memory serves me correctly, Angelina Jolie once appeared before my esteemed retired colleague U.S. Immigration Judge M. Christopher Grant, as an expert witness in an asylum case before the Arlington Immigration Court.
Professor Kate Cronin-Furman University College, London
Professor Kate Cronin-Furman writes in the NY Times:
The debate over whether “concentration camps” is the right term for migrant detention centers on the southern border has drawn long-overdue attention to the American government’s dehumanizing treatment of defenseless children. A pediatrician who visited in June said the centers could be compared to “torture facilities.” Having studied mass atrocities for over a decade, I agree.
At least seven migrant children have died in United States custody since last year. The details reported by lawyers who visited a Customs and Border Protection facility in Clint, Tex., in June were shocking: children who had not bathed in weeks, toddlers without diapers, sick babies being cared for by other children. As a human rights lawyer and then as a political scientist, I have spoken to the victims of some of the worst things that human beings have ever done to each other, in places ranging from Cambodia to the Democratic Republic of the Congo to Sri Lanka. What’s happening at the border doesn’t match the scale of these horrors, but if, as appears to be the case, these harsh conditions have been intentionally inflicted on children as part a broader plan to deter others from migrating, then it meets the definition of a mass atrocity: a deliberate, systematic attack on civilians. And like past atrocities, it is being committed by a complex organizational structure made up of people at all different levels of involvement.
Thinking of what’s happening in this way gives us a repertoire of tools with which to fight the abuses, beyond the usual exhortations to call our representatives and donate to border charities.
Those of us who want to stop what’s happening need to think about all the different individuals playing a role in the systematic mistreatment of migrant children and how we can get them to stop participating. We should focus most on those who have less of a personal commitment to the abusive policies that are being carried out.
Testimony from trials and truth commissions has revealed that many atrocity perpetrators think of what they’re doing as they would think of any other day job. While the leaders who order atrocities may be acting out of strongly held ideological beliefs or political survival concerns, the so-called “foot soldiers” and the middle men and women are often just there for the paycheck.
This lack of personal investment means that these participants in atrocities can be much more susceptible to pressure than national leaders. Specifically, they are sensitive to social pressure, which has been shown to have played a huge role in atrocity commission and desistance in the Holocaust, Rwanda and elsewhere. The campaign to stop the abuses at the border should exploit this sensitivity and put social pressure on those involved in enforcing the Trump administration’s immigration policies.
Here is what that might look like:
The identities of the individual Customs and Border Protection agents who are physically separating children from their families and staffing the detention centers are not undiscoverable. Immigration lawyers have agent names; journalists reporting at the border have names, photos and even videos. These agents’ actions should be publicized, particularly in their home communities.
This is not an argument for doxxing — it’s about exposure of their participation in atrocities to audiences whose opinion they care about. The knowledge, for instance, that when you go to church on Sunday, your entire congregation will have seen you on TV ripping a child out of her father’s arms is a serious social cost to bear. The desire to avoid this kind of social shame may be enough to persuade some agents to quit and may hinder the recruitment of replacements. For those who won’t (or can’t) quit, it may induce them to treat the vulnerable individuals under their control more humanely. In Denmark during World War II, for instance, strong social pressure, including from the churches, contributed to the refusal of the country to comply with Nazi orders to deport its Jewish citizens.
The midlevel functionaries who make the system run are not as visibly involved in the “dirty work,” but there are still clear potential reputational consequences that could change their incentives. The lawyer who stood up in court to try to parse the meaning of “safe and sanitary” conditions — suggesting that this requirement might not include toothbrushes and soap for the children in border patrol custody if they were there for a “shorter term” stay — passed an ethics exam to be admitted to the bar. Similar to the way the American Medical Association has made it clear that its members must not participate in torture, the American Bar Association should signal that anyone who defends the border patrol’s mistreatment of children will not be considered a member in good standing of the legal profession. This will deter the participation of some, if only out of concern over their future career prospects.
The individuals running detention centers are arguably directly responsible for torture, which could trigger a number of consequences at the international level. Activists should partner with human rights organizations to bring these abuses before international bodies like the United Nations Human Rights Council. They should lobby for human rights investigations, for other governments to deny entry visas to those involved in the abuses, or even for the initiation of torture prosecutions in foreign courts. For someone who is “just following orders,” the prospect of being internationally shamed as a rights abuser and being unable to travel freely may be significant enough to persuade them to stop participating.
When those directly involved in atrocities can’t be swayed, their enablers are often more responsive. For-profit companies are supplying food and other material goods to the detention centers. Boycotts against them and their parent entities may persuade them to stop doing so. Employees of these companies can follow the example of Wayfair workers, who organized a walkout on Wednesday in protest of their company’s sale of furniture to the contractor outfitting the detention centers. Finally, anyone can support existing divestment campaigns to pressure financial institutions to end their support of immigration abuses.
Many Americans have been asking each other “But what can we DO?” The answer is that we call these abuses mass atrocities and use the tool kit this label offers us to fight them. So far, mobilization against what’s happening on the border has mostly followed standard political activism scripts: raising public awareness, organizing protests, phoning our congressional representatives. These efforts are critical, but they aren’t enough. Children are suffering and dying. The fastest way to stop it is to make sure everyone who is responsible faces consequences.
Dr. Cronin-Furman is an assistant professor of human rights.
*******************************************
“The fastest way to stop it is to make sure everyone who is responsible faces consequences.”
That includes attorneys who defend indefensible policies in Federal Court as well as Federal Judges all the way up to the Supremes who fail to stand up for Due Process for individuals, and who insist on treating Trump’s overt attacks on our Constitution, democracy, and human dignity as within the scope of “normal” Executive actions rather than intentional and dishonest abuses requiring censure and strong, courageous, unconditional disapproval.
The State Department recently published a brief, enigmatic notice announcing the formation of a new Commission on Unalienable Rights. With a modest budget of $385,074 and merely advisory powers, the commission received little attention beyond head-scratching over its strange name. Yet the significance of the endeavor should not be overlooked. It puts the government’s imprimatur on an assault upon one of the cornerstones of modern liberalism: international human rights.
According to the commission’s draft charter, its job will be to explore “reforms of human rights discourse where it has departed from our nation’s founding principles of natural law and natural rights” — rights of the sort that Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr. upheld as ideals, the charter says.
This language may sound unusual to a modern ear, but it is easily translated. Start with that ungainly name of the commission. If “unalienable” sounds anachronistic, that’s because it is. Today, we normally use the word “inalienable.” But in the 18th century, the more common term was “unalienable.” The Declaration of Independence refers to “unalienable rights,” and there is little doubt the commission’s name is meant to recall that, in the words of the Declaration, the people are endowed with those rights “by their Creator.”
The State Department recently published a brief, enigmatic notice announcing the formation of a new Commission on Unalienable Rights. With a modest budget of $385,074 and merely advisory powers, the commission received little attention beyond head-scratching over its strange name. Yet the significance of the endeavor should not be overlooked. It puts the government’s imprimatur on an assault upon one of the cornerstones of modern liberalism: international human rights.
According to the commission’s draft charter, its job will be to explore “reforms of human rights discourse where it has departed from our nation’s founding principles of natural law and natural rights” — rights of the sort that Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr. upheld as ideals, the charter says.
This language may sound unusual to a modern ear, but it is easily translated. Start with that ungainly name of the commission. If “unalienable” sounds anachronistic, that’s because it is. Today, we normally use the word “inalienable.” But in the 18th century, the more common term was “unalienable.” The Declaration of Independence refers to “unalienable rights,” and there is little doubt the commission’s name is meant to recall that, in the words of the Declaration, the people are endowed with those rights “by their Creator.”
This supposition is reinforced by the references to “natural law” and “natural rights,” terms that have also fallen out of fashion. In the 18th century, educated people used the phrases to refer to universal moral laws that transcended national boundaries and that generally (though not always) were thought to reflect God’s will. With the rise of nationalism in the 19th century, these abstractions lost much of their grip on people’s loyalties.
Finally, there is “human rights discourse.” Normally, we refer to “human rights law,” embodied in numerous treaties that were negotiated and (mostly) ratified after World War II. With names like the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities, these treaties purport to bar governments from mistreating their citizens. Yet “discourse” means “talk.” The implication here is that the human rights that people talk about are not, despite the treaties, actually law. They’re something else — advocacy. And this advocacy is wrong: It has “departed from . . . natural law and natural rights.”
The protections offered by modern “human rights law” differ from those of the “natural rights” regime of the 18th century. Those were (more or less) embodied in the British constitutional tradition, the common law, and the U.S. Bill of Rights: rights to political participation — freedom of speech, for example — and protection of person and property. Modern human rights are both broader and narrower, encompassing “economic rights” (for example, rights to work, to health care and to education), rights to not be discriminated against on the basis of race or ethnicity, and, according to some interpreters, expansive rights to reproductive freedom. Modern human rights law de-emphasizes property rights and, to some extent, speech rights. In a word, it’s lefty.
Modern human rights have also morphed into something like a system of universal moral values that transcends specific treaties. The United States, virtually alone among nations, has refused to ratify most of these treaties and accordingly is technically not bound by them. But much “human rights discourse” rejects the notion that countries can opt out of the rights system. Quite a few scholars and an occasional U.S. Supreme Court justice believe, to the intense irritation of conservatives, that left-leaning human rights treaties that the United States has never ratified nonetheless override American law. The influence of “foreign law” — including “human rights discourse” — has been apparent in Supreme Court opinions limiting the death penalty and striking down the criminalization of same-sex “sodomy.” Most of the offending decisions were written by the court’s most enthusiastic proponent of foreign law, then-Justice Anthony Kennedy. As the late justice Antonin Scalia put it : “The Framers would, I am confident, be appalled by the proposition that, for example, the American peoples’ democratic adoption of the death penalty . . . could be judicially nullified because of the disapproving views of foreigners.”
But today, other conservatives see an opportunity, and the Commission on Unalienable Rights is their declaration of intent. Its plainly stated goal is not just to wipe away the baleful foreign influence of human rights “discourse” but to revive (conservative) 18th-century natural law.
What does natural law require? Liberals, already dimly perceiving that they are about to be hoisted with their own petard, worry that natural law, in the hands of conservatives — specifically, Catholic conservative intellectuals, who kept alive the academic tradition of natural law long after mainstream secular intellectuals forgot what it was — means goodbye to reproductive rights and protections for sexual minorities. (ABC News reported that the Princeton professor Robert George, a prominent Catholic intellectual, natural-law theorist, and opponent of abortion rights and same-sex marriage, played a role in the creation of the commission; George did not respond to requests for comment from ABC or from The Washington Post.) The Commission on Unalienable Rights will, in other words, provide the ideological justification for the antiabortion foreign policy that the Trump administration has undertaken.
Natural law can also be used by conservatives to argue for expanded religious freedoms that override statutes with secular goals, and to push back against progressive government programs like universal health care. The “right to health,” a centerpiece of “human rights law,” is firmly rejected by natural-law theorists like George.
But the mission of the commission may be even bolder. If we take the idea of natural law seriously, it not only overrides statutes in foreign countries that protect abortion rights and respect same-sex marriage. It also overrides American laws that protect abortion rights and respect same-sex marriage. One can imagine a day when a Supreme Court justice, taking a page from Kennedy, invokes natural law — supposedly endorsed by the founders, after all, and embodied in the sacred Declaration — to vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and to prepare the path for an even holier grail, the abolition of state laws that grant abortion rights.
Liberals hoped that human rights, sanctified by the sacrifices of the victims of totalitarianism, would provide common ground in a world of competing ideologies. But what human rights actually helped produce was a liberal international order that has offended a great many people who do not share liberal values. The backlash began years ago in authoritarian countries, in developing countries that saw human rights as an affront to their traditions and as a mask for imperialist goals, and in highly religious countries. These countries advanced interpretations of human rights law that conform with their values or interests but made little headway against dominant elite opinion. What is new is that the government of the world’s most powerful nation, long acknowledged (if grudgingly) as the leader of the international human rights regime, has officially signed on to that backlash. Most of the offending decisions were written by the court’s most enthusiastic proponent of foreign law, then-Justice Anthony Kennedy. As the late justice Antonin Scalia put it : “The Framers would, I am confident, be appalled by the proposition that, for example, the American peoples’ democratic adoption of the death penalty . . . could be judicially nullified because of the disapproving views of foreigners.”
But today, other conservatives see an opportunity, and the Commission on Unalienable Rights is their declaration of intent. Its plainly stated goal is not just to wipe away the baleful foreign influence of human rights “discourse” but to revive (conservative) 18th-century natural law.
But the mission of the commission may be even bolder. If we take the idea of natural law seriously, it not only overrides statutes in foreign countries that protect abortion rights and respect same-sex marriage. It also overrides American laws that protect abortion rights and respect same-sex marriage. One can imagine a day when a Supreme Court justice, taking a page from Kennedy, invokes natural law — supposedly endorsed by the founders, after all, and embodied in the sacred Declaration — to vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and to prepare the path for an even holier grail, the abolition of state laws that grant abortion rights.
Liberals hoped that human rights, sanctified by the sacrifices of the victims of totalitarianism, would provide common ground in a world of competing ideologies. But what human rights actually helped produce was a liberal international order that has offended a great many people who do not share liberal values. The backlash began years ago in authoritarian countries, in developing countries that saw human rights as an affront to their traditions and as a mask for imperialist goals, and in highly religious countries. These countries advanced interpretations of human rights law that conform with their values or interests but made little headway against dominant elite opinion. What is new is that the government of the world’s most powerful nation, long acknowledged (if grudgingly) as the leader of the international human rights regime, has officially signed on to that backlash.
*******************
Professor Posner confirms what folks like me have been saying for some time now: under Trump and his version of the GOP, America aspires to go from being a defender of human rights to being a leading abuser of those rights.
Forget the attempted “slight of hand” redefinition of human rights by a White Nationalist minority who has seized control of our Government. Kids in cages, abusing women, enabling gangs and cartels, suspending due process, blocking access to voting, dehumanizing the Hispanic and LGBTQ communities, greed, selfishness, grift, undermining the hard earned rights of African Americans, and promoting and protecting religious bigotry, among other disreputable developments, neither conforms to any version of human rights nor represents the views of the majority of Americans.
Make no mistake about it.No matter how flawed , the human rights instruments crafted as a result of “liberal Western democracy” in the post-World War II era have saved millions of human lives and prevented unfathomable additional human carnage. Undoubtedly, that makes Trump and some of his supporters supremely unhappy.
Those of us who continue to maintain the “quaint” view that all persons are entitled to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (no matter how imperfectly conceived and disingenuously implemented by our Founding Fathers) had better wake up and join the battle! For, Trump and his far right minority zealots have every intention of reversing the results of World War II and making the hate, bias, disregard for truth, toxic nationalism, and contempt for the majority of the world’s humans exhibited by the “the then losers” the new international norm.
Don’t let them turn back the clock to 1939 in 2019!
A White House spokesman left often the possibility Friday that President Trump would invoke an arcane law that would allow him to deploy the military to remove illegal immigrants, as Trump warned migrants on Twitter that they could be leaving the country soon.
Asked during a television appearance whether Trump is considering using the Insurrection Act, spokesman Hogan Gidley said the president is “going to do everything within his authority to protect the American people” and has “lots of tools at his disposal.”
“We haven’t used them all, and we’re looking at ways to protect the American people,” Gidley said during an appearance on Fox News’s “Fox & Friends.”
His interview took place amid a series of tweets from Trump, including some that suggested new actions to crack down on illegal immigration.
“All people that are illegally coming into the United States now will be removed from our Country at a later date as we build up our removal forces and as the laws are changed,” Trump said in one tweet. “Please do not make yourselves too comfortable, you will be leaving soon!”
In another, Trump said “bad ‘hombres’” were being detained and would be “sent home.”
His tweets followed a Rose Garden speech on Thursday about a new immigration plan that opened him to criticism from conservatives for not pressing a harder line.
The new White House proposal seeks to prioritize the admission to the United States of high-skilled workers over those with family members who are U.S. citizens, but it does not change the net level of green cards allocated each year.
The proposal sidestepped some major components of the nation’s immigration system that can be far more complex and controversial to resolve, such as the fate of the estimated 11 million immigrants without legal status and visas for temporary, low-skilled workers — issues that have divided the Republican Party and pit the business community against labor unions.
In a sign of sensitivity to criticisms from immigration hard-liners, The Post reported Thursday that Trump’s advisers are looking at measures behind the scenes such as the Insurrection Act, an arcane law that allows the president to employ the military to combat lawlessness or rebellion, to remove illegal immigrants.
The idea of using the law was first reported by the Daily Caller, a conservative news outlet, after Trump finished his speech Thursday afternoon.
Such a plan would involve deployment of the National Guard and cooperation of governors who might not be inclined to go along with Trump’s order.
Seung Min Kim, Josh Dawsey and David Nakamura contributed to this report.
*********************************
Sounds like the “brainchild” of Stephen Miller!
Nothing brings cowardly nativists to their knees more quickly than hordes of unarmed, desperate migrants seeking to exercise their legal and human rights! The Trump Administration might be “rattling the sword” with Iran, but truth is that they are scared of their own shadows. Race-baiting and threatening the weakest, most vulnerable, and defenseless among us are about the only things they know how to do.
These marriages are arranged to provide the alien spouses with a basis for obtaining visas they can use to enter the United States as lawful permanent residents, leaving young girls trapped in marriages that have been described as a form of slavery.
USCIS, however, will not approve the petition if the beneficiary or the petitioner was not old enough to marry under the laws of the place where the marriage was performed, or a marriage at that age violates the public policy of the American state in which the couple intends to reside.
Most states do not have a minimum age for marriageif the child has parental or judicial consent, but USCIS admittedat a Committee staff briefing that visa petitioners do not have to prove parental or judicial consent. However, the instructions for a fiancé petition require evidence that the couple met in-person within the last two years, unless doing so violates religious customs or social practices.
Delaware and New Jersey are the only statesthat prohibit marriage for anyone under the age of 18 with no exceptions.
The United Nations Population Fundsays that child marriage is a human rights violation. It threatens girls’ lives and health, and it limits their future prospects. Girls who marry while they are still children often become pregnant while still adolescents, which increases the risk of complications in pregnancy and childbirth. This is the leading cause of death for older adolescent girls.
Go on over to The Hill at one of the links for the complete article.
While so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” might remain elusive, there are some “quick bipartisan fixes” like this that 1) address important issues; and 2) could get folks together and thereby form a basis for later cooperation on a bigger agenda. I’m also delighted to focus on something OTW (“other than wall”) these days. Thanks, Nolan!
Trump administration scandals surely must be examined by the new Democratic-controlled House, which intends to take its constitutional obligations seriously, in contrast with the GOP House majority. But congressional oversight should be about more than scandals: Equally important is to probe the policy disasters (as numerous as the ethical lapses), both to hold the executive branch accountable and to help formulate appropriate legislation. The border situation is a prime example.
A day after U.S. agents fired tear gas to repel migrants breaking through the border fence in Southern California, Homeland Security officials defended the use of force and their decision to close the country’s busiest port of entry, saying they expect additional confrontations and shutdowns.
Facing dismal conditions in Mexico and long waits for the chance to request asylum in the United States, thousands of Central American migrants are becoming more agitated, and officials see no quick resolution to the tensions that erupted Sunday. …
On Monday, critics of the Trump administration denounced border agents’ use of force on groups that included families with children, but U.S. officials praised what they called “quick and effective action” against crowds of stone-slinging young men who pried open the border fence at multiple locations to squeeze through.
Like the family separation debacle, this is a crisis of the Trump administration’s own making. Sending the military (with threats to use force on civilians), threatening to “close the border” and attempting to issue a blanket denial of asylum (halted by the courts) have all created a sense of panic:
The migrants who participated in Sunday’s border rush were a minority among the 5,000 or so Central Americans who have arrived in caravan groups to Tijuana in recent weeks hoping to enter the United States. Critics of the administration’s hard-line response have insisted that members of the caravan groups would exercise their legal right to seek asylum at U.S. border crossings. But with more than 4,000 people on a wait list to approach the border crossing, and U.S. immigration authorities insisting that they have the capacity to process just 60 to 100 asylum seekers per day, frustration has been welling at the camp where migrants are sleeping in tents and enduring long lines for food.
Instead of sending troops and making unconstitutional threats, the Trump administration should be dispatching an army of judges to consider the asylum applications — and working with Central American governments to address the conditions that force their citizens to flee.
Rather than accept responsibility for their own bad decision-making, the Trump administration falsely accuses the Obama administration of practicing the same inhumane family separation policy. (The Post’s fact checkers find: “It’s not the first time [President] Trump tries to minimize the scope of his family separations at the border by claiming that President Barack Obama had the same policy. This claim and its variations have been roundly debunked. We gave them Four Pinocchios in June. … There is simply no comparison between Trump’s family separation policy and the border enforcement actions taken by the Obama and George W. Bush administrations.”)
‘We come in peace’: Central American migrants’ uncertain future
That Trump would blame Democrats for not fixing the border problem at a time Republicans control the White House and both houses of Congress is laughable. As Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) pointed out this weekend, Trump “gut punched” a bipartisan effort to combine border security with relief for “dreamers.” (“We have tried to negotiate with him but he won’t take yes for an answer,” she said on ABC’s “This Week.” “You look at this, we tried to negotiate on the dreamers, and that was led by reasonable Republicans Mike Rounds, a senator from South Dakota, and Johnny Isakson, the senator from Georgia. I was in that group, a small group of us that were working to find a way out with border money as well as making sure that we protected the dreamers, something a vast majority of Americans supported.”)
A full congressional investigation is essential to answer the most basic questions:
Who issued the zero-tolerance policy, and who approved it?
What discussion/consideration of the ensuing family separations was undertaken?
What basis is there for the administration’s assertions that there are “Middle Eastern” people and criminals in the caravan? (“It has almost nothing but supposition to show the public. Many of the caravan members are women and children fleeing violence in their home countries or seeking economic opportunity in the United States. They hardly fit Trump’s description of ‘very tough people’ rushing the border.”)
Where are the “stone-cold criminals” Trump keeps claiming are part of the caravan, and why wouldn’t they be rejected through the normal asylum evaluation process?
Against whom did U.S. agents lob tear gas?
Aside from debunking a host of false claims by the Trump administration and anti-immigrant zealots, the hearings ideally should produce legislation that at a bare minimum permanently bans family separations, allocates funds for border security and for immigration judges (even Sen. Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican, supports that), gives protection to the dreamers and supports aid to Central American countries from which migrants are fleeing.
In short, Congress needs to do its job, instead of acting as a cheerleader for Trump’s racist, hysterical rhetoric.
I’ve been saying this for a long time! There has been no accountability for anything under the GOP. including unwarranted deficits, high-level corruption (starting with the White House and the Trump family), and total waste of taxpayer money.
And, it’s not too late to hold corrupt White Nationalist scofflaw Jeff Sessions accountable for his gross abuses of his office, of our Constitution, and his crimes against humanity. How about some accountability for the evil racist anti-American subversive Stephen Miller? Also, don’t forget airhead sycophant Nielsen and her DHS underlings who mindlessly mouth Trump lies by blaming the Federal Courts, Democrats, and, most despicably, the victims for the messes that their own cruel incompetence and mockery of the rule of law has created!
