"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.
I just learned the other day about these Unit Chief IJ positions. They are apparently meant to undermine the IJ’s union by creating more management-level IJs (along with the Appellate Immigration Judges) who can’t join the union, and also to create yet another layer of bureaucracy, with the unit chiefs now sitting between the rank-and-file IJs and their ACIJs.
**********
Yet more layers of bureaucracy in Garland’s failed and dysfunctional “courts!” Where’s the oversight from Dems of Garland’s failed DOJ?
Garland needs “Unit Chief IJs” like a hole in the head! Whoever heard of such nonsense in a “real” court system? End the wasteful, bloated, incompetent bureaucracy @ EOIR! What we need is progressive, independent judges driven by due process and fairness for all!
Due Process Forever!
PWS
04-27-21
Addendum:
Another source described the Unit Immigration Judge as not a another layer of supervision but rather a “sitting IJ” who would supervise law clerks and legal assistants while reporting to an ACIJ. In any event, it’s obviously a gimmick to keep some new IJ hires from becoming eligible to join the NAIJ. It also appears to be a yet another “holdover scheme” from the deposed Director McHenry.
The lack of attention to the ungodly mess at EOIR from Team Garland and the Biden folks is appalling!
“Watch out! I hear that magamoron ‘Larry the K’ wants US for his new brewery. And I don’t think it’s to be ‘spokescattle’ for his new brew.” Black Angus PHOTO: Steph67 Creative Commons License
Martin Pengelly in The Guardian:
. . . .
“OK, got that? No burgers on 4 July. No steaks on the barbecue … So get ready. You can throw back a plant-based beer with your grilled Brussels sprouts and wave your American flag.”
Beer is typically made from grains, hops and yeast – not steak, sausages or chops.
Amid a blizzard of lacerating social media send-ups, the New York Times columnist Paul Krugman offered a sober analysis of what Kudlow was up to.
“So this seems to be the latest rightwing attempt to smear Bidenomics,” he wrote on Saturday. “There is, of course, nothing about eliminating meat in Biden’s plans; so this is like the imaginary mobs that burned our cities to the ground.
“If you read what Kudlow actually said, he’s cagey – doesn’t say that Biden proposed this, only that some people say this is what would happen. But Fox viewers won’t notice, which is the intention.
. . . .
****************
I’m about to quaff one of these, Larry!
“Perhaps this was the ‘cow’ Larry the K was talking about! Stop by on July 4 for a few plant-based brats and down some ‘meat-free brewskies,’ Larry! It will be a good ol’ Wisconsin time! Spotted Cow From New Glarus Brewing New Glarus, WI PHOTO: untapped.com
And despite the fact that no animals died during the brewing process, I’m looking forward to a clean crisp taste, rather than a mouthful of blood and gristle.
“Jim Crow” is still alive and well @ EOIR. To date, Judge Garland & his team seem to think that the rest of us won’t notice what’s happening in “his” Immigration Courts and how it undermines every aspect of his claim to be restoring faith in the DOJ and the American justice system. A progressively-oriented, independent, expert Immigration Judiciary is a prerequisite for finally achieving racial justice in 21st Century America. So far, Judge Garland has NOT enunciated any plan to “get there,” nor has he even publicly acknowledged the many disgraceful problems plaguing EOIR!
This article will contribute to immigration equal protection jurisprudential discussions by highlighting the way in which the plenary power in immigration equal protection cases creates a barrier parallel to the intent doctrine—both prohibit curtailment of government action resulting in racialized harm. The scant recognition of the double duty done by plenary power and the intent doctrine reflects the banality of what may appear as a mere redundancy at first glance. However, the insidiousness of the double-barrier all but ensures that equal protection challenges to facially race-neutral immigration laws with disparate impact will fail. Plenary power is effectively duplicative of the intent doctrine because the intent doctrine already results in great deference to lawmakers.
. . . .
*****************
Read the full abstract at the link.
Unquestionably, immigration jurisprudence has intentionally misread the due process and equal protection clauses to achieve racist immigration policies. Getting rid of these perversions — analogous to the legal and judicial gobbledegook used by White men to make the 14th and 15th Amendments (and to a large extent, the 13th Amendment) “dead letters” for African Americans following Reconstruction — isn’t a matter of complicated legal thinking. It’s a matter of better Federal Judges and better legislators. And, the mess @EOIR — our Immigration “Courts” — is the best and most logical place to begin the long overdue task of instituting constitutional compliance and equal justice for all.
To date, Judge Garland’s failure to demonstrate a commitment to eliminating unconstitutional racism and misogyny (not to mention poor quality decision-making which also disproportionately affects individuals and communities of color) in his Immigration “Courts” threatens to destroy our legal system and “kneecap” American democracy.
We are in the perilous position we are today because past Administrations, to the extent they have even tried to address systemic racism (obviously, the Trump Administration sought the exact opposite —to deepen, protect, and promote racism and hate), have intentionally or negligently ignored the clear link between immigration law and racism in the rest of our legal system.
Judge Garland & Secretary Mayorkas continue to abuse asylum seekers at the Southern Border & in the U.S. Albrecht Dürer, Public Domain, via Wikimedia CommonsKevin Sieff Latin American Correspondent, Washington Post
MATAMOROS, Mexico — Carolina had memorized the date, but she triple-checked her documents just to make sure. For months, her life had revolved around the court hearing at which she could finally make her asylum claim.
Like tens of thousands of asylum seekers who reached the U.S. border during the Trump administration, the 36-year-old from Honduras had been sent to wait in Mexico for her immigration hearing. She was told to return to the border on her court date.
So on Feb. 26, 2020, she woke up early and put on her best blouse. She said a short prayer. But not long after her bus left for Laredo, Tex., gunmen stopped the vehicle. They kidnapped Carolina and her 15-year-old daughter, took them to a stash house packed with other kidnapped migrants and demanded thousands of dollars in ransom.
By the time they were released a few days later, Carolina had missed her day in court.
Her asylum case, it turned out, had been closed in absentia because she hadn’t shown up. Of the 68,000 asylum cases processed under the Trump-era Migrant Protection Protocols, the policy also know as “Remain in Mexico,” 28,000 were closed for the same reason: Because asylum seekers didn’t present themselves.
. . . .
“MPP deprived people of due process and fundamental fairness,” she said. “In order to restore access to asylum in a meaningful way, the Biden administration needs to reopen cases for people ordered removed under MPP and allow them to pursue their claims safely from within the United States.”
************************************
Read Kevin’s full article at the link.
The last statement, from Haiyun Damon-Feng, the director of the Adelante Pro Bono Project and assistant director of the William H. Gates Public Service Law Program at the University of Washington School of Law, sums it up. It’s not rocket science! It’s basic “Con Law 101” with some common sense and human decency thrown in! It’s also an essential part of the Biden Administration fulfilling basic campaign promises! Folks like Damon-Feng are the ones who should be running this system, solving the problems, and reconstructing the legal asylum system!
In what kind of “court” system are kidnapped individuals, some of them minors and children, further penalized and the Government allowed to get away with not keeping accurate addresses of individuals in their process and of knowingly sending them into danger zones? The victims remain in limbo and suffering while the perpetrators of these illegal outages — both current and former government officials — have not been held accountable. This is a national disgrace compounded by the fact that neither Judge Garland nor Secretary Mayorkas have taken corrective actions. Nor have they cleaned out the deadwood from their own legally and morally bankrupt systems and put competent individuals in charge!
Qualified Immigration Judges and competent administrators at the DOJ and DHS could have started solving these problems beginning the day after the inauguration. That 100 days into the Biden Administration this system is still operating illegally and taking a human toll is both a betrayal of campaign promises and an abuse of humanity! It’s also horrible and clearly illegal policy!
How does an Administration that is actively engaged in “Dred Scottifying” people of color at the border and in their wholly owned Immigration “Courts” — actually modern day “Star Chambers” — have any “legitimate voice” on racial justice in America?
“Justice” Star Chamber Style
🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever! Human lives matter! The Constitution matters! Asylum law matters!
Professor Erin Barbato Director, Immigrant Justice Clinic UW Law Photo source: UW Law
ARD, BARBATO, AND COLLINS NAMED UW LAW SCHOOL TEACHERS OF THE YEAR
Each spring, UW Law School celebrates excellence in teaching through its Teacher of the Year awards. UW Law School’s annual teaching awards demonstrate the value placed on excellent teaching. Our faculty engage and inspire UW Law students through thoughtful pedagogy, and we are proud to honor them for this important work.
The honorees for outstanding classroom, clinical and adjunct instruction in 2020 include:
BJ Ard, Classroom Teacher of the Year. BJ Ard is an Assistant Professor of Law whose teaching and scholarship focusing on intellectual property, privacy, and technology. Ard earned his law degree and doctorate from Yale in 2017. He joined the UW Law School in 2018.
Erin M. Barbato, Clinical Teacher of the Year. Barbato is the director of UW Law School’s Immigrant Justice Clinic (IJC) and a Clinical Professor of Law. In 2013, she joined the Law School as an adjunct professor with a focus on immigration law before becoming the IJC director in 2018. Under her supervision, students learn how to represent individuals in removal proceedings and with humanitarian-based immigration relief. Barbato received her law degree from Marquette University Law School in 2006.
Susan Collins, Adjunct Teacher of the Year. Collins teaches an introduction for estate planning and drafting. Collins earned her law degree in 1995, graduating cum laude from UW Law. Collins worked for Associated Bank as a senior vice president and fiduciary law senior counsel until 2018.
Congratulations, Erin, my friend and colleague So very proud of you and all you have achieved at my alma mater. “Badgers changing the world, for the better!”
Bucky Badger UW Mascot
This is a “Big Deal!” As Erin tells me:
The award is based on votes and comments from students. It means a lot to me as I think it reflects that the students of UW Law recognize the importance of representing people in removal proceedings. They are future due process warriors.
Erin has been an inspirational role model for a new generation of law students, taking groups to the border to save lives, engaging in “retail level” litigation in Immigration Court that advances justice in the most meaningful way possible, and publicizing the seminal role that immigrant justice plays in social justice in America. She is also a thinker and scholar who sees due process, human rights, and racial justice issues with a clarity lacking in all too many of today’s out of touch politicians, policy makers, and judges.
Erin also was a guest lecturer in my Immigration Law & Policy course course at Georgetown Law. Her “stories and pictures from the border” brought home to my students the gross violations of human and constitutional rights going on in our dysfunctional Immigration Courts on a daily basis.
Erin is one of the many “practical scholars” out there who should be “on the inside” at EOIR, DHS, and the Article III Courts!
Suzanne Monyak Senior Reporter, Immigration
Hon. Susan G. Roy Law Office of Susan G. Roy, LLC Princeton Junction, NJ Member, Round Table of Former Immigration JudgesKnightess of the Round Table
Garland has yet to indicate whether he will rescind several decisions penned by attorneys general under the previous administration. In the last four years, Trump officials limited asylum eligibility for those fleeing violence by private actors, like gang members and domestic partners, and immigration judges’ ability to maintain their own dockets.
“There’s no reason that Attorney General Garland hasn’t done a thorough review of the attorney general certifications from the last administration,” said Susan Roy, a former immigration judge. “He should rescind any of them which he can. He has the authority to do that.”
. . . .
The Biden administration has also inherited a lengthy immigration court backlog — containing roughly 1.3 million cases — that have kept immigrants facing deportation and asylum-seekers waiting years for decisions in their cases.
The Biden administration has recognized that immigration judges may be key to processing these claims quickly and efficiently. In a preview of its budget request released earlier this month, the White House proposed increasing funding for the Justice Department’s immigration court agency from $734 million to $891 million to hire 100 new immigration judges.
Immigrant advocates and former judges say freeing the immigration court system from political influences is also critical to this effort.
“Without a union, there’s no way to protect judges against political ideologies of a given administration,” Roy said.
While judicial independence has “always been a concern” with a court system housed within a federal agency, “rarely has that been as problematic as it was under the Trump administration,” she said.
. . . .
Some advocates also want to see immigration courts be removed entirely from the DOJ and made an independent court system. The issue is on the agenda for the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s virtual “day of action” on April 22.
Roy, the incoming chair of AILA’s New Jersey chapter, acknowledged that Garland faces a number of competing priorities outside of the immigration courts. But she urged the administration against letting the system fall to the wayside.
“The immigration court is a subject that needs immediate attention,” she said. “Otherwise, it’s going to collapse under its own weight.”
**************
Thanks, Sue!
Today’s Immigration Courts, hotbeds of inefficiency, worst practices, racial bias, misogyny, and unnecessary backlogs, undermine everything that Biden and Harris campaigned on. They also make Judge Garland’s pledge to return justice and independenceto the Department of Justice look like a farce.
You simply can’t be responsible for something as totally broken, biased, and due process denying as the current Immigration Courts and have ANY shred of credibility on racial justice, independence, and “good government!”
“Eyore In Distress” “Why won’t Judge Garland help me get back on my feet? I”m so tired of being ‘belly up!’”“We were waiting for Judge Garland to free us from this chamber designed by Sessions, Miller, and Barr? Why is Garland diddling as we suffer and die?” Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Judge Garland’s concept of “justice” for refugee women and people of color seems a little out of touch — anti-asylum, misogynistic, anti-due process, xenophobic, racially charged precedents remain in place; regressive, unqualified judges on the bench; “worst practices” continue to flourish; 1.3 million case backlog builds; & He hasn’t spoken to the naij:
Woman Being “Tried By Ordeal”
17th Century Woodcut
Public Realm
Source: Ancient Origins Website
https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160
Woman Being “Tried By Ordeal” 17th Century Woodcut Public Realm Source: Ancient Origins Website https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160He doesn’t look like Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions or “Billy the Bigot” Barr, but does he think like them? Or does he just not care about the lives of people of color at the border and in his Immigration “Courts” that aren’t “courts” at all by any Constitutional or rational standard? Has he ever studied “The St. Louis Incident?” He’s basically repeating it! Official White House Photo Public Realm
America has a not so good history of dealing with climate migration. “Migrant Mom” PHOTO BY: Dorothea Lange Public Realm
Kristin Hannah’s latest novel “The Four Winds” centers on the ordeal of a single Mom struggling to save her family during the “Great Migration” of the 1930’s. PHOTO:WashPost.com
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
Today, Earth Day, Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, and the University Network for Human Rights released an important White Paper on the issue of climate displacement and its intersection with U.S. immigration laws, including the law of asylum. The report, Shelter from the Storm: Policy Options to Address Climate Induced Migration from the Northern Triangle, is both a call to action by the Biden Administration, and a tribute to the adaptability of international refugee law to address a vast array of serious discriminatory harms, including those related to climate change.
Seventy years after its enactment, the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees has demonstrated its ability to provide protection to victims of domestic violence, female genital cutting, coercive family planning policies, and violence from third-generation gangs, which function in some areas as de facto governments. It has provided status to those targeted because of their sexual orientation or sexual identity. It has served to afford protection to those suffering from physical or mental illnesses or disabilities.
Attention is now turning to those displaced by climate change. The Biden Administration has issued two Executive Orders devoted to the issue of climate change within days of taking office. The second of those, issued on February 4, included the topic of “planning for the impact of climate change on migration.” Section 6 of the order requires the issuance of a report on the topic within 180 days.
To present, the U.S. has responded in some instances to rapid onset climate events such as hurricanes and earthquakes by designating impacted countries for Temporary Protected Status. One of the interesting points raised in the White Paper involves the ordinarily overlooked issue of displacement caused by slow onset climate events. These include desertification, rising sea levels, salinization of farmland, and shifts in precipitation patterns. The issue lends itself to being addressed through an array of legal responses (such as TPS, Deferred Enforced Departure, humanitarian parole, and even the creation of a new climate visa), and the White Paper explains how each of these legal avenues can be employed to provide protection to those displaced by such events. But the White Paper’s discussion of the idea of analyzing some forms of climate-related harm under our asylum laws is particularly intriguing.
Development of the intellectual groundwork for climate change-based refugee law analysis is underway at the international level. As the White Paper notes, in October 2020, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees issued an important document setting forth “legal considerations regarding claims for international protections made in the context of the adverse effects of climate change and disasters.” This follows the 2020 publication of Matthew Scott’s Climate Change, Disasters, and the Refugee Convention, the first full-length treatise on the topic.
It is important to recognize that asylum is not a cure for all harms that arise in the world. As in the other examples cited above, asylum responds to serious human rights violations from which the state cannot or will not protect that discriminate based on the fundamental characteristics of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. As one scholar has stated, “international standards generally require that the harm be severe and related to a core right as understood under evolving human rights norms.”1 But “the evaluation of persecution requires a universal but flexible standard, capable of evolving and responding to changing conditions and international norms.”2
In the climate change context, governments undertake projects that impact climate issues such as the availability of water, or the contamination of air or farmland, that may benefit one segment of the population at the expense of another. Governments also make politicized decisions whether to address slow-onset climate change (which may include decisions regarding whether to regulate non-state industries engaging in business activities with environmental consequences), and in the speed and scope of their relief efforts on behalf of victims of climate-related disasters. Where these decisions particularly impact a segment of the population in a severe way on account of one of the five statutorily protected grounds, the result may constitute persecution protected under our asylum law. While the impact of these policies may cause serious harm standing alone, it may alternatively serve as the “last straw” in triggering flight where the climate change factors accelerated the degree of harm already suffered on account of a protected ground such as gender or indigenous status.3
Furthermore, a government’s punishment of outspoken critics of its climate change policies or lack of adequate response to a disaster may constitute persecution on account of a political opinion, as that term is defined for asylum purposes.4
Climate change could also play a more indirect but still important role in asylum determinations. For example, an asylum applicant who has established a well-founded fear of persecution must also demonstrate that they could not evade persecution through internal relocation within their home country, provided such relocation would be reasonable under all of the circumstances.5 But in its October 2020 Legal Considerations, UNHCR cautions at paragraph 12 that the progressive effect of slow-onset climate change spreading throughout a country may make relocation “neither relevant nor reasonable.”6 Furthermore, where an applicant who has suffered past persecution is shown to have no future fear due to changed conditions, a grant of humanitarian asylum may be merited where the asylum applicant establishes a reasonable possibility of facing “other serious harm” upon return.7 Harm resulting upon return from climate change should arguably constitute “other serious harm” sufficient to meet this standard.8
The White Paper explains that the Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras are particularly vulnerable to climate change issues, and that the U.S. bears some responsibility for this fact through its high levels of greenhouse emissions and its historical policies in Central America.9 In the 1980s and 90s, the B.I.A. engaged in logical contortions to avoid providing those fleeing civil wars in the Northern Triangle with the asylum protections it willingly extended to those fleeing similar conditions in other parts of the world.10 And more recently, refugees from violence from third-generation gangs and domestic violence in the region have suffered setbacks to refugee protection through similarly bad precedent decisions of the Attorneys General and the B.I.A.11
As the international community addresses the question of refugee determinations involving factors relating to climate change, it is possible for the U.S. to be at the forefront. Hopefully, today’s White Paper will provide the present administration with useful guidance towards that goal.
This report was coordinated and written by teams from the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program (HIRC) and the HLS Immigration Project (HIP) at Harvard Law School (collectively “Harvard”) and the University Network for Human Rights, Yale Immigrant Justice Project, and Yale Environmental Law Association (collectively “University Network/Yale”). The coordinators/authors from Harvard were John Willshire Carrera and Deborah Anker. The coordinators/authors from University Network/Yale were Camila Bustos and Thomas Becker. I am greatly honored to be listed as a co-author for my work with the Harvard team.
The following fellows participated in researching and drafting the report: Yong Ho Song (Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Fellow at Greater Boston Legal Services) and Fabiola Alvelais (Harvard Law School Henigson Human Rights Fellow and University Network for Human Rights Fellow).
The following Harvard students participated in researching and drafting the report: Rachel Landry (HIRC), Grant Charness (HIRC), Justin Bogda (HIRC), Regina Paparo (HIRC), Mira Nasser (HIRC), Lily Cohen (HIRC), Kira Hessekiel (HIRC), Nicholas Dantzler (HIRC), Shaza Loutfi (HIRC), Ariel Sarandinaki (HIRC), Gabrielle Kim (HIRC), Katie Quigley (HIP), Gina Starfield (HIP).
The following students supervised by and in coordination with University Network for Human Rights participated in researching and drafting the report: Natasha Brunstein (Yale), Alisa White (Yale), Aaron Troncoso (Yale), Rubin Danberg Biggs (Yale), Ram Dolom (Yale), A.J. Hudson (Yale), Rekha Kennedy (Yale), Liz Jacob (Yale), Eleanor Runde (Yale), Eric Eisner (Yale), Juan Luna Leon (Yale), Karen Sung (Yale), Abby Sodie (Wesleyan), Ericka Ekhator (Wesleyan), Gabrielle Ouellette (Wesleyan), Jesse de la Bastide (Wesleyan), Stella Ramsey (Wesleyan), and Luis Martinez (Vanderbilt).
The report was edited by: Sabrineh Ardalan, James Cavallaro, Nancy Kelly, Ruhan Nagra, Gina Starfield, Katie Quigley, and Cindy Zapata.
Notes:
Deborah E. Anker, The Law of Asylum in the United States (2020 Ed.) (Thomson Reuters) at § 4.4.
Id. at § 4.3.
White Paper at 35.
Id. at 35.
8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B).
White Paper at 36-37.
8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(i)(C).
See White Paper at 33; Matter of L-S-, 25 I&N Dec. 705, 714 (BIA 2012) (holding that “other serious harm” requires no nexus to a protected ground, and can be found in “situations where the claimant could experience severe mental or emotional harm or physical injury.”
White Paper at 4.
See, e.g., Matter of Maldonado-Cruz, 19 I&N Dec. 509 (BIA 1988); and cf., e.g. Matter of Vigil, 19 I&N Dec. 572 (BIA 1987) with Matter of Salim, 18 I&N Dec. 311 (BIA 1982)
See, e.g., Matter of A-B-, 28 I&N Dec. 28 I&N Dec. 199 (A.G. 2021); Matter of A-C-A-A-, 28 I&N Dec. 84 (A.G. 2020); Matter of E-R-A-L-, 27 I&N Dec. 767 (BIA 2020); Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 581 (A.G. 2019); Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018); Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2017); Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 227 (BIA 2014); Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I&NM Dec. 208 (BIA 2014).
Copyright 2021 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
Republished by permission.
*******************
Such important work! These are the folks who should be running Government policy, not just writing “White Papers,” no matter how brilliant.
In this NBC News video from yesterday, Hallie Jackson highlights upper class “climate migrants” already relocating from places like the Georgia coast to Asheville, NC, to insulate themselves from the worst effects of ongoing climate change and global warming. Things are going to get much more serious when Bangladesh and other sea-level nations and island nations (e.g., Indonesia) start going under water. Probably not so good for Florida either!
Hallie Jackson NBC News Correspondent PHOTO: Sharealike, Creative Commons license
TRUTH IS UGLY — The Biden Administration’s concept of “racial justice” for brown-skinned asylum seekers at the border conflicts with their post-Chauvin-trial rhetoric. (AP Photo/Julia Le Duc)
From Human Rights First:
Yesterday, Human Rights First welcomed news of former police officer Derek Chauvin’s conviction for murdering George Floyd.
“Accountability is only a first step toward justice,” said President and CEO Michael Breen. “Bringing true justice demands something deeper – a reckoning on race in America that has been a long time coming and must continue until systemic racism is eliminated.”
Yesterday also saw the release of our new report, “Failure to Protect,” which outlines how the Biden administration’s expulsions are endangering the lives of asylum seekers and causing a new wave of family separation.
From welcoming refugees at the southern border to the withdrawing American troops from Afghanistan, we urged the Biden administration to put human rights first in policy and in action.
We also opened registration for our Spring Social, taking place on June 3.
REPORTING FROM THE SOUTHERN BORDER
Human Rights First, Haitian Bridge Alliance, and Al Otro Lado released a new report on Tuesday, “Failure to Protect,” on the Biden administration’s continued use of Title 42, the illegal Trump-era policy that endangers asylum seekers.
Despite his pledge to reverse former President Trump’s cruel approach to migration and the border, President Biden is continuing a policy that endangers children, drives family separation, and illegally expels asylum seekers to danger, including many Black & LGBTQ refugees who endure bias-motivated violence in Mexico.
Our report identifies at least 492 public and media reports of violent attacks since January 21, 2021 – including rape, kidnapping and assault – against people blocked from requesting asylum protection at the U.S.-Mexico border and/or expelled to Mexico.
To commemorate the Chauvin verdict, the Biden Administration decides to extend the abuse of migrants’ humanity and dehumanization of people of color at our borders:
Don’t kid yourself: Steven Miller’s cruel, scofflaw policies still “rule” at our borders. You don’t have to look very far for institutionalized racism in the Federal “justice” system.
Debi Sanders ESQ “Warrior Queen” of the NDPA PHOTO: law.uva.edu
Debi Sanders, who was nominated for Catholic Charities USA Volunteer of the Year. Since her retirement from Immigration Legal Services (ILS) in April 2014, Sanders has continued to demonstrate a commitment to fairness in the immigration system as an ongoing volunteer with ILS. She was instrumental in setting up a robust pro bono program and establishing the immigration program’s partnership with the Family Justice Center in Rockville. Her volunteer efforts have been essential to ILS’s fundraising efforts, as she has secured donations from an extensive network of supporters. Her spirit of giving shows in other ways, as well. She knits sweaters, blankets and scarfs for ILS staff, volunteers and interns, and she has had been a mentor for many ILS interns.
*****************
Congratulations, my friend and colleague!😎👍🏼
This only scratches the surface of Debi’s contributions to due process and humanity: Helping to identify, inspire, and recommend diverse progressive judicial, candidates for both the Article III Courts and the Immigration Courts; locating pro bono counsel for amicus briefs; supporting and fund-raising for progressive political candidates with social justice platforms; strategizing pro bono litigation; being part of the NDPA “brain trust;” reinforcing the Judeo-Christian ethical commitment to immigrants and the most vulnerable among us are just a few of the other ways in which Debi contributes to the never ending battle for social and racial justice in America!
It’s an honor to know you and have you for a friend, Deb! I feel like we “grew up together” — from my INS General Counsel days, to private practice/AILA, to the BIA, to the Arlington Immigration Court, and into “retirement” with the NDPA! Deb has always been there! When I was the “Mentor Judge” @ Arlington, Deb was a “regular” at our “career day brown bag” for JLCs and interns! They were always inspired by her career example — “living your values in the law,” as one intern described it! She truly has been, and continues to be, a courageous role model for new and aspiring attorneys!
Opinion: The unjust nature of civil court without counsel
Erica Starkey, from Columbus, Ohio, did not have the assistance of a lawyer in a legal battle for custody of two of her children. (Maddie McGarvey/For The Washington Post)
Erica Starkey’s story exposes the unjust nature of civil court proceedings for people who cannot afford counsel. People facing deportation also face a similar “affront to justice” as immigration cases are also civil proceedings. The majority of people in detention (70 percent) have no legal representation because people facing deportation do not have the right to a public defender, leaving them to navigate an unjust legal system alone. As a result, many immigrants languish in detention facilities for months or even years, often in inhumane and deadly conditions.
We have seen leaders in communities as diverse as Philadelphia, Denver and Harris County, Tex., collaborate with advocates and lawyers to create and expand deportation defense programs that secure due process rights for all. Together with existing representation programs, these efforts that center fairness and dignity have paved the way for a federal defender system for all immigrants. This critical work must continue across all levels of government to undo the radiating impacts of continued criminalization, mass detention, and separation and deportation of immigrants, and advance a new vision of justice for our communities.
Kica Matos, New York
The writer is vice president of initiatives at the Vera Institute of Justice.
*******************
“Are you ready to proceed without a lawyer, sir?”
Attorney General Merrick Garland announced with great fanfare plans to investigate the Minneapolis Police Department.
Seems quite hypocriticalgiven the glaring lack of constitutional due process, institutionalized xenophobia, racism, misogyny, and incompetence infecting his own Immigration Courts.
How is a Department that has failed to address systematic injustice in its own dysfunctional and unfair “courts” going to credibly address problems in the rest of our American Justice system?
Due Process Forever! Tell Judge Garland To Fix His Unjust “Courts” @ Justice!
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: Unless previously specified on the court status list, hearings in non-detained cases at courts are postponed through, and including, May 14, 2021. (It is unclear when the next announcement will be. EOIR announced 5/14 on Mon. 3/29, 4/16 on Fri. 3/5, 3/19 on Wed. 2/10, 2/19 on Mon. 1/25, 2/5 on Mon. 1/11, and 1/22 on Mon. 12/28.) There is no announced date for reopening NYC non-detained at this time.
NYT: After a backlash from Democrats and human rights activists, the White House abruptly reversed course on Friday on the number of refugees it will allow into the United States, a reflection of President Biden’s continuing struggle with immigration policy.
Politico: Top White House officials have grown increasingly frustrated with Health Secretary Xavier Becerra over his department’s sluggish effort to house thousands of unaccompanied minors, as the administration grapples with a record number of children crossing the southern border.
WaPo: The change is detailed in memos sent Monday to department heads at Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection, the nation’s chief enforcers of federal immigration laws, according to copies obtained by The Washington Post. It is part of an ongoing effort to reverse President Donald Trump’s hard-line policies and advance Biden’s efforts to build a more “humane” immigration system.
Hill: The groups are concerned that immigration authorities could be abusing the facial recognition technology to locate, arrest and even deport individuals using data that they did not consent to share.
NPR: If confirmed by the Senate, Santos, who is Latinx, would be the first permanent director of color for the federal government’s largest statistical agency, which is in charge of major surveys and the once-a-decade head count used for distributing political representation and funding around the United States.
Documented: Interviews with local advocates and city data indicate that homelessness is rising locally and citywide, as the most marginalized residents struggle to recover from the pandemic.
Reuters: U.S. Supreme Court justices on Monday appeared reluctant to let people who have been allowed to stay in the United States on humanitarian grounds apply to become permanent residents if they entered the country illegally.
Reuters: A Canadian appeals court on Thursday upheld a Canada-U.S. agreement to turn back asylum seekers, overturning a lower court ruling, siding with the federal government and setting up a possible Supreme Court showdown.
Unpublished BIA decision reopens and terminates proceedings sua sponte upon finding selling a precursor substance (pseudoephedrine) under Okla. Stat. 2-328 is not a controlled substance offense under Mellouli v. Lynch. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Nguyen, 7/9/20) AILA Doc. No. 21041400
Unpublished BIA decision holds that criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree under N.Y.P.L. 265.03(3) is not a firearms offense because it applies to loaded antique firearms. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Disla, 6/26/20) AILA Doc. No. 21041200
Unpublished BIA decision holds that a defendant’s failure to understand the immigration consequences of a guilty plea is a substantive and/or procedural defect that vitiates a conviction for immigration purposes. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Jaimes, 7/24/20) AILA Doc. No. 21041900
Unpublished BIA decision grants interlocutory appeal and remands for further consideration of unopposed motion to change venue from Atlanta to Seattle. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Miranda-Rodriguez, 7/28/20) AILA Doc. No. 21041901
Unpublished BIA decision holds intimidation of a witness under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 268, §13B is not a CIMT because it can be committed recklessly. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Mendoza-Lopez, 7/22/20) AILA Doc. No. 21041602
Unpublished BIA decision finds respondent is entitled to hearing on non-LPR cancellation despite lack of qualifying relative because IJ unduly delayed adjudicating application until respondent’s U.S. citizen child was over 21. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Martinez-Perez, 7/22/20) AILA Doc. No. 21041601
Unpublished BIA decision orders further consideration of request for continuance pending adjudication of U visa petition where IJ failed to adequately consider factors under Matter of Sanchez Sosa. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Delgado-Sarmiento, 7/21/20) AILA Doc. No. 21041600
The BIA ruled that an IJ may rely on material misrepresentation during an interview before USCIS to remove the conditional basis of permanent residence in assessing inadmissibility under INA §212(A)(6)(C)(i) for purposes of adjustment of status. Matter of Mensah, 28 I&N Dec. 288 (BIA 2021) AILA Doc. No. 21041434
Unpublished BIA decision rescinds in absentia order where respondent filed motion within 15 days and submitted affidavit disavowing receipt of hearing notice. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Suilma-Andrade, 7/9/20) AILA Doc. No. 21041402
Unpublished BIA decision holds unlawful possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) under Colo. Rev. Stat. 18-18-403.5 not a controlled substance offense under reasoning of Arellano v. Barr, 784 F. App’x 609 (10th Cir. 2019). Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Holod, 7/9/20) AILA Doc. No. 21041401
Unpublished BIA decision holds that the respondent did not fail to appear for his hearing where he arrived 20 minutes late and the IJ was still on the bench. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Flores-Lopez, 7/2/20) AILA Doc. No. 21041201
Law360: A split Fourth Circuit panel overturned part of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ precedential holding that former gang members may not be protected as a group from deportation, finding that the board inappropriately conflated criteria for relief under federal immigration law.
In a published order, the court denied a motion for attorneys’ fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), concluding that the government’s position was substantially justified and thus that the petitioner was not entitled to attorneys’ fees. (Meza-Vazquez v. Garland, 4/1/21) AILA Doc. No. 21041230
The court held that the BIA permissibly found that first-degree burglary of a dwelling under Oregon Revised Statutes §164.225 is a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT), and thus that petitioner’s conviction made him ineligible for cancellation of removal. (Diaz-Flores v. Garland, 4/6/21) AILA Doc. No. 21041234
Granting the petition for review of the BIA’s decision reversing an IJ’s grant of asylum, the court held that evidence compelled the conclusion that petitioner had established a nexus between her mistreatment in Mexico and her feminist political opinion. (Rodriguez Tornes v. Garland, 4/5/21) AILA Doc. No. 21041233
Denying the petition for review, the court held that the BIA properly found that petitioners, a mother and her son, were not persecuted “on account of” their alleged membership in a particular social group (PSG) consisting of the son’s immediate family. (Orellana-Recinos v. Garland, 4/5/21) AILA Doc. No. 21041235
The court held that a Florida conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm is categorically an aggravated felony under INA §101(a)(43)(E)(ii), and thus found the petitioner to be removable based on his conviction under the Florida statute. (Aspilaire v. Att’y Gen., 4/6/21) AILA Doc. No. 21041237
Granting the petition for review and remanding, the court held that the BIA erred in finding that the petitioner, a denaturalized noncitizen, was removable as an aggravated felon based on convictions entered while he was an American citizen. (Hylton v. Att’y Gen., 3/31/21) AILA Doc. No. 21041236
The court held that the IJ and the BIA failed to provide reasoned consideration of the petitioner’s evidence of his well-founded fear of future persecution based on a pattern or practice of persecution toward dissident journalists in Cuba. (Martinez v. Att’y Gen., 4/7/21) AILA Doc. No. 21041238
Oral Arguments Set for Case on Policy Silencing IJs
Knight: Status: Oral argument scheduled for May 4, 2021 at 2pm. On July 1, 2020, the Knight Institute filed a lawsuit challenging a policy of the Executive Office for Immigration Review that imposes an unconstitutional prior restraint on the speech of immigration judges.
President Biden issued a determination revising the allocations for refugee admissions for FY2021 and maintaining the refugee admissions ceiling at 15,000. The memo notes that a subsequent determination may be issued to increase admissions if the ceiling is reached before the end of the fiscal year. AILA Doc. No. 21041633
USCIS sent a letter to interagency partners stating that the 2019 Public Charge final rule is no longer in effect, and that DHS intends to partner with federal agencies, state and local governments, and nongovernmental stakeholders to ensure applicants and the public are aware of this change. AILA Doc. No. 21041632
On Facebook, DOS provided FAQs on the immigrant visa backlog, including on what DOS is doing to reduce the backlog, reapplication procedures for individuals who were refused an immigrant visa due to Presidential Proclamations 9645 and 9983, K visas, diversity visas, employment visas, and more. AILA Doc. No. 20071435
Law360: U.S. Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., reintroduced legislation on Thursday that would abolish contracts with private immigration detention centers and aim to improve conditions at facilities operated or overseen by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Check out this week’s digest of news, resources, faith reflections, and analysis of international migration and refugee protection, brought to you by the Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS).
Haga clic aquí para la versión en español de la Actualización de Política.
Last month, US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) reported more than 41,000 encounters with Hondurans along the US-Mexico border, an increase of 12,000 over the same period in 2019. Eugenio Sosa, a sociologist at the National Autonomous University in Honduras, said that pervasive violence, deep-seated corruption, lack of jobs, and the devastation of two hurricanes in November 2020 have contributed to hopelessness among Hondurans. “The people don’t go just because it’s really bad,” Sosa said. “The people go because it’s bad and because they are certain that it is going to continue to be bad and that the country has rotted forever.” The Biden administration continues to expel adults arriving at the border under Title 42, which permits immigration authorities to bar foreign nationals for public health reasons and to prevent them from seeking asylum. The policy has not stopped Hondurans from arriving at the US-Mexico border. According to Sosa, small, positive changes in Honduras would encourage some to stay in their home country.
On April 16, 2021, the White House released a memorandum reallocating the 15,000 refugee admission spots for Fiscal Year (FY) 2021.The historically low admissions ceiling was set by the Trump administration. In the early days of his presidency, Biden promised to raise the cap via a presidential determination (PD) to 125,000 for FY 2022 and a February Department of State report recommended an increase in FY 2021 to 62,500 admissions. Friday’s memo reallocated admissions but did not increase the admissions cap. After backlash from Democratic lawmakers, refugee advocates, and human rights groups, the Biden administration issued a statement saying that its memorandum opened up refugee resettlement to regions that had previously been blocked under the Trump administration. The administration said it will raise refugee admissions for the current fiscal year on May 15th. The fiscal year ends on September 30, 2021. It is uncertain what the new cap will be for FY 2021.
Scalabrini International Migration Institute (April 19, 2021)
In an interview sponsored by the Scalabrini International Migration Institute (SIMI), Fr. Marvin Ajic, c.s., reflects on the situation on the US-Mexico Border, differences between Trump- and Biden-era policies, and the important work of Casa del Migrante Nazareth in Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas, which he directs. The interview is in Spanish.
The United States government continues to deport from 200 to 500 migrants daily across its southern border under Title 42. Title 42 of the US Code gives US immigration authorities broad power to expel migrants it deems a danger of spreading COVID-19. It has severely curtailed access to asylum. Meanwhile, migrants continue to arrive at the US-Mexico border with the mistaken belief that they will be able to cross the border and receive asylum. The result is a “grim situation,” according to some immigrant advocates. Fr. Pat Murphy, Director of the Casa del Migrante Tijuana, says that US immigration authorities “keep sending more and more people under Title 42, and that means the pressure is on here in Mexico. We’re completely overwhelmed.” Tijuana’s 30 migrant shelters are all full, and approximately 2,000 migrants are camping outside a Mexican immigration facility waiting for the asylum process to resume. Fr. Murphy said that ending Title 42 and a resumption of the asylum process in Mexico would improve the situation. “All people are looking for is a chance,” he said.
The Biden administration is continuing efforts started by the Trump administration to deport about two dozen Indonesian Christians who have been living in Central New Jersey for decades. The Obama administration protected them from deportation and gave them work authorization, but the Trump administration sought to deport them. In February 2018, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order, which is still in effect but the order could be lifted any day. Advocates are surprised that the Biden administration is trying to deport the Indonesian asylum seekers because they do not fit the administration’s revised enforcement priorities. Senators Cory Booker and Robert Menendez of New Jersey along with members of the New Jersey congressional delegation submitted a letter to the Secretary of the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Alejandro Mayorkas asking that the group not be detained or deported. The letter states, “For nearly 30 years, these Christian refugees have raised families, bought homes, attended church services, and volunteered countless hours to aid neighbors. . . . These New Jerseyans exemplify the best qualities of our state. Their ability to continue living and working safely in New Jersey is critical to the well-being of their U.S. citizen children and to the benefit of their church communities and neighbors they serve.”
New policy will allow up to 90,000 workers and international graduates to obtain permanent residency.
CBC News (April 14, 2021)
Canadian Immigration Minister Marco Mendicino announced the creation of a new pathway to permanent residence for up to 90,000 foreign nationals. The program is geared toward workers and international graduates with temporary visas and in designated “essential jobs.” Minister Mendicino said, “Since COVID-19 first arrived on our shores, we have charted a course guided by one north star — that immigration is key to Canada’s short term economic recovery and long term prosperity. . . . Fundamentally, we know that by attracting and retaining the best and the brightest … we will add more jobs, growth and diversity to our economy.” To qualify as an essential worker, a foreign national must have at least one year of work experience in one of 40 health-care jobs or 95 other “essential jobs.” Some listed essential occupations include electricians, metal workers, farmworkers, cashiers, home childcare providers, and French immersion teachers. For international graduates to qualify, they must have completed an eligible Canadian post-secondary program within the last four years. Minister Mendicino hopes that the program will encourage immigrants to put down roots in the country. The application period will be from May 6, 2021 through November 5, 2021. The Canadian government will accept up to 20,000 applications from temporary workers in healthcare, 30,000 from temporary workers in essential jobs, and 40,000 from international students.
In mid-March, the Venezuelan military launched a campaign against Colombian guerrillas operating in the jungle of the western Venezuelan state of Apure. The guerrilla group, the 10th Front, became a target for interfering in the Venezuelan government’s profitable narco-trafficking business. The Venezuelan government reports that nine camps have been destroyed, 32 people arrested, and nine people killed during the offensive. Thousands of Venezuelans have fled the offensive, crossed into Colombia, and are in makeshift shelters in the border town of Arauquita. As of the beginning of April, nearly 5,000 refugees, 40 percent of them children, arrived in Arauquita. UNHCR employees are providing the refugees with tents, mattresses, hygiene kits, and face masks. Jose Miguel Vivanco, Director for Human Rights Watch’s Americas division, claims that there is “credible evidence” that the Venezuelan military carried out extrajudicial killings of three men and a woman during the offensive. The Venezuelan government, however, claims that every person killed during the offensive is a terrorist.
On March 18, 2021, the US House of Representatives passed HR 6, the American Dream and Promise Act by 228 to 197 votes. The bill proposes a pathway to citizenship for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients as well as for certain immigrant youth. In the Senate, there are two separate bills that would open a pathway to citizenship for TPS holders, DACA recipients, and certain immigrant youth. The DREAM Act would legalize DACA recipients and immigrant youth. The SECURE Act would legalize TPS beneficiaries. Each bill needs 60 votes in the Senate to pass, and thus will require bipartisan support. For 20 years, the Dream Act has been introduced in Congress, but has never become law. Although many people were excited by HR 6’s passage, many DACA recipients were not. Instead, their past experience has given them a sense of déjà vu. They are tired of the same story of a bill that progresses and does not become law. DACA recipients have been in limbo with no path to legalize. They continue to fight for a pathway to citizenship for all undocumented immigrants.
On Friday, April 16, President Biden issued a long-awaited “Memorandum for the Secretary of State on the Emergency Presidential Determination on Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2021.” The presidential determination opened up refugee admissions to regions blocked by the Trump administration but did not raise the historically low cap of 15,000 for the current fiscal year. The White House later stated it would decide on a new admissions ceiling by May 15. In this CMS essay, Susan Martin — Donald G. Herzberg Professor of International Migration Emerita for Georgetown University — outlines how the Biden administration can prepare to admit more refugees and how the United States will benefit from welcoming them.
As the Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding the Trump administration’s efforts to terminate the DACA program, CMS released a paper offering detailed estimates of DACA recipients, their economic contributions, and their deep ties to US communities. The paper, which also features testimonies of several DACA recipients, was published in CMS’s Journal on Migration and Human Security (JMHS). In this episode, Daniela Alulema — who is author of the JMHS paper, CMS’s Director of Programs, and herself a DACA recipient — describes the paper’s findings, shares the stories of the DACA recipients, and outlines potential policy directions for the DACA program.
On April 16, 2021, President Biden signed an emergency presidential determination that keeps in place the Trump administration’s historically low refugee admissions cap of 15,000 for FY 2021 but returns to allocating refugee admissions based on region. The next day the Biden administration released a statement saying it expects to increase the 2021 refugee ceiling next month but did not specify the number. In February 2021, President Biden proposed welcoming 62,500 refugees to the United States in 2021. Under former President Trump’s directive, stringent restrictions were placed on accepting refugees from certain African and majority-Muslim countries and priority was given to Christians who faced religious persecution and Iraqis who worked for the US military. The new allocations include 7,000 slots for Africa, 1,000 for East Asia, 1,500 for Europe and Central Asia, 3,000 for Latin America/Caribbean, 1,500 for Near East/South Asia, and 1,000 slots that are unallocated.
On April 14, 2021, Washington Governor Jay Inslee signed a bill that will ban for-profit detention centers in the state. Under the bill, one of the largest for-profit immigrant detention centers, the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, will be shut down by 2025 when its contract with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) expires. Washington is one of the first states to pass legislation that bans private prison companies, including immigration facilities, from operating.
On April 13, 2021, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced that Texas and Missouri filed a lawsuit demanding that the Biden administration reinstate the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) program to reduce the influx of migrants at the southwest border. MPP was established by the Trump administration in January 2019. It allowed border officers to send non-Mexicans who sought asylum at the US southern border to Mexico to await their immigration hearings. In January 2021, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) suspended the MPP program and the Biden administration began admitting program enrollees into the United States in February. The lawsuit alleges that the Biden administration’s decision to suspend the program led to a surge of Central American migrants coming to the southwest border to make asylum claims.
On April 12, 2021, President Biden nominated Chris Magnus to lead Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Ur Jaddou to head United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Magnus is currently the police chief in Tuscon, Arizona, and Jaddou was head counsel of USCIS under the Obama administration. Biden also nominated John Tien, the former senior director for Afghanistan and Pakistan of the National Security Council, as deputy director of DHS.
On April 12, 2021, the Biden administration secured agreements with Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala to tighten their borders and stem the flow of migration to the United States. Under the agreements, the countries will put more troops at their own borders to monitor migration and prevent traffickers and cartels from taking advantage of migrants and unaccompanied minors. CBP apprehended a record number of 18,890 unaccompanied minors last month and more than 172,000 people attempting to cross the US-Mexico border. In March 2021 President Biden tasked Vice President Kamala Harris with coordinating efforts with Central American countries to address the root causes of migration.
ACTUALIZACIÓN DE POLÍTICA
El 16 de abril de 2021, el presidente Biden firmó una determinación presidencial de emergencia que mantiene el límite de admisiones de refugiados históricamente bajo de la administración Trump de 15.000 para el año fiscal 2021, pero vuelve a asignar las admisiones de refugiados según la región. Al día siguiente, la administración de Biden emitió un comunicado diciendo que espera aumentar el límite de refugiados de 2021 el próximo mes, pero no especificó el número. En febrero de 2021, el presidente Biden propuso dar la bienvenida a 62.500 refugiados a los Estados Unidos en 2021. Según la directiva del ex presidente Trump, se impusieron estrictas restricciones a la aceptación de refugiados de ciertos países africanos y de mayoría musulmana y se dio prioridad a los cristianos que enfrentaban persecución religiosa e iraquíes. que trabajaba para el ejército de los EE. UU. Las nuevas asignaciones incluyen 7.000 espacios para África, 1.000 para Asia Oriental, 1.500 para Europa y Asia Central, 3.000 para América Latina / el Caribe, 1.500 para Cercano Oriente / Asia Meridional y 1.000 espacios sin asignar.
El 14 de abril de 2021, el gobernador de Washington, Jay Inslee, firmó un proyecto de ley que prohibirá los centros de detención con fines de lucro en el estado. Según el proyecto de ley, uno de los centros de detención de inmigrantes con fines de lucro más grandes, el Centro de Detención del Noroeste en Tacoma, se cerrará para el 2025 cuando expire su contrato con el Servicio de Control de Inmigración y Aduanas (ICE). Washington es uno de los primeros estados en aprobar una legislación que prohíbe el funcionamiento de las empresas penitenciarias privadas, incluidas las instalaciones de inmigración.
El 13 de abril de 2021, el fiscal general de Texas, Ken Paxton, anunció que Texas y Missouri presentaron una demanda exigiendo que la administración Biden restableciera el programa de Protocolos de Protección a Migrantes (MPP) para reducir la afluencia de migrantes en la frontera suroeste. El MPP fue establecido por la administración Trump en enero de 2019. Permitió a los oficiales fronterizos enviar a personas no mexicanas que buscaban asilo en la frontera sur de Estados Unidos a México para esperar sus audiencias de inmigración. En enero de 2021, el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS) suspendió el programa MPP y la administración Biden comenzó a admitir inscritos en el programa en los Estados Unidos en febrero. La demanda alega que la decisión de la administración Biden de suspender el programa provocó un aumento de migrantes centroamericanos que llegaron a la frontera suroeste para presentar solicitudes de asilo.
El 12 de abril de 2021, el presidente Biden nominó a Chris Magnus para dirigir la Oficina de Aduanas y Protección Fronteriza (CBP) y a Ur Jaddou para dirigir el Servicio de Ciudadanía e Inmigración de los Estados Unidos (USCIS). Magnus es actualmente el jefe de policía en Tuscon, Arizona, y Jaddou fue el abogado principal de USCIS bajo la administración de Obama. Biden también nominó a John Tien, ex director senior para Afganistán y Pakistán del Consejo de Seguridad Nacional, como subdirector del DHS.
El 12 de abril de 2021, la administración Biden aseguró acuerdos con México, Honduras y Guatemala para reforzar sus fronteras y detener el flujo migratorio hacia Estados Unidos. Según los acuerdos, los países pondrán más tropas en sus propias fronteras para monitorear la migración y evitar que los traficantes y los carteles se aprovechen de los migrantes y los menores no acompañados. CBP detuvo a un número récord de 18,890 menores no acompañados el mes pasado y más de 172,000 personas que intentaban cruzar la frontera entre Estados Unidos y México. En marzo de 2021, el presidente Biden encargó a la vicepresidenta Kamala Harris que coordinara los esfuerzos con los países centroamericanos para abordar las causas fundamentales de la migración.
The CMS Migration Update is a weekly digest produced by the Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS), an educational institute/think-tank devoted to the study of international migration, to the promotion of understanding between immigrants and receiving communities, and to public policies that safeguard the dignity and rights of migrants, refugees, and newcomers. CMS is a member of the Scalabrini International Migration Network – an international network of shelters, welcoming centers, and other ministries for migrants – and of the Scalabrini Migration Study Centers, a global network of think tanks on international migration and refugee protection, guided by the values of the Missionaries of St. Charles Borromeo. If you wish to submit an article, blog, faith reflection, or announcement for the CMS Migration Update, please email cms@cmsny.org.
Biden and Harris campaigned, quite logically and convincingly, on a pledge to do away with the illegality, cruelty and stupidity of the Trump/Miller White Nationalist, racist immigration program.
But, following the inauguration, Biden supporters working at the “retail level” of our failed immigration system have seen few meaningful changes, little if any honest dialogue, and most disturbingly, far, far too few progressive experts who can solve problems in key positions!
Encouraging Northern Triangle countries notorious for corruption and human rights abuses to stop their nationals from fleeing to safety is NOT a solution. It’s the moral equivalent of having encouraged the Soviet Union and East Germany to machine gun those attempting to flee to the West during the (not so) Cold War!
Basically, the Biden Administration is encouraging and funding some of the most corrupt and repressive nations in the Hemisphere to violate human rights, just as the Trump Administration did. See, “Policy Update,” above. That’s NOT the way to establish positive international leadership on human rights and migration issues!
Two other nuggets particularly worthy of note:
“According to [Eigenio] Sosa, small, positive changes in Honduras would encourage some to stay in their home country.” This contradicts the “conventional wisdom” that addressing the roots of the problem in sending countries is either futile or such a long-term project that it can’t be part of addressing today’s flow of forced migrants.
“In this CMS essay, Susan Martin — Donald G. Herzberg Professor of International Migration Emerita for Georgetown University — outlines how the Biden administration can prepare to admit more refugees and how the United States will benefit from welcoming them.” Professor Susan Forbes Martin is a long-time friend and a brilliant “practical scholar.” Her point that we should welcome refugees, rather than fearing them, is well taken and the key to better, far more robust, legal immigration laws and policies.
Biden campaigned, and won, on a very different message.
He promised to “restore the soul of America,” which he argued included welcoming the stranger. It was a message he had promoted for decades. Upon taking office, he declared plans to roll back the Miller/Trump immigration agenda. Among them: raising the refugee admissions ceiling from 15,000 to 62,500.
Biden’s rationale for this policy was partly moral, partly practical. Unlike their predecessors, Biden and his immigration advisers recognized that creating more pathways for people to come to the United States legally would actually promote “law and order” and alleviate stress on the immigration system. In a February report to Congress, the State Department said one reason to “increase the overall refugee admissions number” was to “facilitate safe and orderly migration and access to international protection and avert a humanitarian crisis at the U.S. southern border.”
Then, inexplicably, Biden got cold feet.
He delayed signing the paperwork necessary to put his policy into effect, leaving hundreds of vetted refugees in limbo. White House spokespeople could not explain the holdup. Reports leaked that Biden worried about the “optics” of letting in more refugees amid a surge of migration at the southern border, even though he knew the two issues were unrelated.
In other words: Biden seemed to concede that Miller’s propaganda had worked and that the public might view all immigrants as a dangerous, undifferentiated horde of intruders the new administration was failing to contain.
Rather than fighting the confusion and fear Miller had sown, Biden caved. Friday’s White House announcement even invoked the same weaselly excuse Trump officials had used to justify their record-low cap — that it was necessitated by the (irrelevant) border surge.
On Twitter, Miller took a victory lap. He urged Biden to reduce refugee admissions to zero, which he declared would be the “most popular” thing to do.
But Biden and Miller both misread the politics. Biden’s announcement drew immediate, widespread backlash. Perhaps unsurprisingly: Despite Team Trump’s relentless smears of refugees and other immigrants, polls show the public has grown more pro-immigrant in recent years — with support reaching record highs.
Within hours of its initial announcement Friday, the White House backtracked, saying a higher refugee ceiling would be forthcoming. Officials refused to specify the new level and will not commit to the 62,500 Biden previously promised. Biden is leaving his options open — perhaps in case Miller’s political assessment turns out to be right.
It’s not clear why Biden has been so timid. As Biden himself has persuasively argued, admitting more refugees is in the country’s moral and national security interests. What’s more, he was elected on a popular mandate to do it. The White House must exorcise the ghost of Stephen Miller and deliver the agenda that our new, soul-restoring president promised.
***********************
Catherine Rampell Opinion Columnist Washington Post
Thanks, Catherine, for continuing to speak out about the Biden Administration’s ill-informed approach to immigration, racial justice, and human rights — particularly refugee issues! You can read the rest of Catherine’s op-ed at the link.
No such “Victory Laps” for those who worked to get Biden, Harris, Garland, and Mayorkas their jobs!
As I’ve pointed out, Miller’s execs and “judges” remain in key positions at Garland’s EOIR as our Immigration Courts continue to fail to provide due process while institutionalizing racial injustice in America, just as Stephen Miller planned it.
Indeed, the racist, misogynist, xenophobic, “worst practices” precedents issued by Trump’s AGs remain in effect under Garland. And, the borders remain closed to most legal asylum seekers in violation of our Constitution, the statute, common sense, and simple human decency.
Equally discouraging is Judge Garland’s apparent indifference to the unparalleled opportunity given him to create a progressive Immigration Judiciary that would actually reflect the humane, due process ideals upon which Biden and Harris campaigned and won the election. Additionally, he could also bring diversity, expertise, and independent progressive thinking to a currently non-diverse judiciary that is often disconnected from both the laws they administer and the stakeholder communities most affected by their decisions, conduct, and attitudes.
I have said many times that Immigration Judges “teach from the bench” every day. The messages being sent and lessons being taught to many of those seeking justice and to their lawyers, basically the “heart and soul” of the next generation of our profession, do not reflect well on the Biden Administration or Judge Garland, nor will they be treated kindly by legal and social historians.
That’s a real shame, because once squandered, the ability to send positive messages about equal justice for all, due process, and respect for human dignity is not easily, if ever, regained!Every case is an opportunity to send a better message; every day the current mess remains in place in our Immigration Courts is a missed opportunity for Judge Garland.
So far, human rights and immigrants’ advocates groups are in a familiar position in a Dem Administration — locked out of the power structure, largely ignored, and treated with indifference bordering on contempt. Strange way to treat those who helped you gain power in the first place!
The good news: the brainpower and talent to force positive change out of incompetent, valueless, and intransigent bureaucracies is still out here in the NDPA. We’ll just have to continue to take the fight to the “powers that be” — in the legal, political, educational, and public opinion arenas until job gets done!
U.S. Supreme Court justices on Monday appeared reluctant to let people who have been allowed to stay in the United States on humanitarian grounds apply to become permanent residents if they entered the country illegally.
The justices heard arguments in an appeal by a married couple from El Salvador who were granted so-called Temporary Protected Status of a lower court ruling that barred their applications for permanent residency, also known as a green card, because of their unlawful entry.
The case could affect thousands of immigrants, many of whom have lived in the United States for years. President Joe Biden’s administration opposes the immigrants in the case. The dispute puts Biden, who has sought to reverse many of his Republican predecessor Donald Trump’s hardline immigration policies, at odds with immigration advocacy groups and some of his fellow Democrats. read more
A federal law called the Immigration and Nationality Act generally requires that people seeking to become permanent residents have been “inspected and admitted” into the United States. At issue in the case is whether a grant of Temporary Protected Status, which gives the recipient “lawful status,” satisfies those requirements.
. . . .
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Justice Department lawyer Michael Huston, “If you’re asking us to find the better reading of the statute, we should go by its terms: Those people have been admitted.”
. . . .
*****************
Read the full article at the link.
Garland helps Biden deliver “tough noogies, go pound sand, your lives don’t matter” message to immigrants like Jose and Sonia and their supporters who might have had the illusion that better times were on the horizon with Biden’s election! Progressives find that when push comes to shove, Biden & Garland can be just as cruel, dumb, and counterproductive as Trump & Miller!
Any hope that advocates might have had of help, sympathy, or understanding for their green-card-qualified clients with decades of residence and citizen family members goes down the tubes early in Dem Administration. Biden-Harris humane rhetoric and promises prove just another illusion for progressives in Administration’s first High Court test!
But for Justice Sotomayor, the thinness of the Justices’ understanding of both immigration law and the human issues involved was alarming, yet basically predictable. What do a bunch of highly privileged, above the fray, judges who have never personally dealt with the stupidity, arbitrariness, and trauma of our immigration system, and never represented clients in Immigration Court, care about shutting hard working American residents, people of color, like Jose and Sonia, out of our system and disenfranchising them for no particular reason. The worst, most racially discriminatory “interpretations” are “available” to those judges, so why not use them? For them, it’s a wooden academic exercise played out with human lives that don’t matter because they are “the other.” Except for Sotomayor, going for the best, most practical, humane interpretation evidently never crossed the minds of these Justices.
As Justice Sotomayor correctly said: “If you’re asking us to find the better reading of the statute, we should go by its terms: Those people have been admitted.”
It’s not rocket science. Just common sense, humanity, and a clear understanding of the effect of legal interpretations on human lives. At the Supreme Court level, most decisions represent a “choice” rather than a “mandate.” That’s where having Justices who neither care to understand nor have to live with the consequences of their decisions really hurts people of color, immigrants, asylum seekers, and others not in the “power structure!” Better judges for a better America!
Meanwhile, advocates and progressives should never underestimate the ability of Dem Administrations to screw up immigration policy.
With thousands of well-qualified experts from the NDPA out there, is THIS really the best way for the Biden Administration to recruit immigration/human rights advisers and Immigration Judges? It might, however, reach a more diverse audience than gobbledygook laden, short turnaround, “posts” on “ USA Jobs” that have created today’s non-diverse, regressive, non-expert Immigration Judiciary and the bloated, incompetent bureaucracy in Falls Church! PHOTO: Thomas Hawk Creative Commons Amateur Night
It’s difficult to believe that the president and his top officials did not realize their immigration policies, refugee admissions among them, would galvanize Republican opportunism and demagoguery. Perhaps they failed to anticipate the scale of unaccompanied Central American minors and families who would cross the border seeking asylum this spring. Maybe they are worried that GOP attacks, conflating that wave of asylum-seekers with refugees, would further imperil the Democratic congressional majorities in next year’s midterm elections, despite Mr. Biden’s own healthy standing in the polls.
. . . .
The president would do well to re-read his own campaign’s clear-eyed pronouncements on the subject. They correctly slammed Mr. Trump for decimating America’s decades-long leadership on refugees, whose admissions to this country were slashed by more than 75 percent in four years, to fewer than 12,000 in fiscal 2020. “We cannot mobilize other countries to meet their humanitarian obligations if we are not ourselves upholding our cherished democratic values and firmly rejecting Trump’s nativist rhetoric and actions,” said the Biden campaign statement on refugees.
While the administration bumbles its way toward a policy, real lives are at stake. Some 33,000 refugees in Africa, the Mideast and elsewhere, all of them having passed rigorous screening by the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies over the course of months or years, are stuck in camps where they await flights to the United States. They see this country as a beacon, just as Mr. Biden insisted it is.
It’s difficult to believe that the president and his top officials did not realize their immigration policies, refugee admissions among them, would galvanize Republican opportunism and demagoguery. Perhaps they failed to anticipate the scale of unaccompanied Central American minors and families who would cross the border seeking asylum this spring. Maybe they are worried that GOP attacks, conflating that wave of asylum-seekers with refugees, would further imperil the Democratic congressional majorities in next year’s midterm elections, despite Mr. Biden’s own healthy standing in the polls.
In any event, the president’s retreat on refugees is a danger sign. It looks like weakness; it smacks of spinelessness. Time will tell whether it is a short-term tactical maneuver or a more basic lack of resolve in the face of political headwinds. Here’s hoping it is the former.
**********************
Read the complete editorial at the link.
Perhaps, Biden’s West Wing immigration advisers need a different “vision” of U.S. refugee policy. Perhaps, it’s time to end “Amateur Night at the Bijou” and bring in some human rights pros with the knowledge and guts to implement humane, effective, robust, legal refugee and asylum policies that serve humanity and advance our true national interests! PHOTO: independent.co.uk
Read the full op-ed, which actually recycles much that you’ve already heard on Courtside, at the link.
It “might be difficult to believe,” but you need look no further than the continuing worsening mess in Garland’s dysfunctional Immigration Courts, the failure to implement the rule of law at the border, the inability to get a robust refugee program up and running near the Northern Triangle, and the glaring lack of immigration/human rights expertise in the West Wing to see how unprepared “Team Biden” was to deal with inevitable, totally predictable, issues on which progressive Dem experts had been raising the alarm since before the election.
Incredibly, with hundreds, perhaps thousands, of progressive immigration/human rights/due process experts out here in the Dem camp, Biden has managed to surround himself with the wrong folks — those who can’t get the job done and prove it every day!
“Courage of their convictions” — that’s the problem here: Either his advisors don’t believe in the immigration, human rights, and justice agendas that Biden and Harris ran upon or they don’t have the guts to carry them out! Either way it’s a problem.
This is the same old, same old arrogant, uninformed “it’s only immigration not something important” attitude that has turned strength into weakness for Dems over the past decades! As Stephen Miller could testify, having the brainpower, expertise, courage, advocacy skills, energy, and persistence of the immigration/human rights community lined up in opposition isn’t conducive to implementing your agenda, whatever it might be.
Also, a pile of dead bodies beyond the border and continuing “Dred Scottification” of the other in dysfunctional, disgraceful “captive courts” might squeak by in the “present tense,” but will be an unflattering historical legacy that in the long run will outweigh all the achievements.
Turning supporters into critics, abandoning your values and promises, ginning up court suits opposing your out of control, due process destroying “courts,” and scofflaw asylum policies — some of them right out of the Stephen’s Miller playbook — seems like a bad way to proceed for any politician, let alone ones as experienced and skilled as Joe Biden & Kamala Harris.
Recognizing when the “honeymoon is over” and you need folks on your team who can actually turn campaign promises into real-world action is critical.
So far, the “Amateur Night @ the Bijou” approach to immigration, human rights, due process, and racial justice, predictably, isn’t getting the job done. The Biden Team needs to either turn to the experts, or face the real prospect of four years of continuing failure — along with the dead bodies, ruined human lives, and sense of continuing betrayal by gutless politicos that go with it.
Due Process Forever! Not “rocket science,” 🚀 but “mission impossible” without bringing in the pros!
