Jeff Sessions – immigrationcourtside.com

🇺🇸🗽🤯 HISTORY: 100 YEARS AGO, AMERICA TRIED, BUT ULTIMATELY FAILED, TO STAY “WHITE & PROTESTANT” WITH THE 1924 IMMIGRATION ACT — Many Were Hurt Or Died From This Bias In The Interim — Now Trump & The Nativist Right Want To Revive One Of The Worst Eras In U.S. History — Will Indifference & Ignorance From Dems & So-Called “Centrists” Let Them Get Away With Turning Back The Clock? ⏰☠️🤮 — Two Renowned Authors Offer A View Of A Biased, Deadly, & Ultimately Highly Counterproductive Past That Still Poisons Our Politics & Threatens Our Future As A Beacon Of Hope! — PLUS: Kowalski & Chase Take On The “False Scholars” 🤮 Who Disingenuously Attempt To “Glorify” Xenophobia & Racism!🤯

1924 Act — The 1924 Immigration Act vilified, dehumanized, and barred many of those immigrants who have made America great, like Italian Americans being demeaned in this cartoon. Yet, some descendants of those unfairly targeted appear oblivious to the mistakes of the past and willing to inflict the same immoral lies, harm, and suffering on today’s migrants.
IMAGE: Public Realm

Eduardo Porter writes in WashPost:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/interactive/2024/immigration-history-race-quota-progress/

“I think that we have sufficient stock in America now for us to shut the door.”

That sounds like Donald Trump, right? Maybe on one of his campaign stops? It certainly fits the mood of the country. This year, immigration became voters’ “most important problem” in Gallup polling for the first time since Central Americans flocked to the border in 2019. More than half of Americans perceive immigrants crossing the border illegally as a “critical threat.”

Yet the sentiment expressed above is almost exactly 100 years old. It was uttered by Sen. Ellison DuRant Smith, a South Carolina Democrat, on April 9, 1924. And it helped set the stage for a historic change in U.S. immigration law, which imposed strict national quotas for newcomers that would shape the United States’ ethnic makeup for decades to come.

. . . .

The renewed backlash against immigration has little to offer the American project, though. Closing the door to new Americans would be hardly desirable, a blow to one of the nation’s greatest sources of dynamism. Raw data confirms how immigrants are adding to the nation’s economic growth, even while helping keep a lid on inflation.

Anyway, that horse left the stable. The United States is full of immigrants from, in Trump’s memorable words, “s—hole countries.” The project to set this in reverse is a fool’s errand. The 1924 Johnson-Reed immigration law might have succeeded in curtailing immigration. But the restrictions did not hold. From Presidents Johnson to Trump, efforts to circle the wagons around some ancestral White American identity failed.

We are extremely lucky it did. Contra Sen. Ellison DuRant Smith’s 100-year old prescriptions, the nation owes what greatness it has to the many different women and men it has drawn from around the world to build their futures. This requires a different conversation — one that doesn’t feature mass expulsions and concentration camps but focuses on constructing a new shared American identity that fits everyone, including the many more immigrants who will arrive from the Global South for years to come.

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

Gordon F. Sander, journalist and historian, also writes in WashPost, perhaps somewhat less optimistically, but with the same historical truth in the face of current political lies and gross misrepresentations:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2024/05/24/johnson-reed-act-immigration-quotas-trump/

. . . .

Johnson and Reed were in a triumphant mood on the eve of their bill’s enactment. “America of the melting pot will no longer be necessary,” Reed wrote in the Times. He remarked on the new law’s impact: “It will mean a more homogenous nation, more self-reliant, more independent and more closely knit by common properties and common faith.”

The law immediately had its intended effect. In 1921, more than 200,000 Italians arrived at Ellis Island. In 1925, following the bill’s enactment, barely 6,000 Italians were permitted entry.

But there were less intended consequences, too, including on U.S. foreign relations. Although Reed insisted there was nothing personal about the act’s exclusion of Japanese people, the Japanese government took strong exception, leading to an increase in tensions between the two countries. There were riots in Tokyo. The road to Pearl Harbor was laid.

During the 1930s, after the eugenics-driven Nazis seized control of Germany, the quotas established by the act helped close the door to European Jews and others fleeing fascism.

At the same time, the law also inspired a small but determined group of opponents led by Rep. Emanuel Celler (D-N.Y.), who were committed to overturning it. Celler’s half-century-long campaign finally paid off in 1965 at the Statue of Liberty when, as Celler looked on, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Immigration and Nationality Act, which ended national origin quotas.

But with anti-immigration sentiment on the rise and quotas once again on the table, it’s clear that a century after its enactment, the ghost of Johnson-Reed isn’t completely gone.

Gordon F. Sander is a journalist and historian based in Riga, Latvia. He is the author of “The Frank Family That Survived: A 20th Century Odyssey” and other books

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

Many thanks to my friend and immigration maven Deb Sanders for alerting me to the Sander article. I strongly urge everyone to read both pieces at the links above.

Perhaps the most poignant comment I’ve received about these articles is from American educator, expert, author, and “practical scholar” Susan Gzesh:

And because of the 1924 Act, my grandparents lost dozens of their siblings, parents, aunts, uncles, nieces, and nephews to the Holocaust in the 1940s because Eastern European Jewish immigration to the US had been cut off. They would have been capable of sponsoring more family to come to the US in the late 1920s and 30s, but there was no quota for them.

I have no words to describe my feelings about so-called experts who would praise the 1924 Act. I know that Asian Americans must feel similarly to my sentiments.

Well said, Susan!

Susan Gzesh
American scholar, educator, expert, author
PHOTO: U. Of Chicago

I’ll leave it at that, for you to ponder the next time you hear Trump, DeSantis, Abbott, and the like fear-monger about the bogus “invasion,” spout “replacement theory,” and extoll the virtues of extralegal cruelties and dehumanization inflicted upon “the other” — typically the most vulnerable who are seeking our legal protection and appealing to our senses of justice and human dignity! And, also you can consider this when the so called “mainstream media” pander to these lies by uncritically presenting them as “the other side,” thereby echoing “alternative facts!”

It’s also worth remembering this when you hear Biden, Harris, Schumer, Murphy, and other weak-kneed Dem politicos who should know better adopt Trumpist White Nationalist proposals and falsely present them as “realistic compromises” — as opposed to what they really are — tragic acts of political and moral cowardice!

Eventually, as both of the above articles point out, America largely persevered and prospered over its demons of racism, anti-Catholicism, and anti-immigrant nationalism. But, it would be wrong to view this “long arc” analysis as “zeroing out” the sins and horrors of our past.

Susan Gzesh’s relatives died, some horribly and painfully, before their time. That can’t be changed by future progress. Nor can the children they might have had or the achievements they never got to make to our nation and the world be resurrected.

As Susan mentions, the 1924 Act also reinforced long-standing racism and xenophobia against Asian Americans that led to the irreversible harm inflicted by the internment of Japanese American citizens, continuing Chinese Exclusion, and a host of state laws targeting the Asian population and making their lives miserable. Belated recognition of the wrongfulness and immorality of these reprehensible laws and actions does nothing for their past victims.

Many Irish, Italian, and other Catholics and their cherished institutions died, lost property, or were permanently displaced by widespread anti-Catholic riots brought on and fanned by the very type of biased and ignorant thinking that undergirded Johnson-Reed. They can’t be brought back to life and their property restored just by a “magic wave of the historical wand.”

U.S. citizens of Mexican-American heritage were deported and dispossessed, some from property their ancestors had owned long before there was even a United States. Apologizing to their descendants and acknowledging our mistakes as a nation won’t eliminate the injustices done them — ones that they took to their graves!

Despite the “lessons of the Holocaust,” America continues to struggle with anti-Semitism and anti-Islamic phobias and indifference to human suffering beyond our borders.

And, of course, the poisonous adverse impacts of slavery on our nation and our African-American compatriots continue to haunt and influence us despite disingenuous claims to the contrary.

Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase
Jeffrey S. Chase Blog
Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

My friends immigration experts Dan Kowalski and Hon. Jeffrey Chase also had some “choice words” for the “false scholars” who extol the fabricated “benefits” of White Nationalism and racism embodied in “laws” that contravened the very meaning of “with liberty and justice for all” — something to reflect upon this Memorial Day. See https://dankowalski.substack.com/p/true-colors.

That prompted this response from Susan:

Susan Gzesh

11 hrs ago

Thank you, Dan! In memory of my Gzesh, Wolfson, Kronenberg, and Kissilove relatives who were victims of the Holocaust – after their U.S.-based relatives failed to get visas for them.

I also recently weighed in on the horrors of the 1924 Act in a recent article by Felipe De La Hoz, published in The New Republic: https://immigrationcourtside.com/2024/05/02/🏴☠%EF%B8%8F🤯🤮-a-century-of-progress-arrested-the-1924-immigration-act-rears-its-ugly-nativist-head-again-felipe-de-la-hoz-in-the-new-repub/.

Heed the lessons of history, enshrine tolerance, honor diversity, and “improve on past performance!” We have a choice as to whether or not to repeat the mistakes of the past — to regress to a darker age or move forward to a brighter future for all! Make the right one!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-27-24

⚠️ “SIR JEFFREY” OF THE ROUND TABLE ⚔️🛡 SAYS THAT SUCCESSIVE ADMINISTRATIONS HAVE UNDERMINED THE RULE OF LAW BY CONTRAVENING BINDING INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE STANDARDS: “[I]t is only when international law becomes normalized in the process that our asylum law will function as it should.” — Stop Mocking The Rule Of Law At The Border! ☠️

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/proposed-asylum-bar-regs-are-at-odds-with-international-law-and-why-that-matters

Proposed Asylum Bar Regs Are At Odds With International Law (And Why That Matters)

In 2003, the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees published Guidelines for applying the bars to asylum known internationally as the “exclusion clauses” (because they exclude an applicant from being recognized as a refugee under international law). Addressing the proper procedure for applying these bars, the UNHCR Guidelines state:

Given the grave consequences of exclusion, it is essential that rigorous procedural safeguards are built into the exclusion determination procedure. Exclusion decisions should in principle be dealt with in the context of the regular refugee status determination procedure and not in either admissibility or accelerated procedures, so that a full factual and legal assessment of the case can be made.1

This week, the Biden Administration published a proposed rule seeking to do precisely the opposite of what UNHCR advises.2 The rule would empower USCIS asylum officers to apply certain bars to asylum eligibility up front, at the border, as part of a preliminary admissibility determination. The goal is to effect the immediate deportation of certain asylum seekers, foreclosing their ability to have their eligibility for asylum decided by an Immigration Judge pursuant to a full-fledged hearing.

Advocates have already pointed out the dangers of the proposed approach, which will require quick decisions on highly complex issues at a point at which applicants very rarely have access to lawyers or evidence; their responses should be read.3 However, I would like to focus here on the rule’s conflict with international law, and why this is problematic.

Since 1804, the Supreme Court’s decision in Murray v. The Schooner Charming Betsy 4 has required domestic statutes to be interpreted consistently with international law whenever possible.5

This general requirement carries a particular urgency in its application to refugee law. The purpose of the 1951 Refugee Convention (which applied to those made refugees by World War II), and the 1967 Protocol (which extended the 1951 Convention’s definitions and protections to all) was to create a single, universal refugee standard to replace the patchwork of protections that reflected individual states’ own political preferences and biases.

This is not a small matter. International refugee law scholars James C. Hathaway and Michelle Foster have warned that “[i]nconsistency and divergence in interpretation of the Convention definition would clearly undermine the principled goal of ensuring a single, universal standard for access to refugee protection.”6 They further quote a decision of the Australian Administrative Appeals Tribunal in support of this contention: “[i]nconsistency is not merely inelegant; it brings the process of deciding into disrepute, suggesting an arbitrariness which is incompatible with commonly accepted notions of justice.”7

Congress apparently agreed with this approach when enacting the 1980 Refugee Act. In its landmark 1987 decision in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, the Supreme Court pointed this out:

If one thing is clear from the legislative history of the new definition of “refugee,” and indeed the entire 1980 Act, it is that one of Congress’ primary purposes was to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.8

And in adhering to Congress’s clear intent, the Supreme Court in Cardoza-Fonseca looked for guidance in interpreting the 1980 Refugee Act to UNHCR, citing its Handbook first issued in 1979 as an important tool for interpreting the Convention’s provisions. In a footnote, the Court found that while it was not binding, “the Handbook provides significant guidance in construing the Protocol, to which Congress sought to conform. It has been widely considered useful in giving content to the obligations that the Protocol establishes.”9

As leading scholar Deborah E. Anker has noted, “One of the most important developments in U.S. asylum law is the weight that U.S. authorities – including the USCIS Asylum Office, the Board, and the federal courts – give to the UNHCR’s interpretation of the refugee definition contained in its 1979 Handbook….” Anker noted that UNHCR has issued other interpretive documents since 1979 that “complement and expand on the Handbook.”10 I would argue that those other documents (which include the 2003 guidelines addressing the exclusion clauses that is quoted above) are deserving of the same interpretive weight.

So given (1) the Supreme Court’s Charming Betsy doctrine mandating conformity with international law whenever possible; (2) the stated intent of Congress to bring U.S. asylum law into conformity with international refugee law (as recognized in Cardoza-Fonseca); and (3) the purpose of the 1951 Convention to “ensure a single, universal standard” for refugee status, according great weight to UNHCR guidance in interpreting the Convention provides the best means of adhering to all of the above requirements.

However, another leading scholar, Karen Musalo, provided a recent reminder of how far U.S. law has strayed from international law standards for determining nexus (i.e. when persecution is “on account of” a statutorily protected ground), and in determining the validity of particular social groups. Musalo posits that realignment with international standards would resolve the erroneous interpretations that have arisen under present case law, and would remove unwarranted barriers to protection that presently exist.11 But with its new proposed regulations, the government instead seeks to veer even further off course in its procedures for determining bars to asylum eligibility.

In December 2020, I presented in a blog post a “wish list” for the incoming Biden Administration. One of the items on my list was to create a “Charming Betsy” regulation requiring adherence to international law refugee standards. It included the hope “that the Biden Administration would codify the Charming Betsy doctrine in regulations, which should further require the BIA, Immigration Judges, and Asylum Officers to consider UNHCR interpretations of the various asylum provisions, and require adjudicators to provide compelling reasons for rejecting its guidance.”12

I am not so naive to expect that a regulation like this will be proposed anytime soon. But I do believe that the direct contradiction of the proposed regs with international law guidance should be included in comments and talking points by those both inside and outside of government. Through these rules, the Biden Administration seeks to engage in the type of politically-motivated action that the Refugee Convention and 1980 Refugee Act sought to eliminate. For the above reasons, such action would violate the intent of Congress, our treaty obligations, and over two centuries of U.S. case law.

Moving forward, whether an asylum-related law, rule, policy, or case holding conforms with international law should instinctively be the first question asked by all of us. When refugee protection is viewed in such neutral, legal terms, the urge to politicize decisions will be lessened.

As those scholars referenced above have been saying far longer and more articulately than myself, it is only when international law becomes normalized in the process that our asylum law will function as it should.

Copyright 2024 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

Notes:

UNHCR, Guidelines on International Protection: Application of the Exclusion Clauses: Article 1F of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 4 Sept. 2003, https://www.unhcr.org/us/media/guidelines-international-protection-no-5-application-exclusion-clauses-article-1f-1951 (emphasis added).

Application of Certain Mandatory Bars in Fear Screenings, 89 FR 41347 (May 13, 2024), https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/05/13/2024-10390/application-of-certain-mandatory-bars-in-fear-screenings.

See, e.g., American Immigration Council, “The Biden Administration’s Proposed Regulations On Asylum Bars: An Analysis,” (May 10, 2024), https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/biden-administration-proposed-regulation-asylum-bars-analysis; Human Rights First Press Release (May 9, 2024) https://humanrightsfirst.org/library/human-rights-first-opposes-new-asylum-proposals-that-would-deny-asylum-hearings/.

6 U.S. 64 (1804).

See Weinberger v. Rossi, 456 U.S. 25, 32 (1982) (noting that construing federal statutes to avoid violating international law has “been a maxim of statutory construction since the decision” in Charming Betsy).

James C. Hathaway and Michelle Foster, The Law of Refugee Status (Second Ed.), (Cambridge, 2014) at 4.

Hathaway and Foster, supra at n.18 (quoting Brennan, J., in Re Drake and Minister of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No. 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 (Aus. AAT, Nov. 21, 1979) at 639.

480 U.S. 421, 436-37 (1987).

Id. at 439.

Deborah E. Anker, Law of Asylum in the United States (2023 Ed.) (Thomson Reuters) at 20-21.

Karen Musalo, “Aligning United States With International Norms Would Remove Major Barriers to Protection in Gender Claims,” International Journal of Refugee Law (2024).

Jeffrey S. Chase, “A Wish List for 2021,” https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2020/12/14/a-wish-list-for-2021 (Dec. 14, 2020).

MAY 16, 2024

Reprinted by permission.

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

The Charming Betsy — The schooner Charming Betsy sailed into Supreme Court history. Hon. Jeffrey Chase and other legal experts aren’t “charmed” by AG Merrick Garland’s approach to binding international standards for asylum!
PHOTO: The Constitutional Law Reporter

Thanks, “Sir Jeffrey” for a great and timely analysis!

For the second successive Administration, we have an Attorney General who does not take seriously his oath of office to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States when it comes to those seeking asylum.

Garland has too often signed off on regulations and policies that are clearly at odds with domestic and international law as well as our Constitution. The current abominable proposed regulations, referenced by Jeffrey and opposed by all experts on asylum law and human rights, are just the latest example. Those politicos behind these toxic policies won’t confront in person or acknowledge the well-documented unnecessary human trauma and degradation caused by scofflaw actions and policies that intentionally fail to make fair, humane, safe, and timely asylum processing available to all who come to legal ports of entry as required by law (not to mention human decency)!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-17-24

🗽⚖️ EXPERT URGES U.S. TO COMPLY WITH INTERNATIONAL NORMS ON GENDER-BASED PROTECTION — Current “Any Reason To Deny” Restrictive Interpretations & Actions Are A Threat To Women Everywhere & Unnecessarily Bog Down Already Burdened System With Unnecessary Legal Minutia, Says Professor Karen Musalo In New Article!

Professor Karen Musalo
Director, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Hastings Law

Read Karen’s newly-released article “Aligning United States Law with International Norms Would Remove Major Barriers to Protection in Gender Claims” in the 2024 Edition of the International Journal of Refugee Law. Here’s the abstract:

A B ST R A CT

The protection of women and girls fleeing gender-based harms has been controversial in the United States (US), with advances followed by setbacks. The US interpretation of particular social group and its nexus analysis, both of which diverge from guidance by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), is the most significant barrier to protection. It has become almost impossible for women and girls to rely upon the particular social group ground because of current requirements that social groups not only be defined by immutable or fundamental characteristics, but also be socially distinct and have particularity. Establishing nexus is also a significant obstacle, with the US requirement of proof of the persecutor’s intent. In the first month of his administration, President Biden issued an executive order on migration, which raised hopes that these obstacles to protection would be removed. The order committed to protecting survivors of domestic violence and to issuing regulations that would make the US interpretation of particular social group consistent with international standards. The target date for the regulations was November 2021, but they have yet to issue. This article examines how the evolution of the US interpretation of particular social group and nexus has diverged from UNHCR recommendations. It shows how protection has been denied in gender cases involving the most egregious of harms. The article concludes by providing recommendations for realignment with international standards, which set a benchmark for evaluating the promised Biden administration regulations on the issue.

Here’s a link to the article: https://academic.oup.com/ijrl/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ijrl/eeae009/7656821?utm_source=authortollfreelink&utm_campaign=ijrl&utm_medium=email&guestAccessKey=298cbf81-f24c-455a-9c94-4be57b8c649f

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

Karen’s highly readable “spot on” article prompted this additional thoughtful comment from my friend and Round Table colleague Hon. “Sir Jefferey” Chase:

Hi Karen: Wonderful article! So clear, so logical, and just so correct! Thanks as always for this. (And I’m extremely honored to find myself in several of your footnotes – thank you!)

Along the same line of thinking, in December 2020 I wrote a blog post of my wish list for 2021: https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2020/12/14/a-wish-list-for-2021.

One of the items was as follows:

Create a “Charming Betsy” Reg Requiring Adherence to International Law:Since 1804, the Supreme Court’s decision in Murray v. The Schooner Charming Betsy has required domestic statutes to be interpreted consistently with international law whenever possible.As the Supreme Court in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca observed that in enacting the 1980 Refugee Act, “one of Congress’ primary purposes was to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees,” it would seem that interpreters of our asylum laws should look to international law interpretations of that treaty for guidance.Recent examples in which this has not been the case include the just-published “death to asylum” regulations that will completely gut the 1980 Refugee Act of any meaning; as well as regulations that bar asylum for conduct falling far, far short of the severity required to bar refugee protection under international law (which a federal district court blocked in Pangea v. Barr).

As the Board seems disinclined to listen to the Supreme Court on this point, it is hoped that the Biden Administration would codify the Charming Betsy doctrine in regulations, which should further require the BIA, Immigration Judges, and Asylum Officers to consider UNHCR interpretations of the various asylum provisions, and require adjudicators to provide compelling reasons for rejecting its guidance.

Do you think there is a way to use Karen’s article to make this into a talking point across the advocacy community? I think there’s merit to trying to normalize an idea over time. Just a thought.

I agree, Jeffrey! Ironically, as Karen shows, “normalizing” refugee and asylum processing to bring it into alignment with the Convention was one of the driving forces behind enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980. Indeed, it’s reflected in a key early interpretation of the Act by the Supremes in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca (successfully argued by our friend and Round Table colleague Hon. Dana Marks, a “Founding Mother of U.S. Refugee Law”). In rejecting the USG’s restrictive interpretation, the Court consulted the U.N. Handbook while making the point that the refugee definition was to be applied generously so that even those with only a 10% chance of persecution could qualify.

I also note that the abandonment of the “Acosta test,” which I relied on in Kasinga, in favor of a more convoluted, restrictive, and ultimately intellectually dishonest approach, went “into high gear” after the “Ashcroft purge” had removed the core of BIA Judges who spoke up for asylum rights and protection, even when in dissent!

Unfortunately, Administrations of both parties have feared honest and robust implementation of the Refugee Act that truly follows the “spirit of Cardoza and its BIA progeny, Matter of Mogharrabi.” They all have had their “favored” and “feared” groups of refugees and asylees, some more than others.

This, of course, breeds huge inconsistencies and arbitrary adjudications, a problem exposed well over a decade ago by Professors Schoenholtz, Schrag, and Ramji-Nogales in their critical seminal work Refugee Roulette describing the largely unprincipled and politicized operation of our system for adjudicating protection claims.

At some level, all Administrations have given in to the false idea that protection of refugees is politically perilous and that consequently the law should be interpreted and manipulated to “deter” the current “politically disfavored” groups of refugees. Not surprisingly, the latter are usually those of color, non-Christian religions, or from poorer countries where the mis-characterization of groups of legitimate refugees as “mere economic migrants” has become routine. Too often, the so-called “mainstream media” accepts such negative characterizations without critical analysis.

Unfortunately, the Biden Administration has regressed from a somewhat enlightened beginning with the never-promulgated “gender based regulation” mentioned by Karen to a position of fear, desperation, and ultimately “false deterrence.” Apparently, they perceive that GOP nativist lies and shamless fear-mongering combined with their own failure to boldly reform and materially improve the asylum processing system under their control are “scoring points” with the electorate.

The latest misguided proposal being considered in the White House would grotesquely miss the mark of addressing the real glaring problems with our asylum system at the border and beyond. That is the overly restrictive interpretations and applications of the refugee definition, too many poorly-qualified and poorly-trained adjudicators, over-denial leading to protracted litigation and inconsistent results, uninspiring leadership, and a stubborn unwillingness to set up the system in compliance with international rules so that significant numbers of qualified refugees applying at the border can be timely and properly admitted to the U.S. where, incidentally, their skills and determination can contribute greatly to our economy and our society.

The latest bad idea is truncating the already overly-summary and poorly run asylum process in apparent hopes of more quickly denying more potentially valid claims with less consideration. See, e.g., https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/08/biden-migrants-asylum-changes-00156865. Far from being a panacea for the much-feared and highly distorted “border issue,” it eventually will aggravate all of the problems highlighted by Karen.

One thing it won’t do, however, is stop forced migrants from coming to the United States, even if they must abandon our broken legal system to do so. That’s what forced migrants do! Pretending otherwise and misusing our legal protection system for rejection won’t “deter” the reality of forced migration.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-08-24

🇺🇸⚖️🗽👍 UW LAW PROFESSOR ERIN BARBATO SPEAKS TO THE MILWAUKEE JOURNAL SENTINEL: Gutsy “Practical Scholar” Goes Where Politicos Fear To Tread, Sees Toxic Human Impact Of Misguided Enforcement Policies!

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local/2024/04/30/erin-barbato-wisconsin-madison-undocumented-immigrant-justice-clinic-legal-help-deportation/73501762007/

TMJS’s Eva Wen interviews Erin:

. . . .

Under the Trump administration, most of the people we met there [in immigration detention in the Dodge County Jail] had benefits (some protection against deportation) that they were eligible for. They were asylum seekers, people with family ties, or people with DACA (people who were brought to the U.S. when they were children). It would be shocking every time I went to see the number of people that needed representation. They had strong claims to remain in the U.S. and often had family ties. Some were employed at certain jobs for a very long time and had no criminal record.

. . . .

Everybody deserves a fair chance, and legal representation is part of the fair chance.

Most people who have a conviction for an aggravated felony are not going to be allowed to remain in the U.S. But certain individuals are from countries that are unsafe for them to return to, and our laws say we will never deport anybody that will more likely than not be tortured or killed. And these individuals need representation because the stakes are so high.

No one is perfect, and our legal system certainly isn’t perfect. But without legal representation, we cannot ensure that people have their rights and have a fair due process in immigration proceedings.

. . . .

Every day, I witness the politicization of this topic. And political parties are taking on the rhetoric to fearmonger in a lot of ways. I find that horrifying and discouraging.

I can understand why these ads and messaging incite fear and why people can be scared by the messaging, even though the messaging is often untrue. It scares me that that’s what we’re doing to people that I work with everyday, who are mostly families and children who’ve become part of our communities.

. . . .

Q: Tell me more about the work you’re doing in collaboration with others in Colombia.

A: The program is called Safe Passage. It’s a collaboration with Sara McKinnon at the Department of Communications, us at the Law School, and Jorge Osorio at the Global Health Institute.

People often have to take an extremely dangerous journey just to arrive at the southern border to ask for asylum in the U.S. We are looking at whether some alternative, regular routes for migration can be beneficial in decreasing the pressure on the southern border.

. . . .

The last time I was in Colombia, there were people from all over the world. There were people from Afghanistan who probably had very strong claims for asylum. There were people from China, and they generally have very high approval rates for asylum. But in order to seek the benefits under the law, they have no option but to take a very dangerous journey.

So I think if we were able to expand the safe mobility offices in these other countries to process applications from other people who could potentially be eligible, we could ensure safety and take pressures off of the southern border. I think that’s something that everybody wants.

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

Read the complete interview at the link.

Here’s a comment about Erin that I recently received from Professor Juliet Stumpf at Lewis & Clark Law:

I had the pleasure of meeting Erin when we both took students to Tijuana to work with asylum seekers at Al Otro Lado in 2020. She is a wise, kind, and collaborative colleague, and I was lucky enough to benefit from her deep experience and her generosity in sharing it.

Amen to that, Juliet!

Another innovative idea that ties into Erin’s work with Safe Passage is “Judges Without Borders” proposed by retired Wisconsin Circuit Judge and fellow UW Law ‘73 grad Judge Tom Lister and me! https://immigrationcourtside.com/2023/12/13/👩🏽⚖️👨🏻⚖️-⚖️🗽judges-without-borders-an-innovative-op/.

Tom and I had the honor of appearing at a recent luncheon at U.W. Law hosted by Erin and her colleague Professor Sara McKinnon to discuss our proposal with students.

You can find out more about Erin’s and Sara’s amazing work beyond the border with Safe Passage here: https://immigrationcourtside.com/2024/04/22/🇺🇸🗽👏-filling-the-gap-migration-in-the-americas-project-u-w-madison-creative-interdisciplinary-approach-seeks-to-provide-migrants-with-better-info/.

What a difference it makes to hear from experts like Erin and Sara who actually understand the laws, the realities of forced migration, and deal directly with the human trauma caused by short-sighted government “deterrence only” policies. The latter, promoted by politicos who have lost their moral bearings, intentionally misconstrue or ignore legal protections for migrants while failing to acknowledge or take responsibility for the proven, unnecessary human trauma caused by bad policies like “Remain in Mexico, “Title 42,” and “Mandatory Detention.”

Border Death — This is a monument for those who have died attempting to cross the US-Mexican border. Each coffin represents a year and the number of dead. It is a protest against the effects of Operation Guardian. Taken at the Tijuana-San Diego border. Politicos of both parties avoid discussing the deadly consequences of the proven to fail “deterrence-only policies” they advocate.
Tomas Castelazo
To comply with the use and licensing terms of this image, the following text must must be included with the image when published in any medium, failure to do so constitutes a violation of the licensing terms and copyright infringement: © Tomas Castelazo, www.tomascastelazo.com / Wikimedia Commons / CC BY-SA 3.0

For example, Doctors Without Borders documented in 2020 that the majority of migrants fleeing the Northern Triangle had “experienced the murder, disappearance or kidnapping of a relative before their departure.” https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/02/12/doctors-without-borders-more-than-two-thirds-of-migrants-fleeing-central-american-region-had-family-taken-or-killed-were-speaking-of-human-beings-not-n/.

That same report showed that “violence against migrants transit[ing] Mexico is escalating, the study found: 39.2% of interviewees were assaulted in the country, while 27.3% were threatened or extorted – with the actual figures likely higher than the official statistics as victims tend not to report crimes committed against them.”

Yet, despite these facts, politicos of both parties shamelessly press for the reinstitution of these demonstrably harmful, ineffective, immoral, and arguably illegal policies. Never do they acknowledge or discuss the infliction of human carnage they are irresponsibly promoting. Perhaps even worse, the so-called “mainstream media” seldom, if ever, has the integrity to confront these politicos of both parties with the deadly human consequences of the immoral, yet predictably ineffective, actions they advocate!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

O5-03-24

🏴‍☠️🤯🤮 A CENTURY OF PROGRESS ARRESTED: THE 1924 IMMIGRATION ACT REARS ITS UGLY NATIVIST HEAD AGAIN! — Felipe De La Hoz In The New Republic, Quoting Me Among Others!

Felipe De La Hoz Felipe is an investigative and explanatory reporter focusing on immigration in the U.S. He is a former reporter for the investigative site Documented, and has written for The Village Voice, The Daily Beast, WNYC, The New Republic, The Baffler, and other outlets. He is the co-founder of the weekly immigration policy newsletter BORDER/LINES. PHOTO: The Intercept

https://newrepublic.com/article/180494/america-broken-immigration-system-racist-origins

Felipe writes:

How a little-known, century-old law perpetuated the odious notion that certain types of immigrants degrade our nation’s character

As radical as the contemporary GOP has become in recent years, it remains generally verboten in mainstream circles to openly call for murder. At least, for all but one demographic: migrants, whom Texas Governor Greg Abbott earlier this year lamented he couldn’t order killed. At best, party officials might argue that they are disease-ridden freeloaders; at worst, that they’re a demographic ticking time bomb engineered to wipe out real, white America.

This rhetoric has often been mistaken as a new turn for American political discourse, but it’s more of a return to an earlier era, one cemented by a law signed a century ago this month by Calvin Coolidge: the Immigration Act of 1924, known as Johnson-Reed after its House and Senate sponsors.

. . . .

“Those of us that sort of thought the ’24 act was in the rearview mirror, you know, I think we’ve been proven wrong,” the former immigration judge [PWS] added.

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

Read Felipe’s complete article, containing more quotes from me, at the link.

Texas Border — Abuse of migrants has a long ugly history in Texas and elsewhere along the border. The pushers of the 1924 Immigration Act must be smiling at how their toxic ideas have continued to be accepted and promoted by 21st Century politicos.
Public Realm (1948)

Turning back the clock to the worst impulses in American history is bad stuff! It’s as if we have collectively forgotten the lessons of the World War II age and why it was necessary to defeat Nazi Germany.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-02-24

🇺🇸🗽👏 FILLING THE GAP: MIGRATION IN THE AMERICAS PROJECT @ U.W. MADISON: Creative Interdisciplinary Approach Seeks To Provide Migrants With Better Information & Options Before They Reach Our Borders!

Sara McKinnonProfessor Pronouns: she/her/ella Email: smckinnon@wisc.edu Sara L. McKinnon is Professor of Rhetoric, Politics & Culture in the Department of Communication Arts, and Faculty Director of Latin American, Caribbean, and Iberian Studies. She is co-chair of the Human Rights Program — Sara McKinnon
Professor, U.W. Madison
Sara L. McKinnon is Professor of Rhetoric, Politics & Culture in the Department of Communication Arts, and Faculty Director of Latin American, Caribbean, and Iberian Studies. She is co-chair of the Human Rights Program
PHOTO: U.W

Jorge OsorioDirector, Global Health Institute Pronouns: he/him/él Email: jorge.osorio@wisc.edu Phone: 608-265-9299 Jorge Osorio, DVM, Ph.D., M.S., is a professor in the Department of Pathobiological Sciences in the School of Veterinary Medicine. Osorio has had a lengthy career in medical sciences, including virology, field epidemiological studies, vaccinology,… — Jorge Osorio
Director, Global Health Institute
Jorge Osorio, DVM, Ph.D., M.S., is a professor in the Department of Pathobiological Sciences in the School of Veterinary Medicine. Osorio has had a lengthy career in medical sciences, including virology, field epidemiological studies, vaccinology,…
PHOTO: U.W.

https://migrationamericas.commarts.wisc.edu/

Migration in the Americas Project

A policy and research collective of the University of Wisconsin-Madison focused on assessing migration policy and developing ways to reduce risk and harm to make movement and residence safer for migrants throughout the Western Hemisphere. We approach this goal from a range of methodologies and perspectives, and share our work in a range of formats including research reports, policy documents, field briefings, narratives and stories, videos, and audio recordings or podcasts. We hope you find our research and information to be helpful in your own work.

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

Get more information on this amazing initiative at the above link.

Also, here’s a link to a video of the recent UW Global Health Symposium, where Sara and Erin explain their truly amazing work in detail (starting at about 1:22 of the video):

https://videos.med.wisc.edu/videos/118169

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

Here’s another related event:

Judges Without Borders.jpeg

I am also proud that my U.W. Law ’73 classmate retired Judge Tom Lister and I will be Erin’s guests at a public luncheon presentation at the U.W. Law School tomorrow (April 23, 12pm-1pm, ) where will will discuss, among other topics related to justice, our concept for “Judges Without Borders.” This innovative idea ties in well and supports the objectives of the Migration In The Americas project of analyzing and providing accurate, unbiased information about the situations of migrants before they reach our border utilizing the huge potential of retired State and Federal judges.

We hope you will join us if you are in the Madison area! (The room assignment was “pending” when the flyer went to press, so you should call the Clinic or ask at the Law School on arrival for the latest).

Hon. Thomas Lister
Retired Jackson County (WI) Circuit Judge

You can read more about “Judges Without Borders” here:

👩🏽‍⚖️👨🏻‍⚖️ ⚖️🗽”JUDGES WITHOUT BORDERS” — An Innovative Open Letter Proposal For Budget-Friendly Assistance With The Humanitarian Situation At & Beyond Our Southern Border By Retired Judges Thomas E. Lister & Paul Wickham Schmidt!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-22-24

🤯 HAD ENOUGH “BORDER BLATHER” FROM GOP NATIVISTS AND THE “WOBBLIES” 🐥 @ THE BIDEN CAMPAIGN? — ⚖️👏🗽 Get The “Real Skinny” As Melissa Del Bosque Interviews Immigration Policy Expert Aaron Reichlin-Melnick @ The Border Chronicle! — NO, The Prez Can’t “Waive A Magic Wand” 🪄 & “Close The Border!” 🔐

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick
Policy Counsel
American Immigration Council
Photo: Twitter

https://open.substack.com/pub/theborderchronicle/p/can-president-biden-really-shut-down?r=1se78m&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

From The Border Chronicle:

Last Tuesday, in an interview with Univision’s Enrique Acevedo, President Joe Biden again said he’s considering issuing an executive order to ban asylum at the border. It’s an idea that Biden has floated before as the presidential election season slogs on, and after the bipartisan border bill meltdown in Congress. “We’re examining whether or not I have that power. Some are suggesting that I should just go ahead and try it,” Biden told Acevedo. “And if I get shut down by the court, I get shut down by the court.”

If Biden were to do such a thing, he would rely on Section 212 (f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which gives a president the authority to suspend entry or place restrictions on noncitizens.

If this sounds familiar, it’s because Trump tried this several times during his presidency, most notably with the xenophobic Muslim ban. None of them were successful, and they only injected more chaos into an already beleaguered immigration system. So why is Biden proposing this idea now? The Border Chronicle spoke with immigration expert Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy director at the American Immigration Council, about Biden’s proposal and what an asylum ban would mean for asylum seekers and border communities.

Biden is floating the idea of issuing an asylum ban. How will this impact people seeking asylum at the border? And can the president actually, you know, just shut down the border?

So I’ll start with the second question. The answer is no. Though there are some authorities that get you somewhere close to it, like Title 42. But it’s important to understand the distinction between the legalistic aspect of issuing an order that further bans crossing the border and actually, effectively shutting down the border.

The best example of issuing an order that I would point to is President Trump’s 212 restriction from November 2018, through February 2021, which suspended the entry of all migrants crossing the border illegally. So we already know what it looks like when a president invokes Section 212 (f) of the INA to suspend the entry of migrants. What it looks like is nothing, because nothing happened. And that is because it is already a violation of immigration law to cross the border without inspection. And so adding another reason, you know why that’s not allowed, doesn’t have any practical impact on people who simply walk across the border or wade through the river or climb over a wall. Because the important question is not whether a person is committing an unlawful act by crossing. The important question is, what can the U.S. government do to respond once a person is on U.S. soil? This is why Section 212 (f) is not a good tool for addressing irregular migration.

The other question is, how does that affect people seeking asylum? Well, not very much. We saw this with the Trump administration, in order to carry out their 212 ban. They had to do two things: They had to issue the proclamation suspending the entry of migrants. And then separately, they passed a regulation saying, we are going to ban asylum to anyone who crosses the border in violation of the proclamation. And it’s that regulation that got struck down as unlawful with a court in California, and then the Ninth Circuit saying and affirming that what that amounted to was a total ban on asylum for people who enter the country illegally, which is simply not permissible, because the INA says people, no matter how they arrive in the United States, may apply for asylum.

Photo courtesy of Aaron Reichlin-Melnick

Share

I think people often forget about this, right? I mean, the law says that you can arrive anywhere at the border and ask for asylum.

You can arrive anywhere, and you can have any status. You can be documented, undocumented, you can enter legally or illegally. The key issue is whether or not you are physically present in the United States. And in that case, then they are allowed to apply for asylum. Now, the Biden administration has imposed an asylum restriction that does target people primarily by how they enter the United States. It is currently on appeal at the Ninth Circuit, and the legality of it is not entirely clear. This is the circumvention of lawful pathways rule from last May. The Biden administration basically argued that it wasn’t a total ban on asylum, because it wasn’t technically based on the manner of entry, so it didn’t violate the INA. I think that was a weak argument, though.

If Biden were to implement the ban, would it impact legal migration?

Probably not at all. This would be a restriction, like the Trump restriction, that would apply only to migrants who cross the border between ports of entry, not those who go to ports of entry. So it would probably have no impact at all on legal migration. The crucial thing to understand is that, as a practical matter, even if they do manage to get an asylum restriction in place, which passes court muster, actually carrying out that restriction on migrants at the border is a very different story. And as we are seeing today, with the circumvention-of-lawful-pathways rule, even if you have banned asylum to nearly everybody crossing the border illegally, that does not actually mean that nearly everyone who crosses the border illegally is restricted from seeking asylum.

What impact could the asylum ban have on border communities? Do you think we’d see a buildup of people on the Mexican side and in camps just sort of waiting and trying to figure out what to do?

Anytime a new policy goes into effect, there’s a wait-and-see period. The Biden administration is already maximizing credible fear interviews. So it wouldn’t have a major change on how people are processed at the border. Other than that, the few 15 percent who were even put through credible fear, they would get denied. But even then, not all of them would get denied because, crucially, an asylum ban is discretionary. It’s just an asylum ban, and there’s more to humanitarian protection than just asylum that migrants can potentially invoke to avoid rapid removal or deportation proceedings. There’s withholding of removal, which is a form of asylum that’s harder to win and offers fewer benefits. And there’s protection under the Convention against Torture. So even today, people who are not eligible for asylum are still managing to pass their fear screenings because they could demonstrate eligibility for withholding or eligibility for protection under the Convention against Torture.

So, realistically speaking, having this asylum ban applied to 100 percent could mean only a few hundred people more a month being ordered removed. Not a huge shift. But for those people, obviously a very, very dramatic change. The question then is, how does the Biden administration talk about this? Does the ban discourage some people from showing up? You know if they falsely believe that this is a major shift? And, of course, how does Mexico respond?

These are the questions that are more important, because with Section 212 (f), I don’t see a way for the president to re-create something like Title 42, where people are simply expelled back across the border without being able to seek asylum. Even the Trump administration acknowledged that that’s not something that they could do with Section 212 (f).

Share

What strategy do you think Biden’s using here by floating this idea? Is it purely for political reasons? Because it’s an election year?

I don’t know. I think there’s a reason that they haven’t done anything yet. And that reason is likely to do with the fact that the lawyers have probably explained to Biden what happened when Trump tried and how unsuccessful that was.

Has the narrative around immigration and the border become so removed from reality that it’s just not helpful at this point?

Yes, I do think so. People want an easy solution, you know, build the wall, what have you, and are not acknowledging that this is an issue that the United States has been facing for, in its modern form, for 15 years. If you go back further, 100 years, really, ever since we first made it illegal to cross the border, we’ve been dealing with the challenges of how do you enforce that law? If you go back to the late 19th century, when Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, the United States created a Bureau of Immigration where they had an entire division whose job it was to try to stop Chinese people coming in from Mexico and Canada. And then, in the early 20th century, the biggest issue at the southern border was Mexican migrants crossing the border without permission. We have a nearly 2,000-mile land border on the south and a 3,000-mile land border on the north. That is a lot of territory to patrol even in a modern world with technology. And the United States has been through a period of high migration for 40 out of the last 50 years. For 40 years it was Mexicans, not entirely, of course, and there were Central Americans during the death squad years of the 1980s, who came to the United States for safety.

But the real shift that’s happened in the last three years has been people from further abroad. And it is just a challenging issue in a world that is more interconnected and hypermobile than at any point in human history. And we have to acknowledge that complexity when we talk about how to address this issue.

I think when people are talking about, you know, just shutting down the border, they forget about the billions in trade and citizens from both sides who are crossing the border every day.

Right, exactly. Oftentimes, people don’t even think about that, you know, most people don’t know that about the half a million people who enter the United States every single day at the southern border. That’s at least 16 million entries a month. And that’s people legally crossing back and forth for school, for work, for commerce, or tourism. So when people say, “Let’s shut down the border,” they mean to migrants, but they’re not thinking about the rest of it. And you have to go back to this question of, is that something the United States can do or wants to do? Let’s say you build a Berlin Wall with, you know, gun towers, and Trump’s moat filled with alligators and shoot migrants in the legs. That probably would deter some people. But then are you a country that is murdering people for trying to seek a better life? Do we want to be that kind of country?

So here’s a really tough question. Do you have any solutions?

An overwhelming majority of people who would like to come to the United States have no legal pathway to do so. Alternate pathway strategies are key. This puts a focus on those who haven’t yet made the decision to leave. I think it’s important to put that in that framework. Because once people have already left, they have sold their house, they’ve abandoned the lease, they, you know, liquidated a lot of their savings, they may have sent a child to a parent or an aunt or uncle. All of which means, at that point, that simply going back becomes much harder.

We also have to address the root causes for why people leave their home countries, which is the hardest to do, of course. This would require the United States to reckon with its own record of foreign policy in Latin America, which is something a lot of politicians do not want to do. Alternate pathways are a good middle ground there, because you can give people an opportunity to come to the United States temporarily and legally without breaking any laws, starving the smugglers of resources. And making it easier for people to get here without falling into the hands of bad actors.

Once people are at the border, though, it’s a different story. There have to be better options for people to cross legally at ports of entry. People still need the opportunity to seek asylum. But there should also be an enforcement component for people who don’t fall within our asylum laws. Right now, the issue is that the system can’t easily distinguish at the border between those who have slam dunk asylum claims from those who just want to come here for a better life. And that is because for years Congress has failed to provide enough resources to the asylum system, humanitarian protection, systems screening—all of that is grievously underfunded and has been for decades.

Given the scale of migration we see today, the system has buckled under its own weight. So, we have to build the system back up and allow it to function. And that means delivering a yes in a reasonable time and delivering a no in a reasonable time regarding asylum claims. You know, it shouldn’t take seven years.

And it’s important to keep reminding people that these issues didn’t just start in 2020 with the Biden administration.

This is not a new issue. And it’s one that requires us to think outside of a partisan lens. This is about U.S. government capacity, the underlying legal structures, and U.S. foreign policy across the region, which has gone on for generations. The underlying legal authorities haven’t changed in decades. And the external circumstances have changed dramatically.

The ability of migrants to get to the border is easier than it has ever been. Flights are cheaper, and people have cell phones and Google Translate. In the past, if you wanted to get to the border, you would need to speak some Spanish, you would need to know someone. Now you can find all the information online. You can find it circulating on WhatsApp, Telegram or TikTok. And once you’re in a foreign country, you know, if you’re an African migrant who speaks French when you come through Mexico, you can use Google Translate to talk to other migrants and find out what they know. And so moving and migrating across the world is easier now than it has ever been. And that’s not necessarily a genie that we can put back in the bottle. And I think people need to acknowledge that and start thinking more broadly about what that means for the modern world.

Support independent journalism from the U.S.-Mexico border. Become a paid subscriber today for just $6 a month or $60 a year.

Subscribed

Thank you for subscribing and supporting The Border Chronicle. Please share this post with your friends and help us become sustainable. We appreciate your support!

Share

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

Undoubtedly, as noted in this interview, “the narrative around immigration and the border [has] become so removed from reality that it’s just not helpful at this point.”

The nativist GOP doesn’t want to acknowledge the reality of immigration, including by refugees and asylees, its inevitability, and its proven long-term benefits to America.

By contrast, Dems are afraid of the reality of immigration and too politically timid to stand up for the right to apply for asylum.

What both parties have in common is that they are perfectly willing to accept the benefits of immigration of all types — after all, this is a nation of immigrants — while denying the very humanity and the legal and human rights of those courageous and talented individual immigrants, of all types and statuses, who have built our nation and continue to do so. 🤯🤮👎🏽

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever.

PWS

04-17-24

☠️ ⚰️ DEADLY “BIPARTISAN BORDER POLICIES” CONTINUE TO TAKE AN UGLY HUMAN TOLL 🤮 WHILE FAILING TO DETER REFUGEES FROM SEEKING PROTECTION, EVEN IF THEY DIE IN THE PROCESS! — Melissa Del Bosque Interviews Leader Of “No More Deaths” About Shocking Increase In Preventable Deaths Caused By Cruel, Costly, & Ineffective “Bipartisan Deterrence!” — As Innocents Die, The “Mainstream Media” Take A “Moral & Ethical Holiday!” 🤯

Melissa reports in the latest issue of The Border Chronicle:

https://open.substack.com/pub/theborderchronicle/p/a-new-report-shows-skyrocketing-deaths?

Your paid subscription makes a difference at The Border Chronicle. Thank you for your support!

A New Report Shows Skyrocketing Deaths in El Paso, New Mexico Border Region

“It’s really just shocking how close to help a lot of people died,” says Bryce, who led the report for the nonprofit No More Deaths.

MELISSA DEL BOSQUE

APR 9

READ IN APP

Illustration from the new report. Each red dot represents a life lost.

Share

As safe corridors for migration disappear, more people risk their lives crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. And more people die. A new report by the nonprofit No More Deaths, along with a searchable map and database, documents the increasing number of migrant deaths at the border in New Mexico and far West Texas. Until now, not much research has been done on the deaths of people migrating through this section of the border. The project was led by Bryce, a No More Deaths volunteer (who asked that we not use his last name because the Far Right has recently been targeting the group). He, along with several others, have created the most comprehensive database to date of deaths in the Border Patrol’s El Paso Sector, which includes New Mexico and two counties in Texas, El Paso and Hudspeth. The report covers 15 years, from 2008 to 2023, and it shows many disturbing trends, including the acceleration of deaths that has accompanied “prevention through deterrence,” the U.S. government’s strategy implemented in the 1990s to push migrants into more remote, dangerous crossings. That strategy is now morphing into something all the more tragic as people, increasingly women and children, are barred from accessing asylum and are dying at the doorstep of American cities and towns. In this Q&A, Bryce talks about documenting these deaths, and the discoveries that both shocked and angered him in creating this new report.

Why did you study this particular part of the border in New Mexico and far West Texas?

A couple of years ago, a few of us started getting interested in what’s happening in New Mexico, and whether there’s any need for humanitarian aid out there, just because we hadn’t really heard anything but assumed there must be something happening out there. Quickly, we noticed that there was not much data in general about the area. So I started doing public records requests. And pretty quickly, just with the first batch of data, we got about 20 deaths for 2022. We went to some of those locations to see if we’d see trails. And while we were checking out some of these locations, we found human remains right across the street from a cemetery and about 50 feet from a main road in Sunland Park [New Mexico]. It was not a remote place. It was right in town. So we started looking at the Sunland Park Fire Department’s social media page, and quickly realized that there was a lot happening and quickly. And then 2023 ended up being this record deadly year for the area.

It’s shocking that you found a dead person right there in the middle of Sunland Park. Can you tell me more about this person? Were they identified? How long had the person been there? And how could this have been missed by people who live there?

He was later identified as a man from Colombia. [His name was Johan Orozco Martinez, age 36.] He had been there for a couple of days. I’m not joking when I say he was right across the street from the Memorial Pines Cemetery, and near the shoulder of the road. Many cars drive this road, but I think typically people look toward the cemetery, and I guess they didn’t see him because they were looking in the other direction. He was in his 30s and so older than many of the usually young men you see, for instance, crossing through southern Arizona.

Two findings that really stand out to me from your report are the number of women who have died, and how increasingly people are dying within city limits and no longer just in remote areas that are hard to access. I mean, you found a person in the middle of Sunland Park. What’s going on, do you think?

The dynamics of migration are complex. But one thing that seems pretty clear is that the asylum policies in the last few years have led to an increase in some of these deaths, just from people trying to get asylum and being prevented either by metering or by turnbacks. And then feeling they have no choice but to cross through the desert. A lot of people who are crossing are older, they’re women, they’re people with health problems. The demographics, we found, were much different in the El Paso sector than in southern Arizona, with people being older and more than 50 percent of the deaths in 2023 being of women, which is unusual.

Subscribed

When did the deaths start increasing? And has the increasing militarization of the border and Operation Lone Star in El Paso contributed to these deaths?

Up until 2015, there were very few deaths in this area. But especially since 2018, the deaths have just been ramping up every single year. We were in New Mexico watching Operation Lone Star soldiers put up a barbed-wire fence between New Mexico and El Paso in an area where a lot of people cross. So once you’re in the United States, even crossing into Texas from the New Mexico side has become more deadly. And you can see National Guard in El Paso patrolling and pushing people back. The more enforcement, the more the deaths increase. In El Paso, there are what I call “moats” because if people climb the border wall, there’s an irrigation canal right on the other side, which at times can be moving very quickly. Then beyond that there’s multiple highways and more canals. So if someone is being chased by Border Patrol or Operation Lone Star, there are multiple deadly obstacles.

In 2022 there was a two-week period when 15 people died in the canals, one right after the other. This was during irrigation season in El Paso. Water is released from a reservoir in New Mexico into the canals and the river to irrigate farmland further east of El Paso. When that happens, the water can be going like 20 miles per hour. Unless somebody physically rescues you, there’s no way of getting out once you’ve fallen in. I watched a news broadcast in El Paso where they made a public service announcement about drowning deaths in El Paso, saying like, “Irrigation season is here, stay away from the canals, watch out for drowning.” But if you read all the autopsy reports, it’s almost all migrants dying. Because the medical examiner doesn’t flag whether it’s a migration-related death, you end up getting these weird statistics about drowning deaths being on the rise in El Paso. And so they’re directing these public safety messages toward El Paso residents who are actually in very little danger of drowning. And the people who are in danger of drowning, the migrants, have no idea.

Did you also find an increase in the deaths of children?

Definitely, yes. In 2018, two eight-year-old Guatemalan kids died. There’s a lot of teenagers dying, crossing the border wall, a lot of them drowning in El Paso city itself. For instance, there was a Russian man and his teenage daughter who both fell into a canal and drowned. They were running from Border Patrol agents. I believe that happened in 2021. We saw fewer deaths of younger people in New Mexico.

You also found that Customs and Border Protection is significantly undercounting deaths related to enforcement. Can you talk about this finding?

CBP is supposed to keep track of migrant deaths and CBP enforcement-related deaths, but we found that the agency is severely undercounting them. There’s been a lot of documentation in the past, talking about that fact, but there hasn’t been a whole lot of quantifying that undercount. Aside from the Arizona data that the Pima County Office of the Medical Examiner and Humane Borders have reported. For example, in one year we found 39 deaths, while CBP reported only 10 deaths.

We looked at investigator reports and so we were able to read the narratives, and learn circumstances around the deaths. We were able to see if someone was chased by Border Patrol, either on foot or by vehicle, or if they died in Border Patrol custody. We found that Border Patrol had tried to underplay some of these deaths.

We found that 15 percent of all migrant deaths in the El Paso sector were caused directly by Border Patrol due to chases or use of force, also due to custody deaths, or falls from the border wall. Humane Borders doesn’t track deaths related to Border Patrol enforcement. So this is the first instance that I’m aware of, where we are able to quantify the CBP undercount of Border Patrol-related deaths.

For 2022, for instance, we found 16 deaths that should have been reported by CBP as CBP-related deaths. CBP had only reported six of those deaths. Of the 16 we found, I think it’s still an undercount, because a lot of the investigative reports use vague or passive language about a person “jumping into the canal,” for instance. So you don’t know if the person was actually chased. So we only included cases where it’s very explicit.

What surprised you most in working on this report?

It’s really just shocking how close to help a lot of people died. I’m used to southern Arizona, where the terrain and trails are very remote. But we found people dying across the street from the cemetery, people dying a short walk from the Dollar General store. We’ve had this narrative of “prevention through deterrence” for the last few decades, which has pushed people away from cities into remote areas where they’re more prone to dying from heat exposure or something else. But now the border is militarized to the point where even Sunland Park, this suburb of El Paso, can be as deadly as the middle of nowhere in southern Arizona.

Last June, for instance, something like 40 percent more people died in Doña Ana County in New Mexico than the entire state of Arizona. Most of these deaths were close to the highway or close to a town. It’s a dynamic that has not really been studied. And the fact that it’s been happening for years without anybody really noticing is really scary.

Share The Border Chronicle

With these findings, are No More Deaths and other humanitarian groups mobilizing to do search-and-rescue and water drops in this area?

Like Texas, much of the land in New Mexico where people are dying is privately owned land, so it’s difficult to access for humanitarian groups.

We’ve been going there about once a month for the past year to try to organize some support. There’s a group that doesn’t have a name yet that we’ve started to work with, that’s putting out water in some of these areas. There’s another group from southern Arizona that has moved over to New Mexico to search for remains in the desert.

We’re hoping the news will spread and that others will join to help. We have some money to help out some groups that are forming. We’re really hoping that groups will form on their own for search-and-rescue and putting out water. Because right now, Border Patrol is the only game in town if you call 911 as a migrant. And Border Patrol has a horrible track record of actually helping anybody.

To get involved, learn more, or support humanitarian efforts, contact No More Deaths here.

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

Two things stand out:

A complete lack of accountability for the misguided politicos and bureaucrats who are dishonestly pushing these immoral and ineffective policies without “owning up” to both the known deadly consequences and the lack of long-term “deterrent” value (even assuming, as I do not, that effective deterrence could justify immoral and illegal policies) of the actions they are touting; and
A complete abdication of professional journalistic standards and performance from the many members of the so-called “mainstream media” who fail to include in each report on draconian “border control” proposals and “policies” the deadly, well-documented human consequences of those policies and who provide a toxic forum for politicos and supposed “pundits” spouting myths and nativist propaganda about “border enforcement,” without presenting experts like Melissa, Todd Miller and many others who have actual experience with the unending trauma and futility caused by our current misguided, often flatly illegal, and clearly immoral approach to “border enforcement.”

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-10-24

🇺🇸🗽 GOP LIES, DEM RETICENCE, OBSCURE A BIDEN IMMIGRATION SUCCESS STORY — Parole Program Works, Models Need & Opportunity For More Legal Immigration Pathways!

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biden-cuba-haiti-nicaragua-venezuela-parole-republicans_n_66058245e4b090bf41ba958e

Matt Shuham reports for HuffPost:

While most of the debate over immigration focuses on the U.S.-Mexico border, one of President Joe Biden’s most effective policies so far has occurred elsewhere ― at airports.

For a little over a year, Biden has used what’s called “parole” authority to collectively allow up to 30,000 vetted Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans per month into the country, mostly via air travel, for a temporary two-year window.

The program is based on the authority held by the federal government under the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act to grant temporary admission to foreigners on a “on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.” And, the Biden administration touts, it has been accompanied by drops in the number of nationals from each of these countries who’ve crossed the U.S.-Mexico border on foot.

But to hear some right-wingers talk about it, the “CHNV parole” program — the name an acronym for the nationalities it encompasses — is a secret, treasonous endeavor that utilizes government-funded charter flights to transport “illegal” migrants into the United States. None of that is true, but that doesn’t seem to be the point.

“I don’t know of anyone in Congress who knew this!” exclaimed Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on a podcast episode, just 14 months after Biden himself announced the CHNV parole program during a public press briefing and despite regular publications of data on the program by the Department of Homeland Security.

The false accusations of secret taxpayer-funded charter flights ferrying unvetted migrants to new lives in the United States plays into Republican attempts to cast immigration issues as a major crisis — and one on which Democrats are failing — ahead of the 2024 election.

. . . .

The precedent to the CHNV parole program was introduced in October 2022, when the Department of Homeland Security created a parole program for Venezuelans that was modeled on the Ukrainian program, requiring applicants to have a U.S.-based sponsor who’s financially able to support them and to pass vetting and background checks. In January 2023, the White House announced the program would expand to include Cuba, Haiti and Nicaragua.

Individuals from those four counties who meet the requirements and haven’t attempted to cross the U.S.-Mexico border between ports of entry are allowed to fly from their home countries into the United States rather than appearing in person at land border crossings.

Since January 2023, more than “386,000 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans arrived lawfully and were granted parole under the parole processes,” U.S. Customs and Border Protection wrote in a February 2024 update.

“There’s no doubt that the CHNV program is by far the largest-scale parole program that any administration has done in decades,” said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy director at the American Immigration Council, a research and legal advocacy organization.

And data supports the administration’s claim that the parole program, as part of a larger package, has helped discourage “irregular” migration.

As the Cato Institute reported in September, illegal entries by Venezuelans fell 66% from September 2022 to July 2023 and from December 2022 to July 2023, illegal entries fell 77% for Haitians, 98% for Cubans and 99% for Nicaraguans. Compared with peaks in CHNV numbers in 2021 and 2022, the report added, July 2023 arrests for those four nationalities were down 90%.

“There has not been a single month where unlawful entries of the four countries combined has been above the level it was in December 2022,” Reichlin-Melnick said.

The White House announced the policy as part of a package explicitly meant to “increase security at the border and reduce the number of individuals crossing unlawfully between ports of entry.” The Biden administration grouped the program with others meant to encourage “legal pathways” into the United States ― such as increased refugee admissions and asylum opportunities in other countries ― and alongside harsher border enforcement for migrants who broke the rules.

Naree Ketudat, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, told HuffPost in a statement that the CHNV parole process was part of a strategy to “combine expanded lawful pathways with stronger consequences to reduce irregular migration, and [has] kept hundreds of thousands of people from migrating irregularly.”

And yet many on the right have misrepresented ― or simply lied about ― what the parole program is, playing on anxieties about race and national identity to paint it as part of a supposed scheme by Democrats to overwhelm the country with new residents or somehow displace American citizens.

. . . .

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

Read the complete article at the link.

Beyond the barrage of racially-driven GOP lies, Dems have failed to capitalize on the success of Biden’s efforts and its benefits to the U.S. economy. Significantly, rather than just “moaning and groaning” about the so-called “immigration problem,” the Biden Administration actually took innovative action to address the situation.

The GOP claim that the program is “secret” is a blatant lie! Yet, you would be hard pressed to find any recent examples of Biden, Harris, their campaign officials, or Dem politicos touting the success of the parole program or the critical role of immigration of all types in the continuing strong performance of the U.S. economy.

You would would be much more likely to come across disingenuous statements blaming the GOP for not giving Biden “authority” to close the border, violate human rights, inflict more needless cruelty, and otherwise dehumanize asylum seekers at the Southern Border. In this way, Dems unwisely are playing along with the GOP nativists and giving them “cover” for their lies.

I’ll admit to initially being somewhat skeptical about the parole program, mainly because it could be seen as deflecting attention from much needed reforms and revitalization of existing legal programs for the admission of refugees and asylees that had been intentionally “kneecapped” by the Trump Administration.

Of course, no “pilot program” like this — particularly one with nationality restrictions and somewhat arbitrary numerical limits — can solve overnight problems allowed to fester for years. Yet, the parole program has demonstrated important principles that should form the basis for more durable legislative reforms of our legal immigration system:

Given realistic options, most individuals would choose to be pre-screened and apply from abroad (i/o/w “If you build it, they will use it!”);
Private sponsorships can play a key role in the selection, welcoming, resettlement, and integration process for legal immigration;
Allowing immigrants to work immediately upon arrival — rather than forcing them into an overburdened and over-bureaucratized work authorization process — benefits everyone;
More robust legal immigration opportunities will reduce pressure on the border and keep cases out of the backlogged Immigration Courts.

Rather than being a “false bone of contention” in the “immigration debate,” innovations like the parole program should form an empirical basis for bipartisan legal immigration reform and expansion that will benefit our nation and those who seek to become part of it in the 21st Century.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-08-24

⚖️🗽 BECKY QUOTES BECKETT, AS FEDERAL JUDGE “SCHOOLS” ADMINISTRATION, GOP NATIVISTS ON WHO THE “LAWBREAKERS” REALLY ARE! — USG Bears Legal (Not To Mention Moral) Responsibility For Forcing Children Into Squalid Camps ☠️🤮 To Await Processing That (By Law) Should Be Timely & Professionally Available @ The Border (But, By Design, Isn’t)!🏴‍☠️

Becky Wolozin, Senior Attorney, National Center For Youth Law, posted on LinkedIn:

I feel so privileged to have been part of this, to do something a good thing for people in this cruel world. Immensely proud of the advocates, migrants, and colleagues who worked together to hold the government to account and protect immigrant children caught in the fray of politics and an uncaring immigration system. It is a professional dream come true to be a member of Flores Counsel with National Center for Youth Law!

“Let us do something, while we have the chance! It is not every day that we are needed. Not indeed that we personally are needed. Others would meet the case equally well, if not better. To all mankind they were addressed, those cries for help still ringing in our ears! But at this place, at this moment of time, all mankind is us, whether we like it or not. Let us make the most of it, before it is too late!” ~ Waiting for Godot, Samuel Beckett

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/04/health/migrant-children-border-housing.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

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

Thanks, Becky, for your talent, dedication, and humanity, all of which stand in sharp contrast to border bureaucrats, DOJ Attorneys, and scofflaw nativists who have “weaponized” myths, dehumanization, dereliction of legal duties, and abdication of moral responsibility! This is a great example of the type of expertise and teamwork to get the job done that is all too seldom seen from the Administration, Congress, and the Judiciary in today’s toxic and too often fact- and morality-free immigration (non) debate! I’m glad that Judge Gee saw through the Garland DOJ’s pathetic attempt to evade legal responsibilities by making arguments that easily could’ be characterized as frivolous!

You can check it out yourself as quoted from the above NYT:

In response, lawyers for the Department of Justice argued that because the children had not yet been formally taken into custody by American customs officials, they were not obligated to provide such service. They did not dispute that the conditions in the encampments were poor.

Come on, man!👎🤯

I also loved the quote from “Waiting for Godot!” As Courtside readers may know, the “Theater of the Absurd,” Samuel Beckett, and “Waiting for Godot” have previously found their way into my postings about Garland’s incredibly lackadaisical approach to “justice @ Justice!” See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2023/12/22/%e2%9a%96%ef%b8%8f-followng-scathing-report-on-abuse-of-kids-in-immigration-court-eoir-announces-some-reforms-rekha-sharma-crawford-reports/.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-06-24

⚖️⚔️🛡️ ROUND TABLE CHAMPIONS NAIJ, RIPS EOIR “GAG ORDER!” — PLUS, BONUS COVERAGE: “NAIJ Is An Essential Force For Judicial Independence!” — A “Mini-Essay” By Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase!

Round Table, Gag, Chase Essay

The Round Table of Former Immigration Judges Statement on EOIR’s Prior Restraint on NAIJ Speech

As former Immigration Judges and BIA Board Members we strongly protest the unconstitutional prior restraint imposed by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) which effectively silences the officers of the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) and prohibits them from providing information or engaging in advocacy involving the complex workings of our nation’s Immigration Court system. We call for immediate reversal of this misguided policy.

In late February 2024 EOIR advised NAIJ officers that they could not speak publicly without obtaining advance permission through the agency’s “”SET” (Speaking Engagement Team) process, a requirement which was never imposed before. This is a cumbersome, multistep process which requires Immigration Judges to seek permission from their supervisors, the SET unit, and sometimes even EOIR’s Ethics team and the Office of Policy. It provides no time frames for decisions nor any opportunity for review of adverse determinations. It is a process which is wildly incompatible with the practical realities involved in responding to media or congressional inquiries which often involve extremely short deadlines, sometimes mere hours or days. Mandating union officers use this process is a thinly disguised gag order.

This step is a dramatic departure from a precedent of more than 50 years, since NAIJ was established in 1973 and was never previously mandated to seek prior approval for appearances or speech. It ignores the uncontroverted fact that NAIJ officials scrupulously provide disclaimers indicating that they are not speaking on behalf of EOIR [or its parent, the Department of Justice (DOJ)] or articulating any position except that held by NAIJ members. It unfairly penalizes NAIJ officers who risk personal discipline for insubordination should they fail to comply but are then hampered in the duties owed to their union members when they remain silent.

NAIJ has played a pivotal role fostering the independence and increased professionalism of the Immigration Courts. It brought home to Congress the crucial function that IJs serve in the deportation and removal process, not as prosecutors but rather as neutral arbiters. This resulted in a change in job title from Special Inquiry Officer to Immigration Judge in 1996, with a concomitant enhanced special pay rate intended to broaden and improve the candidate pool for new judges. NAIJ was a crucial player in efforts to protect the independence of the Immigration

Courts in 2002 by leading the successful effort to keep the court independent from the newly created Department of Homeland Security despite strong opposition to that end by the administration and DOJ. At that time, NAIJ argued presciently that the establishment of an Article I Court was the only enduring way to safeguard the sanctity of these courts which hear “death penalty cases in a traffic court setting.” While NAIJ did not succeed in achieving that lofty goal then, legislation to do just that is currently pending in Congress, largely due to NAIJ’s tireless advocacy and coalition building. NAIJ’s voice in the media often stands alone explaining the practical implications of the complex workings of our immigration removal laws since DOJ eschews comments despite the American standard in jurisprudence which emphasizes transparency in its tribunals. NAIJ is the only spokesperson for IJs in the field, who have the first-hand view of court operations. Without NAIJ speech, no views from these benches in the trenches will be heard.

Perhaps worst of all, this policy deprives the American public of the views of an important, informed group which can shed light on the realities of the implementation of immigration laws and policy at a time when public scrutiny is at an all-time high and accurate factual information scarce. Under this new policy, NAIJ officers cannot even speak at educational or professional seminars or other public events without DOJ approval and instruction as to precisely what they can or cannot say.

Government employees do not surrender their First Amendment rights when they take office. To the contrary, their duty to educate the public is heightened and their voice enhanced by their informed opinions and expertise.

We urge EOIR to restore NAIJ’s important voice and revoke this new policy. ###

The Round Table of Former Immigration Judges is composed of 56 former Immigration Judges and Appellate Immigration Judges of the Board of Immigration Appeals. We were appointed and served under both Republican and Democratic administrations. Members of our group have served in training and management roles at EOIR. Several of our members were officers and leaders in NAIJ and were instrumental in guiding NAIJ to accomplish the achievements described above. Combined we have decades of experience and unique expertise in the immigration court system and the field of immigration law.

For media inquiries, please contact Hon. Dana Leigh Marks (ret.) at danamarks@pobox.com or (415) 577-9831

3/25/24

Hon. Dana Leigh Marks
U.S. Immigration Judge (Retired)
San Francisco Immigration Court
Past President, National Association of Immigration Judges, Member Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

Knightess of the Round Table

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

MINI-ESSAY: NAIJ IS AN ESSENTIAL FORCE FOR JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE

By Judge (Ret.) Jeffrey S. Chase

March 25, 2024

In Matter of A-R-C-G-, the BIA at footnote 16 recognized that AILA, UNHCR, and CGRS in their amicus briefs had all argued that gender alone should be sufficient to constitute a valid PSG in the matter. However, the Board chickened out, stating that because they were recognizing the narrower group stipulated to by DHS, “we need not reach this issue.”

I think the real proof of the validity of gender per se as a PSG is found in what happened after Sessions issued Matter of A-B-. With A-R-C-G- vacated, IJs all around the country began issuing detailed written decisions recognizing gender plus nationality, and explaining why such group met all of the legal requirements. This was done by IJs with very different grant rates, across different circuits, and included at least one ACIJ. And remember, this was done under an AG that clearly didn’t want IJs to reach that conclusion.

Which allows me to segue into our next issue: a major reason that IJs felt empowered to issue those decisions that were clearly not to the AG’s liking was due to the decades of effort by the NAIJ on behalf of judicial independence. Our public statement, prepared by our esteemed colleague Judge Dana Marks with input from others in our group, criticizing EOIR’s recent gag order on NAIJ officers, who for the first time will now be required to request agency permission to speak publicly, is a powerful reminder of the essential role played by NAIJ in protecting judicial independence, promoting due process and fundamental fairness, and, ultimately, saving lives of those seeking justice from our nation.

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

Thanks to Dana, “Sir Jeffrey,” and all our other wonderful Round Table colleagues for speaking out so forcefully in favor of due process for all and judicial independence!

NOTE: I am a proud retired member of the NAIJ.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-26-24

⚖️ BIA: OUTSDE, INSIDE: Garland Reportedly Will Tap “Practical Scholar” Professor Homero López, Jr., & Temp. Appellate Immigration Judge Joan B. Geller To Prior Vacancies, With One Judgeship Still “In Competition!”

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

Special to Courtside

March 19, 2024

Although there has been no official announcement from DOJ/EOIR, I have learned that Professor (and legal services provider) Homero López and Temporary Appellate Judge (and long-time BIA attorney) Joan Geller will be appointed to two of the three existing vacancies at the BIA. The BIA is the highest administrative tribunal in immigration law and exercises nationwide jurisdiction over the Immigration Courts with authority to issue binding precedents.

Professor López‘s appointment was announced by Loyola University Law (New Orleans) where he has been an Adjunct Professor of Law:

Adjunct Professor Promoted to Board of Immigration Appeals

Adjunct Law Professor Homero Lopez has been appointed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, the top administrative appellate agency to review immigration court decisions in the United States! Judge Lopez will start considering appeals on April 1st!

https://law.loyno.edu/news/mar-12-2024_adjunct-law-professor-homero-lopez-has-been-appointed-board-immigration-appeals

BIA Judge-designate Homero López, Jr.
PHOTO: ILSA website

In addition to his adjunct professorship at Loyola, Judge-designate López most recently has been the Co-Founder & Legal Director of Immigration Services and Legal Advocacy (“ISLA”) in New Orleans, “a legal services organization that defends the rights of our immigrant communities and advocates for just and humane immigration policy.”

Here’s his bio from the ISLA website:

Homero is ISLA’s Legal Director. As the son of a migrant worker, Homero grew up moving around the country and living among immigrant communities his entire life. Before co-founding ISLA, Homero was the managing attorney at Catholic Charities-Archdiocese of New Orleans where he oversaw a legal team of 30 attorneys, accredited representatives, and legal assistants focusing on representing Unaccompanied Children and immigrant victims of crime. Before that, Homero was a staff, and later, supervising attorney at Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Baton Rouge where he conducted the Legal Orientation Program for detained immigrants at the LaSalle Detention Facility and primarily focused on detained cases. Homero is a graduate of Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas and Tulane University Law School in New Orleans, Louisiana.

López recently was featured by Dan Kowalski in LexisNexis for his successful litigation of a major due process/credibility victory in the Fifth Circuit, Nkenglefac v. Garland, 34 F.4th 422, 430 (2022), and for prevailing in the fee award litigation in the same case. See:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca5-on-due-process-credibility-nkenglefac-v-garland

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca5-awards-eaja-fees-nkenglefac-v-garland

Judge-designate Geller has spent the bulk of her legal career as on the BIA staff and has also served as a Temporary Appellate Immigration Judge/Board Member. Here’s her “official bio” from the EOIR website:

Joan B. Geller was appointed as a temporary board member in January 2018. Ms. Geller, who has prior experience as a temporary board member, has over 14 years of experience as an attorney advisor at the Board. Prior to joining the Board, Ms. Geller served for seven years with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, first as a staff attorney and later as a deputy staff counsel. Ms. Geller received her B.A. from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and her J.D.from Georgetown University Law Center. She is a member of the District of Columbia and Maryland Bars.

Significantly, from my standpoint, she graduated from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Georgetown Law, two institutions with which I have long-time associations. While Geller’s BIA service began after my tenure there, sources tell me she was “held in high regard by the staff attorneys.” That’s important, given that the bulk of the opinion-drafting work at the BIA is done by the staff and the endemic quality control issues now plaguing this appellate body.

Hopefully, López and Geller will bring some much-needed due process focus, quality control, and practical progressive scholarship, leadership, and energy to a floundering, yet critically important, tribunal badly in need of the foregoing.

Indeed, López’s stellar work in Nkenglefac went right to the heart of the chronic due process and quality control problems of the BIA, particularly in life or death asylum cases, under Sessions, Barr, and now Garland: failure to follow precedent favorable to the respondent, “phantom finding of waiver,” lack of critical analysis, misrepresentation of the record, misuse of non-record materials, improper allocation of the burdens, and ignoring or minimizing voluminous testimony! In other words, a classic example of prejudgement and “any reason to deny” (even if not in the record) decision-making!

So totally miserable was EOIR’s and OIL’s performance in Nkenglefac that in a rare move the Fifth Circuit in subsequent litigation found them to be “not substantially justified at each stage of this litigation” and awarded costs and attorneys fees to the respondent! Having seen first-hand just how absurdly skewed and unfair the EOIR system has become in “life on the line” cases, López should be well-positioned to “just say no” to this type of appellate nonsense and inject a long-missing dose of reality, humanity, and real scholarship into this “ivory (actually glass) tower tribunal!”

Those of us who care about justice in America have ripped Garland’s BIA for sloppiness, anti-asylum culture, anti-immigrant attitudes, and failure to establish clear, practical, positive precedents facilitating the timely granting of asylum to the many qualified refugees now stuck in the largely USG-created morass at our Southern Border. See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2024/03/18/⚖️-winograd-whomps-🥊-garlands-eoir-again-this-time-on-particularly-serious-crime-psc-annor-v-garland-fo/. For example, the failure to issue a precedent requiring presumptive grants of asylum to Afghan women, instead making them laboriously work their way through the system with potentially incorrect results, is an egregious, but not certainly not the only, example of the BIA’s abject failure to “get the job done for American justice.”

Even as I write this, my friend Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis has just forwarded yet another glaring example of “judicial malpractice” on asylum by the BIA — this latest rebuke coming from the Sixth Circuit (Vasquez-Rivera v. Garland). See https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca6-on-nexus-social-group-vasquez-rivera-v-garland.

I also trust that López and Geller will be “throwbacks” to a time when senior leaders EOIR actually believed in the noble (now abandoned) “vision” of EOIR that I once had a role in crafting: “Through teamwork and innovation, be the world’s best administrative tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.”

Rather than making that vision a reality, disgracefully, under the last four Administrations, the EOIR motto appears to have devolved into “any reason to deny, good enough for government work, numbers over quality, institutional survival over individual justice, go along to get along, and don’t rock the boat!”

Finally, the appointment of Judge-designate López illustrates my constantly-made point that NDPA warriors can and must compete for EOIR judgeships, particularly at the BIA level, when they are advertised! This system needs practical, positive, due-process-focused, protection-oriented change, and it needs it now! Things are only going to improve if the pressure comes from both better-qualified judges on the “inside” and unrelenting litigation and media coverage from the “outside!”

So, get those applications in before April 12, 2024 to join Judge-designates López and Geller on the BIA bench! See https://immigrationcourtside.com/2024/03/15/⚖%EF%B8%8F🗽👩🏾⚖%EF%B8%8F-calling-ndpa-all-stars🌟-wanted-bia-appellate-judge-dedicated-to-due-process-asylum-expertise/

And, of course, good luck to both these new Appellate Immigration Judges! May you never, ever forget that due process is the one and only mission of EOIR!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-19-24

🗽 THE HUMANITY, DECENCY, HOPE, & PATIENCE OF THOSE SEEKING LEGAL REFUGE @ OUR BORDER CONTRASTS WITH THE BIPARTISAN LIES, MYTHS, & BIAS DRIVING OUR HORRIBLE POLITICAL “DIALOGUE” — “U.S. politicians treat migrants as dangerous, flat, or faceless, and claim enforcement is the only solution to the ‘crisis.’ A shelter in Nogales offers a different perspective.” — Todd Miller @ The Border Chronicle Reports From South Of The Border!

Todd Miller
Border Correspondent
Border Chronicle
PHOTO: Coder Chron

https://open.substack.com/pub/theborderchronicle/p/the-garden-at-the-migrant-shelter?r=1se78m&utm_medium=ios

Todd writes:

When we entered the garden, Tomás’s face relaxed. We were at the Casa de la Misericordia de Todas las Naciones in Nogales, Sonora, Mexico, where he had resided for six months with his wife, Cristina, and three children. Before we entered the garden, Cristina and Tomás told me that a criminal group had abducted their 20-year-old son, Carlos, in the small rural community where they lived in the mountains of the Mexican state of Guerrero. Carlos returned to the family, but they knew he was under threat, that the whole family was in danger. As we spoke under the shade of a large tree, children raced around and played on a swing set in front of a yellow building that housed primarily mothers with young children. About 120 people, including entire families, were staying at this shelter, which was designed for people seeking asylum. Cristina did most of the talking, but at the end Tomás asked me if I wanted to see the garden. Cristina had to return to the kitchen, which was her responsibility this week. For his part, Tomás had been the encargado of the garden, in charge of it, he told me, since they arrived.

He showed me the radishes, the calabazas, the zanahoria. He showed me what remained of the tomatoes and chiles that got blasted by the cold. He showed me the lombrices, earthworms burrowing in the composting soil topped with banana peels. As he showed me all the plants, Tomás talked about how much he loved farming, how much he loved planting seeds, how much he liked caring for these plants and watching them grow. In Guerrero he had tended his milpa (small parcel of land) of squash, beans, and corn every day. As he spoke, I tried to envision his rural mountain community; over the years I have met many campesinos, small farmers, across southern Mexico, in his state of Guerrero, in Oaxaca, in Chiapas. Having knelt in the soil of the milpas before, I understood how this small garden in Nogales was like a sanctuary, especially in the face of a scary situation, as Cristina and Tomás had told me, away from home, away from your roots, your child’s life in danger, wondering if you would get asylum. When they arrived six months earlier, they applied for asylum on the glitchy, confusing, and difficult-to-use CBP One app with the help of staff at the Casa, a service they offer to all people staying in the shelter. Tomás told me that when things got stressful, “I come here to the garden. And the stress goes away.” He made a motion with his hand. His hand then touched the soil, searching for the plants. He looked up, and his face was serene.

From where we talked in the garden, we had a sweeping view of Nogales. The Casa is perched on a hill above a working-class neighborhood called Bella Vista, where the bustle often starts in the early morning as maquila workers head to the factories. For line workers making Samsonite suitcases, General Electric lightbulbs, or Masterlocks, the wages are a pittance—giving Nogales a feel of a city in constant strain and struggle.

Also, from the Casa you can look north toward the border with Arizona. Last Thursday, President Joe Biden and Donald Trump came to the border in “dueling visits,” but in faraway Brownsville and Eagle Pass, Texas. People like Tomás and Cristina and family were in the news again, not as their full human selves but as flat numbers and statistics. The “narrative of overwhelm,” as Erika Pinheiro put to The Border Chronicle in an audio interview, was full steam ahead. Alarmist rhetoric filled the airwaves, including the omnipresent “record numbers” of people crossing in every report. In Brownsville, in a proposal that might have seemed like fiction if we went back in time to the 2020 campaign, Biden challenged Trump to “show a little spine” and help him tighten the border by supporting the enforcement-heavy border bill shot down by the Senate in early February. For Trump’s part, he referred to people crossing the border as the “Joe Biden invasion”and as a “vicious violation to our country.” At this point in a heating-up U.S. presidential campaign, the age-old depiction of migrants as either dangerous or a mass of faceless numbers arriving to the benevolent U.S. doorstep was in full effect. More enforcement, both sides were clearly stating, was the solution.

Tomás knelt down to the soil. He showed me the garlic and onions he had planted as an experiment. “Do you want to try a radish?” he asked me in Spanish. “Yes,” I said, “please.” He plucked a radish out of the soil. I wiped off the soil and took a bite. I don’t know if it was because I was hungry (I was), or if it was the force of the stories Tomás and Cristina had shared (probably that too), or just watching Tomás work the soil, tenderly touch the plants, his face soft and concentrated, the perils of asylum-seeker limbo temporarily forgotten, that I knew that this type of care would render something delicious. The radish was so succulent that I finished it too quickly, but I was too bashful to ask for another, even though I wanted one. We could still hear the voices of playing kids coming up from below; there were people from all over Mexico, from Central America, from Peru, Colombia, and from across the world like China, Iran, and Senegal. Before talking with Tomás and Cristina, I visited the tortillería, where three young men worked making tortillas. I visited a workshop where people made weavings and other art projects.

I visited a gigantic bread oven—where people from different countries baked bread in their own traditions, and I visited the kitchen and dining room where banners celebrating the Chinese New Year hung from the walls. One new year celebratory sign read in English, “Be patient, Be light, Be love, Be you!” Another read in Spanish, “La amabilidad es la llave de todas las fortunas” (Friendliness is the key to all fortune).

The shelter is run by its director, Alma Angélica Macías, but the effort was a community one, and a binational one. I was there with a small group of people from the Good Shepherd UCC church in Arizona who bring food to the Casa every Thursday. And given that the shelter allows people to stay as long as the asylum process takes, the Casa had a feel of a multinational hub where people of different nationalities had formed deep bonds, and as I stood there with Tomás, I was moved by this beautiful, alternative view of the border that rarely sees the light of day in the media.

Right as I was about to leave the garden, Tomás’s 20-year-old son came to ask him a question. Tomás introduced me to Carlos, and as I looked into his young face, I remembered the threats to his life that had led them there. As I stood waiting, they talked among themselves, and I thought again about the presidential race, the constant push for more border enforcement, the rightward drift of that debate, the talk that the U.S. government was going to clamp down even harder on asylum seekers—all while watching the father and son talk in calm, sweet tones in that lovely garden. When they were finished, there was a pause. One last moment to take in the garden and the sweeping view around us. I used the pause to thank Tomás for showing me the garden, for showing me his gift with the land. I didn’t know what to say except that I thought it was beautiful and that I felt inspired. And then—after a quick, tender, and vulnerable look to young Carlos, who was still by his side—Tomás told me, as if he didn’t want to have to say it, “I hope they give us asylum.”

*For the story, I altered the names of the family from Guerrero at the request of the shelter.

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

Click the above link for the original article with Todd’s wonderful border photography!

As I often say, we can diminish ourselves as a nation, (as both Trump and Biden are doing with their “misleading dehumanizing rhetoric” and spineless “scapegoating”), but it won’t stop human migration. Dehumanization and victimization in the end highlight the humanity of the victims while diminishing the dehumanizers.

Notably, this family has spent months trying “to do things the right way” by scheduling an appointment through the woefully inadequate “CBP One App” and appointment system. Yet, it appears that they have not even been given the interview to which they are entitled by law, nor have they been given a date for the fair merits adjudication they deserve!

The immense backlogs that everyone complains about (and which actually hurt legitimate asylum seekers like Tomás and his family) are largely self-created by years of USG over-investment in ridiculously expensive and ultimately ineffective enforcement accompanied by grotesque “under-investment” in timely, professional, and humane screening and adjudication of claims.

Both Biden and Trump know or should know that “the app” and the system it engenders are hopelessly defective. Yet, rather than moving to fix it (Biden) or urging supporters to invest in fixing it (Trump), both candidates shamelessly dump on the victims of their joint misfeasance and urge “further punishment” of those victims, apparently to “CTAs” for their own legal and moral failures.

Such is the “bogus border debate” — actually not a “debate” but rather a “one-sided nationalistic lie-fest” highlighted by obscene finger-pointing and journalistic malpractice on a catastrophic scale. All this happens with human lives and the very future of our democratic republic hanging in the balance!

Eventually, the judgement history on this disingenuous “bipartisan exercise in neofascism” will fall on the shameless politicos, the complicit media, and those who fail to call them out for their lies and misdeeds. Whether that judgement will come in time to save Tomás, Cristina, Carlos, and others like them seeking only justice and humanity from our nation is a different question. Like Tomás, one can only hope!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-08-24

🏴‍☠️🤮 TRUMP’S & MILLER’S “ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY” IRREPARABLY DAMAGED VULNERABLE FAMILIES & THE AMERICAN PSYCHE — We Can’t Allow Them To Do It Again!

Piper S. French
Editor & Writer
PHOTO: Linkedin

https://apple.news/AMAcNuZxJRTmYkzleEZLNXw

Piper French reports for Intelligencer via Apple News:

Nilu Chadwick recognizes some of the children’s names right away. Chadwick, a lawyer for Kids in Need of Defense, has spent the past five years poring over lists of families separated under the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy whose cases have yet to be resolved. Some of the children’s names stand out because she crossed paths with them back in 2018, when she represented them at their immigration hearings after they were torn from their parents’ side at the southern border. Those names always remind her of what she witnessed that year. The eerie silence of the children’s shelters. The kids so young that they couldn’t even explain who they were or where they came from. The hearing she had to pause in order to soothe a client with a nursery rhyme. Then there are the names that have simply grown familiar through repetition: the children whose cases appeared on the lists years ago and remain open.

The process of reunifying families separated under “zero tolerance” began in June 2018, two months after the policy was officially implemented. The ACLU had filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of separated families, Ms. L. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and during the litigation, a federal judge halted Trump’s policy and ordered its victims reunified within 30 days. Some of these reunifications were relatively straightforward. The government had records of around 2,800 separated families, and most of those parents and children were still in the U.S. — maybe they’d been sent to separate ICE facilities or the parents were in detention while their children had been placed in the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement. But for about 470 families, the parents had already been deported. When the Trump administration declined to track them down, Lee Gelernt, the head lawyer for the plaintiffs, stood up in court and said the ACLU would do it. A steering committee was put together comprising a team from the New York law firm Paul, Weiss and representatives from three NGOs, including Kids in Need of Defense and the organization Justice in Motion. “Little did I know what we were taking responsibility for,” Gelernt told me.

The first hurdle the committee faced was the total disorganization with which “zero tolerance” had been implemented. “There was no intention of reuniting families, and so they didn’t design the system to be able to keep track,” Nan Schivone, Justice in Motion’s legal director, told me. The agencies involved — Customs and Border Protection, which took families into custody; ICE, which oversaw their detainment; the ORR, which was responsible for the separated children — didn’t have a comprehensive system to share data with one another, nor did they always keep records linking parents with their children. If children were released from ORR custody into the care of family or friends, the government did limited follow-up. “We give you a luggage tag for your luggage,” said Gisela Voss, a former board member of Together & Free, which supports families seeking asylum. “We separated parents from their kids and didn’t give them, like, a number.”

It took two months, until August 2018, for the administration to provide the steering committee with the phone numbers of the deported parents; a quarter of the numbers were missing. The committee began its search, making calls and performing social-media investigations. Then, in January 2019, the HHS Office of Inspector General revealed that more families had been separated than the Trump administration had previously disclosed. Nine months later, the Justice Department finally produced those names. There were 1,500 of them, and the vast majority of the parents had been deported.

. . . .

But the more that people who have dedicated their lives to this task continue to search, the more it becomes apparent that there will never be a clean resolution. There will always be another family. They know, too, that reunification solves only one problem. Families may be together again, but whether they will ever be whole is another question entirely.

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

Read the complete article at the link.

No accountability whatsoever for Trump, Miller, Sessions and the other “human rights criminals” responsible for this. As is all too common in immigration and human rights “fails” by our immigration bureaucracy, the private, pro bono and NGO sectors are left to pick up the pieces after having to fight to uphold the rule of law.

The real story here is the blatant failure of our Government to uphold the rule of law for those seeking legal refugee and the irreparable effects of that failure. Somehow we have allowed politicos and the media to reverse that story line!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-05-24

🇺🇸🗽⚖️ “[O]ur leaders should be grand-standing with a 21st century plan that embraces immigration and immigrants for all that they can do for America,” Says Beatriz Lopez @ The Narrative Intervention on Substack!

https://beatrizlopez.substack.com?utm_source=navbar&utm_medium=web

Immigration is Fueling America’s Economic Boom – So Why is Migration Still A “Bad” Thing?

Immigration makes America, America.

BEATRIZ LOPEZ

MAR 1, 2024

This month, in case you missed it, there were several news headlines that once again proved that immigration is not just good for the U.S. economy, but freaking amazing. I’m not exaggerating – just take a look at the glorious reports revealed in February:

A Congressional Budget Office report found that, “The labor force in 2033 is larger by 5.2 million people, mostly because of higher net immigration. As a result of those changes in the labor force, we estimate that, from 2023 to 2034, GDP will be greater by about $7 trillion and revenues will be greater by about $1 trillion than they would have been otherwise.”

The most powerful economic rebound post-pandemic in the world is thanks to immigration in the U.S. The Washington Post reported, “About 50 percent of the labor market’s extraordinary recent growth came from foreign-born workers between January 2023 and January 2024, according to an Economic Policy Institute analysis of federal data.” Impressively, the surge in hires of immigrant workers filled “unprecedented gaps in the economy that threatened the country’s ability to recover from prolonged shutdowns.”

Even The New York Times piled on: “A resumption in visa processing in 2021 and 2022 jump-started employment, allowing foreign-born workers to fill some holes in the labor force that persisted across industries and locations after the pandemic shutdowns. Immigrants also address a longer-term need: replenishing the work force, a key to meeting labor demands as birthrates decline and older people retire.” The report also features a City Council president and member of the Plumbers and Steamfitters union in Indiana who says he would welcome migrants with open arms as his union is in desperate need of members.

Despite so many economists, industry and business leaders, and fellow Americans clamoring for immigrants to come to America and live and work in a small town in the middle of nowhere or somewhere, our politicians are stuck in the quicksand of deterrence, slowly sinking into policy and politics that muddle speeches and don’t make anyone want to save them.

Don’t get me wrong– I do want to save President Biden but, buddy, we need to work on those talking points. While I agree border communities and immigration officials are in dire need of resources and should be provided the proper funding and manpower, President Biden’s continual push for the Senate bipartisan bill was half futile. I get the political jab; use it, in fact, as it works against Republicans. But for the love of God stop trying to push the bill forward. It’s dead. Start planting the messaging seeds for better, more galvanizing solutions that address the border, resource welcoming communities, and deliver legal pathways. And above all center the economic and cultural contributions of Dreamers and immigrant families that Trump is eager to deport.

Humanizing the narrative is always a winning strategy. Recognizing the rewards of immigration and the hard work of immigrants, both in policies and messaging, speaks to those persuadable voters that Biden and Democrats must win over.

Where have you gone, John Fetterman? I roll my lonely eyes at you.

Now here’s someone who’s actually sinking. Yesterday, Senator John Fetterman (PA), on an apparent quest to prove he’s a tough border security hawk, said he would support H.R. 2 except for its aim to terminate DACA. He claims to have analyzed the bill, and if he did, then I am stupid for having ever thought he was a decent guy who understood the importance of immigration in America.

As a reminder, H.R. 2 is basically a Stephen Miller wet dream (I apologize for the imagery): it would (1) end legal representation for unaccompanied children and deport them faster, (2) shut down the asylum system, (3) give any DHS secretary the authority to deny every single migrant the right to seek asylum (in other words, permanent Title 42), (4) jail and detain immigrant families, (5) eliminate humanitarian parole, (6) punish and defund faith-based organizations and NGOs for supporting newly-arrived migrants, and (7) jail and penalize immigrants who overstay their visa. (Imagine if that last one were in place when Fetterman’s wife and mother-in-law had arrived in the U.S.)

Neither H.R. 2 nor the Senate bipartisan bill are “grand bargains” unless it’s a deal scored by a used car salesman hiding the 20% annual interest rate. When immigration is decidedly incredible for the economy, when immigrants are proudly working and thriving alongside their fellow American, when those seeking freedom and opportunity are willing to risk their lives for a leg up to work – work! – when businesses and communities are desperate for immigrants to fuel their future, our leaders should be grand-standing with a 21st century plan that embraces immigration and immigrants for all that they can do for America.

After all, immigration makes America, America.

Thanks for reading The Narrative Intervention! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Pledge your support

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

Thanks for speaking truth to power, Beatriz!

While Trump and Biden trade barbs and disgracefully try to ”one up” each other as to who can be the most cruel, cowardly, and dumb on “bogus border security,” the real humanitarian and asylum processing crises go unaddressed; the most vulnerable continue to suffer at the hands of a country they want to help while saving their own lives. This is a potential “win-win” that our politicians refuse to embrace!

On the plus side, Senior USDJ David Alan Ezra of the W.D. Tex., preliminarily enjoined SB 4, Texas’s extremist attempt to subvert the Constitution by taking over immigration law enforcement. https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/federal-court-blocks-extreme-texas-legislation-that-would-overstep-federal-immigration-law

Texas will appeal to the too-often-lawless Fifth Circuit, so this saga is only beginning. But, at least this time the “good guys” struck first and won the opening round.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-1-24

Eduardo Porter writes in WashPost:

Gordon F. Sander, journalist and historian, also writes in WashPost, perhaps somewhat less optimistically, but with the same historical truth in the face of current political lies and gross misrepresentations:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Proposed Asylum Bar Regs Are At Odds With International Law (And Why That Matters)

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Read Karen’s newly-released article “Aligning United States Law with International Norms Would Remove Major Barriers to Protection in Gender Claims” in the 2024 Edition of the International Journal of Refugee Law. Here’s the abstract:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

TMJS’s Eva Wen interviews Erin:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Felipe writes:

How a little-known, century-old law perpetuated the odious notion that certain types of immigrants degrade our nation’s character

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Migration in the Americas Project

Here’s another related event:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

From The Border Chronicle:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever.

Related posts:

Melissa reports in the latest issue of The Border Chronicle:

Two things stand out:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Matt Shuham reports for HuffPost:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Becky Wolozin, Senior Attorney, National Center For Youth Law, posted on LinkedIn:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

The Round Table of Former Immigration Judges Statement on EOIR’s Prior Restraint on NAIJ Speech

MINI-ESSAY: NAIJ IS AN ESSENTIAL FORCE FOR JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE

By Judge (Ret.) Jeffrey S. Chase

March 25, 2024

NOTE: I am a proud retired member of the NAIJ.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

⚖️ BIA: OUTSDE, INSIDE: Garland Reportedly Will Tap “Practical Scholar” Professor Homero López, Jr., & Temp. Appellate Immigration Judge Joan B. Geller To Prior Vacancies, With One Judgeship Still “In Competition!”

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

Special to Courtside

March 19, 2024

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Todd writes:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Piper French reports for Intelligencer via Apple News:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Immigration is Fueling America’s Economic Boom – So Why is Migration Still A “Bad” Thing?

Immigration makes America, America.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts: