"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
Hiding in plain sight on a dusty corner of this remote west Texas town, the Blackwell School stands as a lasting reminder of what Mexican American students endured during decades of segregation.
“I learned about racism here in Marfa,” said Jessi Silva, 73, who attended the school as a child in the 1950s and 1960s.
Sitting in the schoolhouse last month, Silva gestured to a wooden paddle she said teachers used to spank classmates for speaking Spanish.
Opened in 1909 as a three-room “Mexican school,” Blackwell expanded to half a dozen buildings, educating more than 4,000 children before it closed in 1965.
“Students were told to speak only English on campus,” reads a state historic marker outside the stucco and adobe school, which is now a museum. “Spanish words written on slips of paper were buried on the grounds in a mock funeral ceremony.”
“One of the other teachers came into our classroom and wrote the word ‘Spanish’ on the blackboard, gave each one of us a small piece of paper and told us to write the letters that we saw on the blackboard,” Silva recalled.
Afterward, the teacher collected the slips of paper “and then they marched us all out to the flagpole.”
“They already had a hole dug, and they had this box,” Silva recalled. “They put all the students’ papers in that box and said that we can all vote to do away with the Spanish language. Therefore, we were burying ‘Mr. Spanish.’ And we were no longer allowed to speak Spanish in school.”
. . . .
*****************
Read Molly’s full article at the link.
Kids used to come to a “first master” before me speaking a few words of English. By their second master they were speaking English and helping their family members understand. I’d tell them that they had now surpassed me in language achievement. Bilingualism is a fantastic life skill!
So what should we tell our students? Many are dispirited and cynical because, as far into the future as they can see, this court appears likely to do more harm than good to democracy.
First, we shouldn’t hide the reality that judicial decisions often depend on who is on the bench. That has never been more true because the entrenched partisan Senate confirmation process now guarantees that a Supreme Court nominee will be chosen to carry out political and ideological aims. For the first time in American history, the ideology of the justices precisely corresponds to the political party of the president who appointed them. All six conservatives were appointed by Republican presidents and all three liberals were appointed by Democrats.
Until recently, there were moderate liberals, such as John Paul Stevens and David H. Souter, appointed by Republicans, and there were moderate conservatives, such as Byron White and Felix Frankfurter, who had been appointed by Democrats. Trump picked three of the most ideologically conservative judges on the federal bench.
If students are to one day become effective litigators on constitutional rights, they will need to understand the ideologies of the justices interpreting the law. In the past, we certainly discussed the ideology of the justices with our students, but we must focus on it far more now as the ideological differences between the Republican-appointed justices and judges and those appointed by Democratic presidents are greater than they have ever been.
Second, we must remind students that there have been other bleak times in constitutional law when rights were contracted. From the 1890s until 1936, a conservative Supreme Court struck down over 200 progressive federal, state and local laws protecting workers and consumers. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, the court refused to stand up to the hysteria of McCarthyism. The current court will not last forever, though it may feel like that to them.
Third, we should direct focus on other avenues for change. Students need to look more to state courts and legislatures, at least in some parts of the country, as a way to advance liberty and equality. For instance, the Massachusetts Legislature passed a law known as the “Roe Act,” protecting a woman’s right to abortion under state law, no matter what the Supreme Court decides. We need to teach our students how to use the power of local governments to protect fair housing, public education and public health.
Fourth, we must encourage them to look at the sweep of history. In the early 1960s, almost half the states had Jim Crow segregation laws, there were few women going to law school, and every state had a law criminally prohibiting same-sex sexual activity. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was right when he said that the arc of the moral universe is long and it bends toward justice — if we work for it.
There really are just two choices: Give up or fight harder, even if there will be a lot of losses along the way. If we can instill in students a desire to defend justice, even if victory is distant, it will be a good semester, no matter what the Supreme Court decides.
Erwin Chemerinsky is dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law and a contributing writer to Opinion. Jeffrey Abramson is professor of law and government at the University of Texas at Austin.
*************************
Read the full article at the above link.
Sometimes, the best you can do is save as many lives as you can, one at a time. Eventually, it adds up. Also, as the article suggests, it’s critical to get involved and speak out on local political issues. That’s where the fascist far-right has made huge inroads.
The so-called Title 42 border closure, which uses the COVID-19 pandemic to justify immediate expulsion or deportation of people fleeing persecution and torture, has always been heartless and illegal. So why is the Biden administration indefinitely continuing this most egregious and unlawful of Trump’s immigration policies? Recent reports confirm that it’s in part because the White House doesn’t want the political repercussions of ending it.
That craven position would be a flimsy defense in court. It’s also simply bad politics.
Biden continues to be accused of advocating open borders. It is likely that nothing he can do will placate those who supported Trump’s anti-immigrant policies. On the other hand, recent polling shows that a majority of Americans believe “immigration is a good thing” for the country, and American support for resettlement of Afghan refugees was at 81% in August. It is not necessarily true that harsh immigration policies are winning strategies.
Even if it were politically expedient to keep the border closed to those seeking safety, turning away these individuals without any opportunity to apply for protection is a violation of U.S. law, as well as of international treaties to which the U.S. is a party. The pretext of Title 42 does not make our actions any less a violation of law. This point was made quite clear by Harold Koh, a senior State Department legal advisor and former dean of Yale Law School, who has served in four presidential administrations. In a stern rebuke, Koh wrote that the use of Title 42 was “illegal” and “inhumane,” inconsistent with American values and not worthy of the Biden administration.
Just as the Trump administration invoked it in March 2020, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced this summer that it would continue, the Biden administration could revoke Title 42 now, permitting asylum applications again in compliance with our legal obligations.
This misuse of Title 42 authority, a public health law, was the brainchild of former President Trump’s senior advisor Stephen Miller. Evidently not satisfied with the administration’s brutal “Remain in Mexico” policy, which forced asylum seekers to await their hearings in Mexico, once COVID-19 struck Miller decided the pandemic could be used as a pretext to close the border, denying migrants the right to even seek asylum. Officials at the CDC maintained that this measure was not justified by public health considerations and only acceded as a result of sustained White House pressure.
The Title 42 policy has resulted in untold suffering. People refused entry are either expelled to Mexico, where they face kidnapping, rape and other brutal assaults, or they are forcibly returned to their home countries — regardless of the human rights violations they may encounter there. Since September, thousands of Haitians have been deported despite the U.S. government’s acknowledgement that Haiti is “grappling with a deteriorating political crisis, violence, and a staggering increase in human rights abuses.” The kidnapping for ransom of American missionaries in October highlighted the acute dangers that persist in the island nation.
. . . .
*************************
Read Karen’s full op-ed at the link.
I’m thankful for Karen and other extraordinary leaders of the NDPA who continue to confront the “power structure” with “uncomfortable truth!”
An orderly refugee processing system abroad and a properly staffed and run asylum system at the border that timely recognizes those needing protection and enlists and cooperates with NGOs to ensure representation and resettlement in locations where they can quickly contribute should actually be more “popular” than the current “scofflaw chaos” resulting from misguided and ultimately futile “maximum enforcement and deterrence” efforts by our Government.
This is not to suggest that “popularity” should be the “test” for whether we comply with our legal and moral obligations to refugees. Given the many documented contributions that refugees and immigrants make to America, there is no reason to assume that a viable asylum program can’t be part of a robust legal immigration program that benefits everyone.
The treatment of Haitian refugees at the U.S. border last month — some chased by horseback agents, others huddled by the thousands under a bridge — is tragic. For reasons that are less obvious, it is also ironic. Although Americans’ centuries-long debt to the Haitian people is untaught in our schools and unacknowledged in our public discourse, the indomitable spirit of the Haitian people created the United States we know today.
Even the capsule version of Haiti’s successful fight to end slavery and for independence at the turn of the 19th century is riveting. C.L.R. James, the late Trinidadian political leader and historian of the Caribbean, wrote six decades ago:
“In August 1791, after two years of the French Revolution and its repercussions in [Hispaniola], the slaves revolted. The struggle lasted for 12 years. The slaves defeated in turn the local whites and the soldiers of the French monarchy, a Spanish invasion, a British expedition of some 60,000 men, and a French expedition of similar size under Bonaparte’s brother-in-law. The defeat of Bonaparte’s expedition in 1803 resulted in the establishment of the Negro state of Haiti which has lasted to this day.”
It’s one of the most remarkable stories of liberation that we have as a species: the largest revolt of enslaved people in human history, and the only one known to have produced a free state. But even this sweeping account understated the extraordinary role that Haiti’s rebellious enslaved played in world history.
Their success in freeing themselves in the face of the stoutest European hostility imaginable ironically made Haiti the first nation to fulfill the most fundamental values of the Enlightenment: freedom from bondage and racial equality for all. These principles were enshrined in Haiti’s first constitution, in 1804, decades before they were embraced by the United States.
And that was just the beginning.
. . . .
***********************
Read the rest of the article at the link.
How have we repaid the debt? By illegally deporting Haitian asylum seekers to the “kidnapping center of the world” and then disingenuously claiming that it is a “safe” country for returns!
PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti — Four days after the August earthquake that devastated the south of Haiti, Walkens Alexandre, a physician, was traveling to treat victims at a hospital when a motorcycle blocked his white Ford Ranger. Two men hopped off, pulled guns, commandeered his truck and hauled him to the outskirts of the capital.
He was held for three days while the kidnappers negotiated by phone with his family. He’d be set free for 30 times his monthly salary. Loved ones pleaded with relatives and friends to contribute to the ransom.
“Now I’m traumatized, fearful of people, and reminded of this every time someone slams a door, or I hear a motorcycle,” said Alexandre, 43. “We don’t feel safe in Haiti. There is always panic, always fear.”
The most troubled nation in the hemisphere is now being held hostage by a surge in kidnappings.
With victims spanning all social classes and ransoms ranging from as little as $100 to six figures, Haiti now holds the tragic title of highest per capita kidnapping rate on Earth. Recorded kidnappings so far this year have spiked sixfold over the same period last year, as criminals nab doctors on their way to work, preachers delivering sermons, entire busloads of people in transit — even police on patrol. So great is the surge that this year, Port-au-Prince is posting more kidnappings in absolute terms than vastly larger Bogotá, Mexico City and São Paulo combined, according to the consulting firm Control Risks.
[Haitian migrants thought Biden would welcome them. Now deported to Haiti, they have one mission: Leave again.]
Locals and foreigners alike are living in fear. The heads of several foreign companies told The Washington Post that the kidnapping wave led them to reassign staffers to remote work in other Caribbean countries, Europe or the United States. Other firms are leaving Haiti altogether.
“Every time you leave your door in Port-au-Prince, it’s like a game of Russian roulette,” said one European executive, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss security. “You don’t know if you’ll be kidnapped that day.”
Maarten Boute, chairman of cellular phone provider Digicel Haiti, said his firm has resorted to moving staff only in armored cars with drivers trained for kidnapping scenarios. Because of the escalating risk, he said, he abandoned his Port-au-Prince home this year to move into a fortified hotel compound.
“Most people who can afford it and have visas have sent their family away, or moved outside the country,” he said. “We are using armed security, armored cars and have patrols that [scout] roads. But we still avoid certain areas, or moving around, as much as we can.”
Saddled with endemic poverty and violence, Haiti is no stranger to kidnapping waves. The country suffered a brutal surge from 2005 until the 2010 earthquake, which killed more than 220,000 people but had the effect of moderating kidnappings. Numbers have climbed steadily in recent years as violent gangs, unchecked by the government, have seized control over key portions of the country.
. . . .
**********************
Read the rest of the report at the link!
This is a “safe country” for removal? “Rounding them up and moving them out” without meaningful inquiry into individual circumstances is “American justice?” Come on, man!
Mayorkas and Garland have obviously spent far too much time at the “Miller Lite Happy Hour” 🤮☠️ and far too little time restoring the rule of law for vulnerable asylum seekers who deserve our protection!👎🏽
“Miller Lite” on Tap @ DOJ & DHS! Maybe Mayorkas & Garland have had “one too many!”
A federal appellate court Thursday temporarily granted the Biden administration’s request to continue the use of a public health order to quickly expel migrants with children who are stopped along the U.S. border.
A lower court had given the Biden administration until Thursday to limit use of the law, while immigrant and legal advocates proceeded with a lawsuit against it. The Trump administration had invoked the 1944 health statute, known as Title 42, to close the border to prevent people from entering the country, citing concerns about the spread of the coronavirus.
The case, brought in the District of Columbia by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups, focuses on families with children, meaning the administration can continue to expel single adults under the provision.
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan found earlier this month that advocates were likely to succeed with their case. In a 58-page ruling, he wrote that migrant families subjected to Title 42 “face real threats of violence and persecution” and are deprived of statutory rights to seek protection in the U.S.
. . . .
****************
Read Andrea’s complete article at the link!
More unfair and unjustified returns of refugees to death and despair courtesy of an Administration that doesn’t care and Federal Judges unwilling to do their jobs! The dead can’t speak. But, history will judge all those involved in this disgraceful episode!
REYNOSA, Mexico — When Joe Biden was running for president, he promised to close a squalid border tent camp in Mexico where thousands of migrants had been left to await the outcome of their immigration cases by the Trump administration.
Last spring, Biden emptied the camp, allowing most of the migrants to claim asylum and enter the U.S. even as his administration continued enforcing a Trump pandemic policy that effectively barred most other asylum seekers.
Soon after the Matamoros camp was bulldozed last March, a new camp formed about 55 miles west across from the border bridge to the more dangerous, Gulf crime cartel stronghold of Reynosa. Now that camp and another in Tijuana are home to thousands of asylum seekers, many with spouses and children in the U.S. They’re expected to grow after federal courts reinstated Trump’s so-called Remain in Mexico program last week, making it even harder for asylum seekers to enter the U.S. legally.
“We all thought this would get better when Biden got the presidency,” said Brendon Tucker, who works at the camp clinic run by the U.S.-based nonprofit Global Response Management, which also ran a clinic at the Matamoros camp.
Instead, he said, Biden’s pandemic ban on asylum claims, “is creating worse conditions in Mexico.”
About 2,000 migrants were living at the camp in Reynosa, Mexico, last week.(Molly Hennessy-Fiske / Los Angeles Times)
A White House spokesman declined to comment about the migrant camps, referring questions to the Department of Homeland Security.
Homeland Security said in a statement that, “This administration will continue to work closely with its interagency, foreign, and international organization partners to comply in good faith with the district court’s order [on Remain in Mexico] while continuing our work to build a safe, orderly, and humane immigration system that upholds our laws and values.”
In Reynosa, where about 2,000 migrants were living last week, conditions are in many ways worse than they were in Matamoros, Tucker said. There’s less potable water, fewer bathrooms, showers and other sanitation that U.S.-based nonprofits spent months installing in Matamoros. Mexican soldiers circle in trucks with guns mounted on top. Migrants face not only cartel extortion and kidnapping, but also COVID-19 outbreaks and pressure to leave from Mexican authorities. Fewer U.S. volunteers, including immigration lawyers, are willing to cross the border to help due to security concerns. Few at the camp understand their rights and U.S. pandemic restrictions, although they say they asked U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents about them before they were expelled.
“They didn’t tell us anything, they just left us here,” said Salvadoran migrant Emerita Alfaro Palacios, 34, who’s been living at the camp with her 17-year-old daughter Pamela since June, hoping to join her brother in Houston.
Migrants call the camp Plaza Las Americas, the name of the park it occupies. The first to arrive last spring holed up inside the central gazebo. Those who followed pitched tents outside, their warren of droopy tarps and clotheslines expanding daily. Gone were the mariachis who used to congregate in the park, in the shade of a dilapidated casino that still draws throngs on weekends. Last week, only the gazebo’s spindly roof was visible, like the center of an enormous, patched circus tent. Taxis and vendors still circled, selling fruit popsicles, tacos, pupusas and other dishes catering to hungry migrants, mostly Central Americans. Many said they came to the border hoping Biden would allow them to claim asylum. Some had seen reports about how he helped those at the camp in Matamoros.
Many Reynosa residents and officials consider the camp an eyesore.
Standing on the roof of a nearby building overlooking the camp last week, maintenance worker Hector Hernandez Garrido, 33, said it was the responsibility of the U.S. to accept the asylum seekers. He said he feared the camp was contaminated by COVID-19 and other diseases.
Two weeks ago, Reynosa authorities removed cook stoves from the camp kitchen, citing safety risks. They pressured U.S. volunteers to stop cordoning off a section of the camp for migrants who had tested positive for COVID-19, and have threatened to cut the camp’s electricity and water supply.
“They want us out,” said Gina Maricela, a Honduran single mother and nurse at the GRM clinic.
It’s not clear where the migrants would go. Last month, Reynosa officials also launched a legal battle to demolish the city’s primary nonprofit migrant shelter, already home to hundreds, arguing it lies in a floodplain. Felicia Rangel-Samponaro, who has been crossing the border daily to help migrants at the Reynosa camp through her nonprofit Sidewalk School, said they rented a 20-room hotel for those who are COVID-positive to quarantine. They may build a new camp, she said, but that would take weeks and cost tens of thousands of dollars.
“It’s exactly like Matamoros, but with less support,” Rangel-Samponaro said. “Cut what you like, that’s not going to stop the encampment.”
As in Matamoros and other border cities in the surrounding Tamaulipas state, it’s not city officials or even migrants who ultimately control the plaza — it’s the cartel. Migrants who enter or leave the city without paying a smuggler risk getting kidnapped and held for ransom. So do those who leave the camp, even for a few hours to shop or look for work.
Honduran migrant Lesly Pineda, a factory worker, said she and her 11-year-old son Joan were kidnapped with eight other migrants in July and released only after she paid a $2,000 ransom. A single mother, Pineda, 33, then took her son to the border and sent him across the Rio Grande with a smuggler. He remained at a federal shelter in Texas last week, she said. She had left her two oldest children, ages 15 and 14, with her mother in Honduras.
. . . .
**********************
“Floaters — How The World’s Richest Country Responds To Asylum Seekers” — Will U.S. policy makers ever get beyond this jaundiced view of the “proper place” for asylum seekers in modern society? So far, despite Biden’s and Harris’s campaign rhetoric, the “reality on the ground” (or “in the river,” as the case might be) has remained disturbingly unchanged! EDS NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT – The bodies of Salvadoran migrant Oscar Alberto Mart??nez Ram??rez and his nearly 2-year-old daughter Valeria lie on the bank of the Rio Grande in Matamoros, Mexico, Monday, June 24, 2019, after they drowned trying to cross the river to Brownsville, Texas. Martinez’ wife, Tania told Mexican authorities she watched her husband and child disappear in the strong current. (AP Photo/Julia Le Duc)
Read Molly’s full report at the link.
The Trump kakistocracy considered the legal asylum system to be a “loophole” in their White Nationalist agenda. So, they just overtly violated the law. Thanks to an indulgent “Dred Scott” Supremes’ majority, they largely got away with it!
The Biden Administration considers complying with asylum laws, due process, and the rule of law, essentially a “political option” that they are working on (slowly, and incompetently).
In the meantime, they simply continue the Trump Administration’s illegal policies. Because, hey, it’s not real humans whose rights, lives, and humanity are being stomped upon here. Just “foreign nationals” and mostly “people of color” at that. Let ‘em continue to twist in the wind, while the Administration gets its act together. That’s particularly convenient if it’s happeningsouth of the border where, except for a few courageous folks like Molly and some NGOs and religious workers, the human trauma is largely “out of sight out of mind.”
If all else fails, we can always blame Trump. Like Trump, Biden has largely ceded control of southern border policies and migration from Latin America to cartels, smugglers, and traffickers. When the legal system fails, the underground and the black market take over.
I don’t think that there is any doubt that restoring the legal asylum system and actually, for perhaps the first time,administering it fairly, lawfully, generously, and with competent expert Asylum Officers and Immigration Judges (“new blood” required) would result in a substantial number of border arrivals being granted legal asylum or other forms of protection.
We’d actually be able to screen individuals, know who we have admitted, where they are going, have them in possession of legal work authorization, in a position to pay taxes, and in many cases have them on a path to eventual full integration into our society. And, by all legitimate accounts, after four years of Trump’s legal immigration disaster and a falling birth rate, we certainly can use more legal immigration.
Instead of looking at asylum seekers as a self-defined “problem,” why not look at saving them and integrating their skills and undoubted courage, energy, and perseverance into our society in a constructive manner as an “opportunity?” Because, that’s exactly what it is!
Human migration will continue, as it always has been, to be a major force in the 21st Century. “Smart money” is on the countries that best learn how to adapt and take advantage of its realities and embrace its opportunities as the “winners of the future.”
Given a fair, functional, generous system, many asylum seekers would be motivated to apply in an orderly fashion at ports of entry, or even abroad (if we actually had a robust functioning refugee program for Latin America, which we don’t). With an honest system that treats them fairly, listens carefully, and provides reasoned understandable decisions, even those who don’t qualify would be more likely to accept the result and consider constructive alternatives.
If the U.S. stepped up, fulfilled our legal obligations, and set a good example, other countries in a position to accept refugees and asylum seekers might also be motivated to improve their performance.
But, what we’re doing right now to those we falsely promised to treat fairly won’t be swept under the carpet forever. Historians are likely to highlight the cowardly abrogation of our legal duties to refugees and asylum seekers, by Administrations of both parties, as alow point in the American story.
The Honorable Alejandro N. Mayorkas Secretary of Homeland Security
U.S. Department of Homeland Security Washington, DC 20528
The Honorable Antony Blinken Secretary of State
U.S. Department of State Washington, DC 20520
Dear Secretaries Mayorkas and Blinken:
We write as former senior officials with responsibilities for U.S. refugee and immigration programs at both the federal and state levels.
There is no question that the current situation in Afghanistan demands a significant, substantial, and generous U.S. humanitarian response, including through urgent action to evacuate Afghans who have been associated with the United States presence in Afghanistan as well as Afghans at serious and severe risk due to their participation and leadership in activities that were strongly supported and endorsed by the United States. Such activities have included promoting the rights of women and girls, leadership of civil society organizations and initiatives, involvement in journalism, and engagement in the arts, among others.
Under current exigent circumstances, we believe that the administration should use the broadest array of authorities to secure the rescue of Afghans and to provide resettlement in the United States and other countries, as part of an international responsibility-sharing effort.
In this respect, we want in particular to convey our support for use of the parole authority as one critical tool, especially to supplement authorities of the Refugee Act, which—while crucially important—may prove in some respects to be too limited and cumbersome to address fully the urgent and emergency situation.
As you know, 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A), vests in the Secretary of DHS the discretionary authority to grant parole for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit to applicants for admission temporarily on a case-by- case basis. To be sure, in 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(B), Congress limited the parole authority by restricting its use with respect to those who are refugees, unless the Secretary determines that ‘‘compelling reasons in the public interest with respect to that particular alien require that the alien be paroled . . . rather than be admitted as a refugee.”
The current situation in Afghanistan surely constitutes such a compelling reason, in light of the life-threatening circumstances for would-be applicants and the inability of the U.S. Refugee Admissions program to quickly accommodate the requirements of rescue. Of course, parole is not an end in itself, but would permit further processing through available statutory or administrative mechanisms.
2
Moreover, whatever the respective requirements and benefits of both case-by-case decision- making and the establishment of regulations authorizing a particular program, it has long been acknowledged and accepted that administrations may identify particular groups of individuals who may be eligible for consideration of parole.
Thus, we believe it important to convey our support for your use of this authority, and our willingness to support you in any way possible in the challenging days, weeks, and months ahead.
Sincerely,
T. Alexander Aleinikoff
Former General Counsel and subsequently Executive Associate Commissioner for Programs, Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) (1994–1997)
Mette Brogden
Former Wisconsin State Refugee Coordinator (2010–2016)
Bo Cooper
Former General Counsel, INS (1999–2003)
Paul Stein
Former Colorado State Refugee Coordinator (2005–2014)
Stephen H. Legomsky
Former Senior Counselor to Secretary of Homeland Security (2015)
Former Chief Counsel, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) (2011–2013)
Hiram Ruiz
Former Florida State Refugee Coordinator (2008–2015)
David A. Martin
Former Principal Deputy General Counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (2009–2010) Former General Counsel, INS (1995-1998)
Maria Otero
Former Undersecretary of State for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights (2009–2013)
Anne C. Richard
Former Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees, and Migration (2012–2017)
Myrta (Chris) Sale
Former Acting Commissioner, INS (1997) Former Deputy Commissioner, INS (1997–1999)
Paul Wickham Schmidt
Former Chair, Board of Immigration Appeals (1995–2001)
Former Acting General Counsel, INS (1979–1981; 1986–1987)
Eric Schwartz
Former Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees, and Migration (2009–2011) Former National Security Council Director for Human Rights, Refugees, and Humanitarian Affairs and subsequently Senior Director for Multilateral and Humanitarian Affairs (1993–2001)
Samuel Witten
Former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, U.S. Department of State (2007–2010)
Former Deputy Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (2001–2007)
*****************************
Many thanks to Eric Schwartz and Alex Aleinikofffor spearheading this effort! I’m so proud and honored to be a member of this distinguished group and to speak up for the lives and safety of those in peril.
This, of course, supports the recent LA Times op-ed from our good friend Professor Karen Musalo of the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at Hastings Law, which I recently republished:
Op-Ed: The U.S. isn’t helpless. It could take in 150,000 Afghan refugees
Americans owe them more than sympathy.
By Karen Musalo
In the past week we have seen searing images and read heartbreaking media accounts of Afghans attempting to leave as the Taliban has rolled into Kabul and asserted control over the country. Americans owe vulnerable Afghans more than sympathy.
Among those at greatest risk are individuals who have worked with the U.S. or its NATO allies, women’s rights activists, human rights defenders, academics, journalists and members of ethnic minorities. Some have reported death threats by the Taliban. Many are desperately trying to destroy any information connecting them to their professional past, but as long as they remain in Afghanistan, they are at risk.
Given the history of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, Americans have a duty not only to help such vulnerable Afghans but also to lead other nations to do the same.
Direct help from the U.S. is going to require a different approach than the government is taking now. The two routes to date — special immigrant visas and entry through a new priority category created in the refugee admission program — are woefully inadequate. For a start, they do nothing to respond to the immediate and desperate need for protection.
Special immigrant visas, created by Congress in 2009, provide a route to immigrate for Afghans who worked with the U.S. government. As has been widely reported, the application process is extremely onerous and seriously backlogged, conditions aggravated by chronic understaffing during the Trump administration. The International Rescue Committee recently reported that 300,000 Afghan civilians worked with the U.S. in some capacity, but only 16,000 special immigrant visas have been granted since 2014, with 18,000 “in the pipeline.”
Priority 2 of the refugee admission program is broader; it requires an employment relationship with the U.S. but includes work with U.S.-funded projects, nongovernmental organizations or the media. However, this possibility of protection comes with daunting logistical hurdles. Only Afghans outside their country can apply. This means that those at risk must first find a safe harbor nation and a means to support themselves during a processing period that can take months or even years, a situation that Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken has conceded would be “incredibly hard.”
Nothing in the law of the United States limits it to these two narrow options for responding to the urgent protection needs of the Afghan people. The Immigration and Nationality Act provides a mechanism to admit individuals “for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit,” a process referred to as “humanitarian parole.”
Administrations going back to the 1950s have used the parole authority generously to admit those fleeing persecution — Hungarians after the Soviet invasion of their country, Cubans after Fidel Castro took power, and Vietnamese after the fall of Saigon. Just this week a bipartisan group of senators sent a letter to the Biden administration urging it to evacuate Afghans at highest risk and to use humanitarian parole to quickly and efficiently allow their entry into the United States.
. . . .
************************
Thanks, Karen.
Interesting that after decades of chest thumping, fist pumping, nation building, and nationalist rhetoric about our military prowess in Afghanistan and the power of “muscular militarized democracy,” the “right wing crew of cowards and defeatists” now asserts that we are overwhelmed, and even more absurdly existentially endangered, by the prospect of saving 150,000 Afghans from a life threatening situation we helped engineer! Gimmie a break!
I doubt that Afghan refugees are a greater “threat” to America than the Jan. 6 insurrectionists, the perpetrators of the “big lie,” and their supporters and enablers. Or, how about those refusing to save the lives of others and endangering all of us, including children, by not getting vaccinated or wearing a mask. No wonder these anti-American activists are so anxious to shift the focus to the world’s most vulnerable and defenseless, rather than take responsibility or be held accountable for their own noxious, life and democracy threatening actions! That’s what cowards do!
In addition to the statutory measures discussed by Karen above, the President has authority, after consultation with Congress, to admit refugees directly from a country in crisis. INA 101(a)(42)(B). Consequently, the oft heard statement that refugees must be in a “third country” to apply is simply not accurate.
Where there is a will, there is a way. But, some might well question the “will” of the Biden Administration here.
What is painfully obvious is that there isn’t enough urgency, boldness, or creativity in those tapped by the Administration to manage this crisis and actually save some lives! Maybe Alejandro Mayorkas and Lucas Guttentag need to pick up the phone and call Professor Musalo to get things back on track and save more lives, before it’s too late.
David G. Savage & Maura Dolan report in the LA Times:
. . . .
“There is still a large cohort of liberal judges” on the 9th Circuit, said Ed Whelan, a conservative legal analyst in Washington, “but there are now many conservative appointees who are vigilant in calling them out.”
In total, 47 judges sit on the 9th Circuit — 24 appointed by Republicans going back to President Nixon, and 23 named by Democrats starting with President Carter.
Many of those judges work part time. Of the full-time jurists, 16 are Democratic and 13 are Republican appointees.
The size of the circuit — the nation’s largest — partly explains why its cases are often subject to Supreme Court review.
“The 9th Circuit is so vastly larger than any other circuit that it is inevitable they are going to take more 9th Circuit cases,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley’s law school.
Although this year’s 9th Circuit reversal rate was unusually high, the high court in fact overturned 80% of all the cases it reviewed, Chemerinsky noted.
Moreover, only a tiny percentage of appellate decisions are reviewed by the Supreme Court. Typically, the 9th Circuit hands down about 13,000 rulings a year.
Chemerinsky noted the Supreme Court overturned several 9th Circuit cases on immigration and habeas corpus, the legal vehicle for releasing someone from detention. “The 9th Circuit is historically more liberal on immigration and habeas cases,” he said.
Some reversals occurred in cases that were not ideological, however: The high court overturned a 9th Circuit decision by Republican appointees on what constitutes a robocall.
Though the Supreme Court split along ideological lines on property rights, voting rights and conservative donor cases from the 9th Circuit, the justices were unanimous in reversing the 9th Circuit in several immigration cases.
On June 1, they overturned a unique 9th Circuit rule set by the late liberal Judge Stephen Reinhardt. Over nearly 20 years, he had written that the testimony of a person seeking asylum based on a fear of persecution must be “deemed credible” unless an immigration judge made an “explicit” finding that they were not to be believed.
In one of his last opinions, Reinhardt approved of asylum for Ming Dai, a Chinese citizen who arrived in the U.S. on a tourist visa and applied for refugee status for himself and his family. He said they were fleeing China’s forced abortion policy.
Only later did immigration authorities learn that his wife and daughter had returned to China because they had good jobs and schooling there, but the husband had no job to return to.
An immigration judge had set out the full story and denied the asylum application, only to be be reversed in a 2-1 ruling by a 9th Circuit panel. The panel cited Reinhardt’s rule and noted that although evidence emerged casting doubt on Dai’s claims, there had been no “explicit” finding by an immigration judge so his story had to be accepted.
“Over the years, our circuit has manufactured misguided rules regarding the credibility of political asylum seekers,” Senior Judge Stephen S. Trott wrote in dissent. Later, 11 other appellate judges joined dissents arguing for scrapping this rule.
Last fall, Trump administration lawyers cited those dissents and urged the Supreme Court to hear the case. They noted the importance of the 9th Circuit in asylum cases. Because of its liberal reputation, “the 9th Circuit actually entertains more petitions for review than all of the other circuits combined,” the lawyers said.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered another 9-0 ruling holding that an immigrant arrested for an “unlawful entry” after having been deported years ago may not contest the basis of his original deportation. The 9th Circuit had said such a defendant may argue his deportation was “fundamentally unfair,” but “the statute does not permit such an exception,” Sotomayor said in U.S. vs. Palomar-Santiago.
The high court’s furthest-reaching immigration ruling did not originate with the 9th Circuit, but it nonetheless overturned a 9th Circuit decision.
At issue was whether the more than 400,000 immigrants who had been living and working in the U.S. under temporary protected status were eligible for long-term green cards. The Philadelphia-based 3rd Circuit said no, rejecting a green card for a Salvadoran couple who had entered the country illegally in the 1990s and had lived and worked in New Jersey ever since.
The 9th Circuit had taken the opposite view; Trump lawyers cited this split as a reason the high court should take up the New Jersey case. On June 7, Justice Elena Kagan spoke for the high court in ruling that the 3rd Circuit was right and the 9th Circuit wrong. To obtain lawful permanent status, the immigration law first “requires a lawful admission,” she said in Sanchez vs. Majorkas.
The 9th Circuit’s sole affirmance came in a significant case: By a 9-0 vote in NCAA vs. Alston, the justices agreed with the 9th Circuit that college sports authorities could be sued under antitrust laws for conspiring to make billions of dollars while insisting the star athletes go unpaid.
*****************
Read the complete article at the link.
This confirms the importance of the Biden Administration getting more progressive voices on Federal Courts at all levels, including the Immigration Courts!
First, not all important cases go to the Supremes, and those that do often take years to get there and be resolved. In the meantime, the rulings of BIA and the Circuits are often the “final word.”
Even at the individual Immigration Judge level, only a small minority of cases are appealed. So the difference between progressive expert judges committed to due process, fundamental fairness, and humane practical interpretations and judges appointed because of a belief that they would “go along to get along” with DHS Enforcement is huge — basically life or death for many asylum seekers, other migrants, and their families (often U.S. citizens or LPRs).
Second, even where outvoted, progressive judges can often provide much more cogent, understandable, and practical alternatives to “knee jerk restrictionist/nativist” interpretations. Not only are these “better interpretations” often picked up and successfully argued and expanded by advocates, but they often expose shallow, specious reasoning by restrictionists and serve as “signposts to a better future” even if it sometimes takes years or even decades for the system to catch up. Also, dissents can prompt remedial legislation or needed oversight.
Indeed a number of the “Gang of Five” dissents from the “Schmidt-era BIA,” which basically cost us our jobs, still look very “spot on” decades later — particularly as Circuits continue to expose the intellectual dishonesty and corner-cutting sloppiness of far too many EOIR decisions in “life or death” matters!
Obviously, Trump McConnell and the right-wing activist organizations they parroted and enabled have had an immediate, large-scale, largely negative, effect on American Justice — from the Supremes all the way down to the Immigration Courts. It’s essential that the Biden Administration fight back with courageous, well-qualified, progressive “practical scholars” at all levels of the Federal Judiciary. Judges with the guts and integrity to expose and push back against the stilted, often anti-democracy, far right agenda of too many of the Trump-McConnell appointees.
In this respect, creating a progressive “model judiciary” to supersede the godawful, dysfunctional mess at EOIR should be the “low hanging fruit.” In practical terms, it also will help reduce backlog, raise the level of Immigration Court practice, and hold DHS accountable to the rule of law. It should also be a model for what a better progressive Article III Judiciary could and should look like, all the way up to the Supremes!
Losing Rosario: A mother sent her daughter across the border. Before they could reunite, one died
Texas’ Brooks County and the Rio Grande Valley to the south have been popular smuggling routes for decades. Six months into 2021, deaths in the county had already reached 55, up from a total of 34 last year.
FALFURRIAS, TEXAS — Black feathers fell from circling vultures and snagged in the matted yellow grass. The ranch manager eyed the terrain and followed the stench. He found the woman’s body, like so many others in the south Texas brush: splayed in the weeds, arms dark with decay, raised above her head as if in surrender.
The rancher knew what to do. He had come upon 15 such migrants over the years. He called Brooks County sheriff’s dispatchers. They issued a Code 500, a dead body call, summoning a deputy, two Border Patrol agents, a justice of the peace and a funeral director.
They met the rancher shortly before noon at the gate of Los Palos Ranch, about 75 miles north of the border. Together they waded through knee-high, thorny weeds, mindful that the June heat rouses rattlesnakes from their burrows. The men gazed down to where she lay — face gone, skull picked clean by scavengers, hair and lower jaw dragged a few feet from a body not yet skeletal.
They guessed the woman had died of exhaustion or dehydration.
“They wait over there and move at night,” said the rancher, pointing to a nearby stand of mesquite, where he and his wife sometimes spy the passing shadows of those heading north.
The deputy wrapped the body in a white sheet. He then lifted it into a gray bag and helped the funeral director load it into the back of his Ford Explorer for transport to the sheriff’s morgue. It would be fingerprinted and tested for the coronavirus. The men found no trace of a name. It would be days before fingerprints told investigators that the woman was Rosario Yanira Girón de Orellana, a 41-year-old single mother who had traveled more than 1,500 miles from El Salvador.
. . . .
*****************
Read the rest of Molly’s report at the link.
Rather than recognizing the realities of the refugee situation in the Northern Triangle, Administrations of both parties have engaged in “killer policies.” But, not surprisingly to those who understand the situation, it hasn’t stopped individuals fleeing for their lives from failed states (for which we bear substantial responsibility).
Even death hasn’t proved to be a significant deterrent. So, why not just admit many of these folks legally, using available protection mechanisms administered by qualified Asylum Officers and better Immigration Judges? Why not encourage asylum seekers to apply at ports of entry by treating them fairly, respectfully, and humanely? Asylum is a legal and moral obligation, not an “option” or a “deterrent,”
We can diminish ourselves as a nation (and have done so), but it won’t stop human migration!
Judge Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney General — Why is this guy . . . Official White House Photo Public RealmCovering up for this guy . . . Lowering The Barr by Randall Enos, Easton, CT Republished By LicenseIs what this guy wants to know! — Dean Erwin Chemerinsky UC Berkeley Law PHOTO: law.Berkeley.edu
The Biden administration is making a serious mistake in placing the self-interest of the Justice Department ahead of the people’s right to know if former Atty. Gen. William Barr acted to cover up Donald Trump’s possible engagement in obstruction of justice.
A federal judge in Washington, D.C., in early May ordered the release of a crucial Justice Department memo that will shed light on Barr’s conduct and whether he acted inappropriately. Rather than comply with the judge’s command and disclose the document, the Biden Justice Department is appealing the order in an effort to keep the memo secret.
In March 2019, special counsel Robert S. Mueller III delivered his report into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election to then-Atty. Gen. Barr. While keeping the report secret, Barr sent a letter to congressional leaders purporting to “summarize the principal conclusions.” Barr said that Mueller “did not draw a conclusion — one way or the other — as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction,” and that “the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.” Trump then declared that he was fully exonerated.
Barr said that he had reached his conclusion “in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel and other Department lawyers.” A Freedom of Information Act request was filed by a watchdog group to obtain the OLC memo that purportedly was the basis for Barr’s judgment that the Mueller report exonerated Trump of obstruction of justice.
A reading of the Mueller report indicates that Barr’s statements were a gross mischaracterization of the evidence it presented. There was substantial evidence that Trump had engaged in obstruction of justice and Mueller said that he offered no conclusion only because Justice Department rules prevented indicting a sitting president.
Federal Judge Amy Berman Jackson reviewed the OLC memo and concluded that there was no legal basis for withholding it from release. Indeed, she was sharply critical of the Justice Department’s arguments for secrecy. She said that the “affidavits” submitted in favor of withholding the document “are so inconsistent with evidence in the record, they are not worthy of credence.” She said that her review of the documents led her to conclude “that not only was the Attorney General being disingenuous then, but DOJ has been disingenuous to this Court with respect to the existence of a decision-making process that should be shielded by the deliberative process privilege.” She said that the agency’s “redactions and incomplete explanations obfuscate the true purpose of the memorandum.”
In plain English, she slammed the Justice Department for misleading the court in trying to keep the document secret.
This issue is central to a government operating under the rule of law: Did the attorney general act to deceive Congress and the American people to protect Trump from being seen as having engaged in obstruction of justice? The OLC memo is key to understanding what happened.
. . . .
***************
Read the full op-Ed at the link.
During his Senate confirmation hearings Judge Garland presented himself well and indicated a sound understanding of justice, the proper role of the Attorney General, and the public interest. However, that now appears to have been largely skillful misdirection.
Since actually being sworn in, Garland has, surprisingly and sadly, conducted business largely without regard to progressive values, expert advice, common sense, or the public interest.
As many of us who served at the USDOJ over the years learned, leadership often has a tendency to confuse institutional protection, political agendas, and their own self-interest with advancing the public good, which is actually the AG’s sole job.
If there is one thing the DOJ has never wanted, under any Administration, it’s public scrutiny. That’s probably why it was so easy for the Trump Administration to get cooperation from career DOJ attorneys, who should have known better, for its corrupt policies.
“Floaters — How The World’s Richest Country Responds To Asylum Seekers” EDS NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT – The bodies of Salvadoran migrant Oscar Alberto Mart??nez Ram??rez and his nearly 2-year-old daughter Valeria lie on the bank of the Rio Grande in Matamoros, Mexico, Monday, June 24, 2019, after they drowned trying to cross the river to Brownsville, Texas. Martinez’ wife, Tania told Mexican authorities she watched her husband and child disappear in the strong current. (AP Photo/Julia Le Duc)“Justice” Star Chamber StyleStephen Miller & Count Olaf Evil Twins, Notorious Child Abusers: Their policies are still being carried out by Biden, Harris, Garland, and Mayorkas
By Psyche Calderon, Hannah Janeway and Ronica Mukerjee
In a steadily growing encampment mere yards south of the U.S.-Mexico border, we are led to a little girl with a fever. She lies dehydrated and wrapped in her parents’ possessions inside a waterlogged tent. Recently deported from the United States under a Trump-era pandemic policy, the family is camped next to the border wall with thousands of others who have nowhere to go.
In recent months, much attention and political outrage have focused on unaccompanied children crossing into the U.S. and being detained in government custody. But less scrutiny has been given to the mass deportations of migrant families and vulnerable adults expelled with no due process during the pandemic under a U.S. health law called Title 42, which allows the government to bar people from countries where communicable disease exists.
For more than a year — and in the name of public health — the government has been summarily expelling migrants arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border, ignoring epidemiologists and health experts, violating the migrants’ human rights and creating a critical situation in Tijuana and other border towns.
As medical professionals who provide care in encampments and shelters in Tijuana, we’ve seen how this expulsion policy has caused a humanitarian emergency in northern Mexico. Even as these encampments become increasingly overcrowded and unsafe, many migrants and their families are still being denied entry or quickly expelled by the U.S. government. The Biden administration has carried out roughly 350,000 expulsions, including nearly 50,000 families.
The administration, as part of a legal settlement, recently agreed to process up to 250 asylum seekers a day deemed vulnerable by advocacy groups so they may continue to pursue their asylum cases in the United States.
However, this is nowhere near sufficient to address the widespread human rights violations and humanitarian crisis we see every day in Tijuana. There are still many thousands of asylum seekers along the border who were previously subjected to inhumane detention and expulsions — and who are now grappling with the subsequent fallout and trauma.
Migrants in Tijuana are subjected to targeted violence by cartels, squalid conditions in encampments and shelters, and despair after the U.S. lied to many of them about their expulsions. Some asylum seekers have said Border Patrol agents told them they were being transferred to a shelter in another U.S. city when, in fact, they were sent to Mexico.
As co-founders of an organization providing healthcare to migrants stranded in Tijuana, we have been working around the clock to provide medical care.
We have seen increasing dehydration, malnutrition and infectious diseases associated with overcrowding. At an encampment in Tijuana that shelters about 2,000 asylum seekers, there are no formal sanitation facilities; gastrointestinal illnesses are causing severe illness in newborns and young children. Chronic diseases and mental health disorders, left untreated, could become death sentences. The migrants have been forced to camp amid very cold temperatures at night during winter months.
Disease is not the only threat. Families fear cartel activity and kidnappings since vulnerable migrants are often targeted for violence. More than 80% of LGBTQ refugees in Baja California reported surviving an assault in Mexico from mid-February to March. Last month, we received a late-night phone call from a lawyer asking for our help. The client — a transgender woman — had been stabbed, forced into hiding and was afraid to go to the local hospital in Tijuana because they are often unsafe places for sexual minorities. We were able to provide her basic medical care, but many others are not as lucky.
The Title 42 expulsion order has been used by the U.S. to essentially eliminate asylum at the border and put thousands of people in immediate danger by either returning them to their countries of origin or to Mexican border cities, even if the asylum seekers are not Mexican or do not speak Spanish. While the administration recently ceased cross-border expulsion flights — a reckless approach during the pandemic used to transfer and expel migrants to Mexico — officials have reserved the right to reinstate them as needed.
The policy has disproportionately affected Black migrants, who are often Haitian. They are expelled without due process back to persecution in Haiti or to pervasive anti-Black violence in northern Mexico — leaving them without access to healthcare, psychological support, safety or asylum.
. . . .
********************
Read the rest of the article at the link.
I’ve said it many times: The Biden Administration’s efforts to achieve racial justice in America will fail as long as they carry out scofflaw racist immigration policies at the border and Garland runs White Nationalist star chambers @ EOIR under the guise of “courts.” Rhetoric is meaningless without action to back it up! And the fight for racial justice in America begins at the border and in our dysfunctional, lawless Immigration “Courts!”
President Biden is formally lifting the nation’s refugee cap to 62,500 this year, weeks after facing bipartisan blowback for his delay in removing former President Trump’s limit of 15,000.
Biden last month moved to expand the eligibility criteria for resettlements, removing one roadblock to refugees entering the U.S. put in place by Trump, but he had initially stopped short of lifting the annual cap, with aides saying they did not believe it was necessary. But Biden faced sharp pushback for not at least taking the symbolic step of authorizing more refugees to enter the U.S. this year and swiftly reversed course.
Biden, in a statement, said the new limit “erases the historically low number set by the previous administration,” adding that Trump’s cap “did not reflect America’s values as a nation that welcomes and supports refugees.”
“It is important to take this action today to remove any lingering doubt in the minds of refugees around the world who have suffered so much, and who are anxiously waiting for their new lives to begin,” Biden added.
**********************
So, excruciating, aggressive, very public pressure from progressive humanitarians works with a President who pays attention to facts and actually wants to govern in the public interest.
Maybe the same advocacy groups, interest groups, and legislators need to radically step up the pressure for progressive changes (or at least the end of active oppression) at the Immigration Courts, which are a main impediment to a fair asylum system. Folks, asylum seekers are “refugees” — first and foremost! The failure to recognize that and treat them legally and humanely is beyond disgraceful!
The unmitigated Immigration Court disaster also undermines racial justice in America every single day that “Team Garland” continues with Stephen Miller’s White Nationalist nativist policies and Miller’s restrictionist “judges” in the Immigration Courts!
Judge Garland has been “living in the Ivory Tower” for a long time, obviously too long! But Lisa Monaco and Vanita Gupta actually have had to make a living in the “real world” for the past four years. Somebody in the advocacy community who knows these two needs to pick up the phone and read them the “riot act” on the racist, misogynistic, nativist, anti-due-process, regressive, mismanaged human rights disaster unfolding on their watch every day at EOIR — America’s worst excuse for a “court system!”
WASHINGTON — With shaking hands, Karen Cruz Caceres manages to hit record on the call.
“How many days have you gone without food?” she asks into the phone.
Tani, her younger sister, is heard sobbing. “Help me,” she gets out.
Cruz Caceres assures her: “I am going to pay today. I’ll make another deposit.”
The April 1 call ends abruptly, and Cruz Caceres stops recording.
A week before, Cruz Caceres, a single mother from Honduras who won asylum in Tennessee, had gotten another call that upended her already precarious life: Kidnappers in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, had abducted her pregnant sister Tani and Tani’s 4-year-old son, and they wanted more than $20,000, according to a video recording of the call and messages reviewed by the Los Angeles Times. The family asked The Times not to use her sister’s last name, for fear of retribution from the kidnappers in Mexico and gangs back home.
Tani, 33, and her son were kidnapped on March 25, Cruz Caceres and lawyers said — just after U.S. authorities expelled them from Texas alongside other mothers and children under a Trump-era pandemic policy known as Title 42, which President Biden has continued.
The unprecedented policy, which relies on an obscure 1944 public health statute to indefinitely close the border to “nonessential” travel, has made migrant children and parents easy prey for the criminal groups waiting just on the other side. Biden’s continued reliance on Title 42 to quickly remove the vast majority of migrants at the southern border without due process contrasts with his pledge to restore “human dignity” to a U.S. immigration system targeted by former President Trump.
“My sister and my nephew were told they were going to kill them and feed them to the dogs,” Cruz Caceres told The Times. “If [U.S. officials] want to deport them back to their country, why don’t they do it now like prior presidents did?” she asked. “Why dump them to try their luck in the most dangerous cities in Mexico, to get abducted by kidnappers?”
The abduction of migrants in northern Mexico and the extortion from U.S. family members isn’t new, lawyers, experts and officials told The Times — what’s new is the reliance on Title 42 to expel thousands of these already vulnerable families, leaving them at the mercy of kidnappers and other criminals.
Since the Trump administration implemented Title 42 in March last year amid a global pandemic, U.S. border officials have carried out more than 630,000 expulsions under the policy, some 240,000 since Biden took office in January, according to a Times analysis of the latest government data.
. . . .
*****************
Read the rest of Molly’s article at the link.
The Biden Administration ran and took office on a platform of kinder, saner policies that would restore human rights and the rule of law at the border. So far, that promise has been a deadly lie!
Arbitrarily and unlawfully closing legal ports of entry to asylum seekers and abrogating asylum and refugee laws plays directly into the hands of human smugglers and cartels while expanding the extralegal immigration system and the resulting underground of undocumented residents. Many of these individuals could and should have been legally admitted through legal channels if we had a functioning immigration system overseen by fair, impartial, expert Immigration Courts staffed with well-qualified progressive Immigration Judges.
Naturally, with no legal asylum system in place, and with asylum seekers arbitrarily rejected at legal ports of entry, as described in Molly’s article, desperate individuals will turn to smugglers to achieve refuge. It’s not rocket science; but sadly the human tragedy that illegal, inhumane government policies cause at our border appear to be “out of sight, out of mind” to Judge Garland and other Biden Administration officials. That is, until the dead bodies start to pile up on their doorsteps!
“Floaters — How The World’s Richest Country Responds To Asylum Seekers” This appears to be the Garland, Monaco, Gupta view of human rights and the rule of law for asylum seeker! What if we thought of these folks as our fellow human beings, rather than statistics or problems to be “deterred” through illegal, deadly, and ultimately ineffective policies? What if Garland replaced Miller’s nativist “judges” with REAL progressive Immigration Judges who are experts in asylum and due process and have the guts to grant legal protection to eligible migrants in a prompt, fair, and timely manner and to demand that DHS Asylum Officers do likewise? (AP Photo/Julia Le Duc)
A girl peers out from an encampment at the U.S.-Mexico border where she and several hundred people waited to present themselves to U.S. immigration to seek asylum. / Photo by David MaungMolly O’Toole Immigration Reporter LA Times Source: LA Times website
Tuesday’s directives mandate a review, but do not end, the Remain in Mexico policy, which Biden had said he would rescind on his first day in office. Officially termed the Migrant Protection Protocols, or MPP, it has forced roughly 70,000 asylum seekers back to Mexico to wait in some of the world’s most dangerous cities for immigration court hearings in the U.S. that have been largely suspended since the Trump administration effectively closed the border last March, citing COVID-19.
Human Rights First has recorded at least 1,134 public reports of murder, torture, rape and kidnapping against asylum seekers returned to Mexico under MPP. Thousands have given up.
On Jan. 20, the Homeland Security Department announced that no new asylum seekers would be subjected to MPP, telling some 30,000 migrants left in limbo at the border by Trump that they should “remain where they are, pending further official information from government officials.”
Tuesday’s directives, as described by the officials, provide little additional clarity as to how the Biden administration will process those already subjected to MPP, along with thousands of others waiting.
Ensuring that MPP and other cases are processed “humanely” while safeguarding public health amid a pandemic is “fairly complicated,” one senior official said.
“I can’t tell you exactly how long it will take to have an alternative to that policy,” the other senior official said. Those under MPP will “certainly be taken into account because of the length of time they’ve waited and the conditions they are waiting in.”
On Monday, the administration effectively dropped appeals by the Trump administration in lawsuits against MPP and the diversion of billions in federal funds for border barrier construction. The acting Homeland Security head asked the Supreme Court to remove both cases, scheduled for oral arguments later this month, from its docket.
The Biden administration has not yet said what it will do with the effective closure of the border by the Trump administration under Title 42, which Tuesday’s directives do not address. The officials Monday cited ongoing litigation over the policy for the lack of action.
Under Title 42, Trump officials rapidly expelled hundreds of thousands of migrants, including asylum seekers and unaccompanied children, without due process. Whistleblowers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said the Trump White House pushed the order for political, not public health, reasons.
On Tuesday, Biden also will take steps to restore Obama-era pathways allowing vulnerable groups in Central American to apply for admission to the U.S. from within the region, officials said.
. . . .
*********************
Read the rest of Molly’s detailed analysis of President Biden’s latest executive actions on immigration at the link.
Wonder how many more will be murdered, raped, tortured, kidnapped, robbed, extorted, get sick, or give up while their fate is being studied? Out of sight, (somewhat) out of mind. Just ask the Supremes’ majority! As long as the bodies aren’t on OUR doorsteps and we don’t have to listen to the moans, groans, and screams of the abused.
Five things that could be done immediately, without study:
Vacate all the anti-asylum precedents from the AG and the BIA since 2016;
Assign some Immigration Judges whose “TRAC Record” shows that they understand asylum law and aren’t afraid to grant protection to hear any scheduled MPP cases;
Replace the BIA (or at least create an “MPP Appeals Panel”) with judges who have demonstrated excellence and expertise in asylum law;
Do not go forward with any MPP case involving an unrepresented applicant;
Bar the issuance of “in absentia orders” in MPP cases.
