"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.
Paulina Vera and Alberto Benítez joined Alexander Love, a former client of the Immigration Clinic at GW Law, for his naturalization ceremony—“the happy part of immigration cases,” in Vera’s words. (Contributed photo)
Comedies often end with a wedding, and there’s a marriage in this story, but it’s not a comedy. This is an immigration story, and it ends in a naturalization ceremony, with some painful, dramatic scenes along the way. It begins in the Soviet Union with a gay boy called Sasha, and ends in the United States with a gay man named Alexander. They’re the same person, with a lot of credit for that transformation due to students and faculty of the Immigration Clinic at GW Law.
Alexander Love, as he is now known, was born in Ukraine when it was still part of the Soviet Union. His family moved to suburban Moscow, where he grew up and was expected to become highly educated. As a young teen, he realized he is gay, but he came out only to a few trusted friends and, aged 18, began serving in the Soviet Army. After being discharged in 1991, just as the Soviet Union was breaking apart, he went back to school.
“I was artistic and the majority of my subjects were things like physics, chemistry and mathematics,” Love said. “The only classes I passed were English classes.” Following his passion for working with textiles, he quit school and began sewing clothes for himself and for friends who ordered garments from him. He also taught English.
In these years just after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Soviet Union dissolved and Mikhail Gorbachev, then the Russian president, instituted major reforms. Gay bars and clubs opened (and have since closed) and Western values were embraced. Love befriended Americans living in Moscow and realized how different his life was from theirs. Though Russian society was more relaxed in this period, it could still be very difficult and even dangerous for LGTBQ individuals. In 1998, Love visited the United States for the first time, returning in 1999 and again in 2000, when he first came to Washington, D.C.
“I had been to Spain a few times, so I knew how different it was for gay people outside of Russia,” he said. Gay life at home, even in the more open climate at that time, was risky. “Verbal and physical harassment was always there. You could be stopped on the street or followed by a police car, mostly for the bribes. Sometimes they put some kind of powder in your car.” In taxis, on public transportation, even in gay clubs, he said, people were harassed just because they looked different.
Today, Love prefers not to dwell on the worst abuses he suffered. In 2001, he came to GW Law’s Immigration Clinic for help with his asylum application. Applicants fleeing persecution of LGBTQ people in their home countries need to prove past persecution or that they have a well-founded fear of persecution. Though ill treatment of LGBTQ individuals in Russia is well documented, Love’s application was denied.
Faculty and students in the Immigration Clinic didn’t give up. They assisted him in getting a work permit that allowed him to stay in the United States while they worked on his case. Because he was a clothing designer who had worked with singer Mariah Carey and other persons of note, he was approved for a work permit based on his special skills. But fate quickly intervened.
“Unfortunately,” Love said, “I was diagnosed with HIV, and at that time, you could not apply for a work visa if you had HIV.” (A year later, the law was changed.)
Years passed, and GW Law students came and went with the natural rhythm of matriculation and graduation, but professor Alberto M. Benítez, director of the Immigration Clinic, was a steady presence. So was the man Love said brought stability to his life, his boyfriend (now husband) Michael Love. When same-sex marriage was legalized in 2013, they had been together for eight years. Benítez told Alexander (whose last name then was Sozonov) that if he and Love were married, the clinic could work on obtaining a marriage-based adjustment to his request for permission to remain in America. The partners eagerly wed, but to get their marriage recognized as legitimate in the eyes of the immigration system, both men had to make many court appearances.
A high-stakes version of ‘The Newlywed Game’
Marriage to an American citizen did not automatically mean Love could be granted status as a permanent resident and issued a green card. Sydney Josephson, J.D. ’14, was one of the students who worked on his case. One of her significant contributions to Love’s case was filing a motion to get an approved marriage-based immigrant petition establishing that his union was made in good faith.
Sydney Josephson, J.D. ’14, is flanked by Alexander Love and Michael Love in April 2014 on the day of their interview in support of their marriage-based immigrant petition, which was approved soon after. (Contributed photo)
The process of gaining such recognition can be tricky, according to Josephson, who now practices immigration law with the Fragomen firm in Atlanta. “Sometimes they’ll put people in separate rooms,” she said, “and ask questions like, ‘What color is your fridge?’ One person will say white and the other person will say black. And immigration officials say, ‘This isn’t a good faith marriage. You don’t live together.’”
But Love’s application went smoothly. He and his husband did not go through interviews in separate rooms. They had been together for so long by then that there was little doubt about the nature of their marriage.
Some applicants see less happy results, Josephson said. “A colleague told me about a woman who was asked, ‘What does your husband wear to sleep in?’ She said, ‘Pajamas,’ and the man said, ‘I sleep in gym shorts and a T-shirt.’ And that was one of the reasons they were denied because the officer didn’t think they actually lived together. But I think someone who grew up in another country may think of sweatpants and T-shirt as pajamas.”
Working in immigration law can be extremely rewarding, according to Josephson, because it feels good to help people like Love.
“He’s an amazing person,” she said. “He has a beautiful relationship with Michael, and they’re wonderful people.”
Love was granted status as a permanent resident of the United States in 2016. He enjoys working as a textile librarian for the Washington Design Center.
“It’s a library, but instead of books you have tons of fabrics, trims, leathers and wallpapers,” Love said. “You have to know where everything is at and how to handle them. I’m very happy in this position.”
Clients from around the world
Alumna Paulina Vera, B.A. ’12, J.D. ’15, is a professorial lecturer in law and a supervising attorney of the Immigration Clinic. Since returning to GW seven years ago, she has supervised the students working on Love’s case and others.
“I actually was a student in the Immigration Clinic in my third year at GW Law,” Vera said. “I went to law school because I wanted to be an immigration attorney. I’m the daughter of two immigrants. My mom is from England; my dad, rest in peace, was from Peru. I grew up in Tucson, an hour away from the U.S.-Mexico border. So, immigration has always been a pretty big part of my personal life.”
The Immigration Clinic at GW Law started in 1979 and has helped countless people seek asylum or resist deportation. Clinic members have assisted victims of trafficking as well as DREAMers and youth covered by the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. They have worked with clients from El Salvador, Ghana, Mozambique, Nigeria, Indonesia, China and elsewhere. Recently, they helped a returning client—a woman they successfully represented in her application for asylum in 2018—bring her four children to the United States from Honduras.
Benítez and Vera currently have a cert petition before the U.S. Supreme Court, asking it to review the decision of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Moisés Cruz Cruz, an undocumented Mexican man living in Virginia. During a routine traffic stop, a police officer asked Cruz his name. In a nervous moment, Cruz combined his own name with his brother’s name. Though he immediately corrected his mistake and wrote his correct name and date of birth on a piece of paper, the officer charged him with false identification, a misdemeanor. On the advice of a lawyer, Cruz entered a guilty plea, and as a result he is now facing deportation. Three of his children are U.S. citizens.
“To me,” Vera said, “this case is very indicative of the overarching immigration consequences that fairly minor criminal convictions can have. Are we going to separate a man from his family of five who has a partner who’s not from Mexico, so could not go back to Mexico with him, over something that stemmed from a traffic stop?”
Benítez said the Immigration Clinic staff unsuccessfully tried, through a different lawyer, to get Cruz’s guilty plea withdrawn. The case hinges on the question of whether Cruz committed a “crime involving moral turpitude,” which justifies deportation in immigration cases. Such crimes are typically defined as depraved acts involving child pornography, rape and other violent crimes such as murder.
“He did plead guilty, and he is in violation of the Virginia state code,” Benítez said. “We’re not disputing that. But is it an immigration violation? We hope that the Supreme Court agrees with us that it is not. State criminal law and federal immigration law are two different things. If the Supreme Court agrees with us, Moisés would be eligible to apply for—not necessarily get—a remedy that we call an immigration law cancellation of removal. That is for long-term residents of the United States who have no status, who establish ties to the United States and establish that they are good citizens.”
‘These folks are not criminals’
Growing up in Buffalo, New York, as the child of Mexican parents, Benítez never discussed immigration with them. His interest in immigration law was piqued when he was in college and learned that applications for asylum were processed with political rather than humanitarian concerns uppermost at play. He went to law school during the Reagan years and has taught at GW since 1996. After practicing immigration law for decades, Benítez said he knows at least one thing for sure.
“There is no border crisis,” he said. “These folks are not criminals. They do not bring disease. They are people trying to save themselves and save their kids. And the way that certain elements in our society demonize them is just plain wrong.”
There is never a shortage of clients at the Immigration Clinic, he said. On the contrary, they sometimes have to make wrenching decisions about which cases to take and which to decline. On average, he estimates that the clinic helps about 50 people per year, including the family members of clients. The clinic’s efforts on behalf of clients, Love among them, can stretch over several years.
“As long as the clients are prepared to continue fighting,” Benítez said, “we are prepared to continue fighting. The student attorneys that I’ve supervised, including Paulina, are the best. Whatever they lack in experience, they make up for in zeal, intelligence, professionalism and empathy.”
Love’s gratitude for the students who helped him remains undimmed.
“The students were the stars of my case,” he said. “I should frame their pictures. I’m thankful to all of them.”
The closing scene in Love’s immigration story takes place at his naturalization ceremony in 2020. Benítez and Vera were present to congratulate him on becoming a U.S. citizen.
*******************
I was privileged to have the GW Law Clinic appear before me in the “Legacy” Arlington Immigration Court during my 13 year tenure there. Professor Alberto Benítez is a long-time friend, neighbor, and fellow dog walker! I’m also proud that Professor Paulina Vera is an alum of the Arlington Internship Program and a “charter member” of the New Due Process Army. Additionally, Attorney Sydney Josephson, JD-‘14, instrumental in this case, now practices with Fragomen, a firm where I was a partner from 1992 until my appointment as BIA Chair in 1995.
Congrats to the GW Clinic on 45 years of spectacular success, leadership in the legal profession, and many lives saved!
Estrella Santos-Zacaria has come a long way from San Pedro Soloma, Guatemala, a village nestled in the Sierra de los Cuchumatanes mountains and known as El Valle del Ensueño, or the Valley of Dreams.
For years, Santos-Zacaria dreamed desperately — of escape.
In 2008, she attempted to immigrate to the U.S., fearing that the violence she had experienced because of her sexual orientation and identity as a transgender woman could get her killed. Since then, she has been deported twice.
But in January, her case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. And on May 11, Santos-Zacaria won the right to further challenge her deportation — and the potential to start a new life in the U.S. Other immigrants facing deportation could benefit, as well, because the ruling helps clear a procedural obstacle for noncitizens seeking judicial review of rulings by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), an administrative appellate body within the U.S. Department of Justice.
The Supreme Court’s decision, authored by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, also marks a notable step in its acknowledgment of transgender people. Santos-Zacaria’s chosen name, Estrella, was referenced alongside her former given name, and her proper pronouns were used throughout.
The case was the first initiated by the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Southeast Immigrant Freedom Initiative (SIFI) to reach the U.S. Supreme Court. SIFI provides pro bono legal representation to asylum seekers who are being held at immigrant detention centers in the Deep South.
“What Estrella’s won is the right to keep fighting,” said Peter Isbister, senior lead attorney for SIFI. “And that would not have been possible without her team of volunteer attorneys. Cases and clients like Estrella are why SIFI believes so deeply in having a pro bono program.”
In her case, both the BIA and the 5th Circuit had gone out of the way NOT to meaningfully review life or death mistakes made in the Immigration Court. In doing so, they tossed aside the realities and roadblocks facing those seeking justice in Immigration Court and their representatives (if any, in a glaringly unfair system).
This case shows the critical importance of pro bono immigration assistance. These lower court Federal Judges focused not on constitutionally required due process and fundamental fairness, or on the vulnerable human life at stake, but rather on inventing ways NOT to provide fair hearings in some of the most important, perhaps the most important, cases coming before the Federal Justice system.
Pro bono representation levels the playing field and exposes the poor performance of those whose sole focus should be individual justice, rather than “institutional task avoidance!”
This e-mail exchange among experts says it all about Cabrera-Fernandez:
Expert 1: Wow – they never miss a chance to hurt noncitizens, do they?
Expert 2: The cruelty is the point.
“The Cruelty Is The Point” IMAGE: Amazon.com
With an available interpretation that would have allowed regularization of status, what purpose is served by devising a way to keep these otherwise qualified Cubans in limbo? Why would the DHS appeal a decision like this? Why would the BIA reward them for pursuing a result that is 1) inhumane, 2) undesirable, and 3) entirely avoidable with a little creativity and common sense (see, IJ in this case)?
No wonder we have backlogs everywhere an a dysfunctional system that nobody in charge seems interested in fixing — even when fixes are available and basically “cost free?” Better leaders and more enlightened decision-makers would be helpful.
Except, perhaps, in Florida and other GOP-controlled “mini-reichs” where hate, censorship, and persecution of vulnerable populations have become official policy! Is this REALLY the way the next generations of Americans want to live and be remembered by history? PHOTO: Public Realm
Last Wednesday, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis — who is expected to announce his campaign for the presidency as soon as tomorrow — signed a gaggle of bills targeting LGBTQ youth.
In addition to those he had already signed into law — including a “Don’t Say Gay” measure barring teachers from mentioning sexual orientation or gender identity and another prohibiting gender-affirming care — his latest laws expand the state’s prohibition on classroom instruction about sexual orientation and gender identity, require that students use bathrooms associated with their sex assigned at birth, prohibit adults from taking children to see drag shows, and bar teachers from asking students about their preferred pronouns.
Another of the bills DeSantis just signed into law allows the state of Florida to take transgender minors away from parents who help them obtain gender-affirming care.
In raging against gender-affirming care, DeSantis lied that “they’re literally chopping off the private parts of young kids.” In fact, genital surgery is rarely, if ever, done under the age of 18. It’s not even all that common for adults. DeSantis is lying about it to scare people.
Meanwhile, the Republican presidential frontrunner has made it clear that trans people have no place in his vision of America:
“I will sign a new executive order instructing every federal agency to cease all programs that promote the concepts of sex and gender transitions at any age. I will ask Congress to pass a bill establishing that the only genders recognized by the United States government are male and female, and they are assigned at birth.”
***
My friends, these scare tactics are dangerous. Recent analysis found a 70% increase in hate crimes against LGBTQ Americans between 2020 and 2021, as the surge of these anti-LGBTQ bills began. And that’s only counting hate crimes that get reported. The years 2020 and 2021 each set a new record for the number of trans people murdered in America.
**
The cruelest irony is that these Republican bills pretending to protect children are putting our most vulnerable children at greater risk.
LGBTQ kids are more than four times likelier than non-LGBTQ kids to attempt suicide, especially transgender young people.
Gender-affirming care reduces that risk. That is why it is life-saving.
“Don’t Say Gay” laws also strip away potentially life-saving support. A teacher who positively and respectfully discusses sexual orientation and gender identity won’t turn a straight kid gay. But such a discussion will make an LGBTQ student 23% less likely to attempt suicide.
The tragic truth is that “Don’t Say Gay” laws and bans on gender-affirming care are causing more young lives to be needlessly lost.
Laws that threaten to take transgender minors away from their families if they are receiving gender-affirming care will cause these young people even more trauma.
If they were really worried about children undergoing life-altering medical procedures, they wouldn’t pass abortion bans that force teens to give birth or risk back-alley procedures.
What the GOP’s vendetta against the LGBTQ community really is, is a classic authoritarian tactic to vilify already marginalized people.
This is how fascism takes root.
We need to see DeSantis’s bills and similar bills signed by Republican governors across the land for what they are — attempts to use bigotry and hate to elevate their political standing.
And we need to see this Republican attack on LGBTQ Americans for what it is: a threat to all of our human rights.
[My thanks to Allan Piper for work on a version of today’s letter.]
************************
Meanwhile, as Caleb Ecarma reports for Vanity Fair, Florida teachers have had enough:
“For the first time, I’ve actually started talking to my investment guy about retirement,” Michael Woods, a teacher who has spent decades working in exceptional-student education for public schools in South Florida, tells me. “I’m a 30-year veteran who showed up every day, hardly calls in sick, but now I don’t want to be a teacher in Florida.” Most troubling to Woods—a gay man who teaches science and biology courses—is the ballooning list of laws that police classroom material, discriminate against LGBTQ+ educators and students, and restrict sex education. “They’re all so vague,” he says of DeSantis’s new laws. “Even things that used to be easy like human reproduction [for ninth graders], I now have to check with my co-teacher and ask, ‘Is this okay? Are we still allowed to teach this?’”
On Wednesday, the governor rubber-stamped a batch of four bills restricting LGBTQ+ rights and expanding the Parental Rights in Education Act—or, as critics have dubbed it, the “Don’t Say Gay” law. The new measures, which will be enforced at public and charter schools, ban educators from discussing sexual orientation or gender identity in pre-K through eighth grade, and place new, vague restrictions on sex education, including that such instructions “be age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”
This latest salvo was a bridge too far for many teachers, according to Rebecca Pringle, the president of the National Education Association, the largest labor union in the US. “I just talked to one teacher yesterday who is leaving and she said, ‘I can’t teach like this,’” Pringle tells me. “‘I can’t teach while worrying that they’re coming after my license, or I’m committing a felony.’ They’re leaving in protest.” Pringle says she has tried to convince teachers to stay in Florida, given the dearth of teachers in the state. But that discussion has been difficult to have, she says, with teachers who are facing death threats or harassment.
Case in point: One fifth-grade teacher in West Florida said this month that she was placed under investigation by the Florida Department of Education for showing her class Disney’s Strange World, a children’s movie that features an openly gay character. Jenna Barbee, the teacher at hand, said she played the film to give students a post-exam “brain break.” But when a local school board member learned of the showing, Barbee said, she was reported to state officials. Barbee told CNN that she had already submitted her resignation before the incident, in protest of the “politics and the fear of not being able to be who you are” in Florida public schools.
It appears that no educator has yet been prosecuted or charged under Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” law or its legislation restricting books in schools. But as fears mount over their future implementation, parents are already witnessing the effects of shorthanded schools and overcrowded classrooms. “Last year, I saw several teachers leave, and we had substitutes for three, four months of the year,” says Reagan Miller, a parent in West Florida whose two children attend public school. “We had a teacher who taught advanced math at our middle school for years and years—he just left to go be a 911 operator,” she tells me, “which blows my mind, that becoming a 911 operator would be less stressful than being a teacher.”
. . . .
*****************************
My experience on the bench was that almost all the transgender individuals coming before me had attempted suicide on one or more occasions or expressed suicidal thoughts. To a person, they just wanted to be accepted, protected, and to live their own lives without harassment, interference, or fear. These are all things that today’s cowardly GOP “Brown Shirt Pols” would deny them.
The next generation is going to have to decide whether they want to live in a Nazi-inspired police “hate state” where individual freedoms are meaningless and cruelty, bullying, suppression, and betrayal are the norms. If not, then they had better get busy removing every GOP politico from every office — from local school boards and city councils to the Presidency.
How soon we forget the lessons of 1939! Perhaps that’s part of the GOP’s war on truth, education, and history!
GW Law Immigration Clinic Director Professor Alberto Benítez & Co-Director Paulina Vera
Professor Alberto Benitez reports:
Please join me and Professor Vera in congratulating Immigration Clinic client, K-H-, from Indonesia, and her student-attorneys, Jordan Nelson, Julia Yang, and Alex Chen. The client’s asylum application was filed on December 3, 2018, she had two interviews at the Asylum Office, on November 10, 2021 and March 2, 2022, and she was granted asylum on May 24, 2022. We received the notice today. The above-captioned is what K-H- said upon learning about her asylum grant.
K-H- is a lesbian woman. Throughout her life, she has had to hide her identity for fear that her family would disown her and that she would be arrested, physically harmed, or even killed if she was outed in her country. K-H- came to the U.S. in 2017 to work as a nanny. During that time, her host family was also hostile towards members of the LGBTQ+ community. Afraid once again, K-H- moved households and with the support of that host family and the Immigration Clinic, she decided to apply for asylum so that she could live her life openly as a lesbian woman. K-H- now volunteers for several LGBTQ+ initiatives, including a theater program for LGBTQ+ people of color. She finds that sharing her story is therapeutic. When Professor Vera asked how K-H- planned to celebrate, she replied that she will be celebrating with her new girlfriend.
Congrats again to my friends Alberto and Paulina and their talented students!
Jason Dzubow The Asylumist
Proving the “Dzubow Rule:”“The winners are out here! We just have to get them represented and to merits determinations before competent adjudicators in a hopelessly backlogged system.”
How many refugees like K-H- have been arbitrarily and illegally returned to danger and harm by the Biden and Trump Administrations with no process at all, let alone due process of law? Cutting off the right to make and be fairly heard on claims to asylum and mandatory legal protection is a major human rights violation by our Government!
“Mario Rene Lopez Troche (“Lopez Troche”), a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) that affirms the denial of his application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We vacate and remand. … [T]he record does not reveal the claimed inconsistency between the testimony and the reasonable fear interview as to Lopez Troche’s reporting to police that the BIA identified. The BIA cited to three portions of Lopez Troche’s testimony in support of its determination that the IJ did not clearly err in finding an inconsistency between what Lopez Troche told the asylum officer during his reasonable fear interview and how he testified as to the reporting of past abuse. But, none of those passages supports the BIA’s determination. … Nor is it possible to read either the BIA or the IJ to have inferred from Lopez Troche’s failure to report to the police the specific incidents that he discussed in his testimony that he was asserting in that testimony that did not report any incidents of abuse ever. Neither the IJ’s opinion nor the BIA’s expressly purports to premise its ruling as to adverse credibility on the basis of such inferential reasoning, see Chenery, 318 U.S. at 95, and we do not see what basis there would be for drawing that inference on this record, given that, in his reasonable fear interview, declaration, and testimony, Lopez Troche discussed a series of traumatic physical and sexual assaults that he had experienced that appears to have stretched back to a time when he was eight years old and that thus encompassed many more incidents than those addressed specifically in the portions of his testimony on which the BIA focused. As a result, we must vacate and remand the BIA’s order affirming the denial of Lopez Troche’s request for withholding of removal.”
Law students and attorneys of the NDPA are out there helping refugees every day. Meanwhile, over at Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR, Immigration Judges and BIA Appellate Immigration Judges strain to improperly “diddle the record” to deny relief to asylum seekers! Then, OIL defends them!
Essentially, in this case, the BIA “made it up and misrepresented the record” in an effort to deny asylum for specious reasons! Then, OIL tried to “blow it by” the Circuit!
“[T]he record does not reveal the claimed inconsistency between the testimony and the reasonable fear interview as to Lopez Troche’s reporting to police that the BIA identified.” That’s “judgespeak” for: The BIA invented non-existent “inconsistencies” to unfairly deny asylum. Then, OIL defended that fabrication and denial of due process! What does this say about Garland’s leadership at DOJ?
Whatever happened to legal and judicial ethics? Clearly they were “deep sixed” under Sessions and Barr. But, why is Garland continuing to operate DOJ as an “ethics and quality free zone?”
This is a bad system with the wrong folks in too many judicial and leadership positions and presenting an overwhelming need for robust, bold change in how decisions are made and defended in Circuit Court. So far, Garland has not made the fundamental personnel changes and “quality upgrades” necessary to bring due process and some semblance of expertise and order back to his broken Immigration Courts! Why not?
Why are the kind of individuals who should be Immigration Judges and EOIR judicial leaders, talented lawyers like Elena and Irene, still “on the outside” rather than being actively recruited and brought in to replace those unable to perform judicial, administrative, and litigation duties in a fair, expert manner, that enhances due process? Why is EOIR still operating with a “judiciary” the majority of whom were installed by the Trump regime at Justice to “dehumanize, deport, and deter” without regard for due process? Why is OIL continuing to “defend the indefensible?” Why isn’t Congress asking Garland these questions?
Government lacking in expertise, intellectual honesty, professional ethics, and accountability is “bad government.” That’s true no matter which party holds power!
Angel Romero was about 8 years old when his bus rides home from school changed.
His family was living in Prince William County in Virginia at the time, and the elementary school student didn’t understand much about the agreement the county had entered into with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. He knew only that some of his classmates had arrived home after school and found their parents gone.
“I started worrying if I would have parents when I came home,” he recalls.
On those bus rides home, he would sit with his anxiety until his bus came to his stop.
Some days, he would see his mom and dad standing there, and feel immediate relief that they hadn’t been deported. Other days, his mother would wait alone, because his father had to work at his construction job, and the boy would carry his fears with him until his dad walked in the door.
“It would be really scary not knowing if he was at work — or somewhere else,” the now 21-year-old tells me when we talk on a recent morning. “There is still that subconscious fear that has stuck with me. It’s never gone away.”
In the past week, Romero has been able to celebrate on a personal level two nationally recognized victories: Prince William County’s decision to not renew its 287(g) agreement with ICE and a Supreme Court ruling that blocks President Trump’s attempt to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program that offers protections to immigrants who were brought to the country as children.
[[Large Virginia county ends immigration enforcement agreement]]
Romero, who is a DACA recipient, stood in front of the Supreme Court on the day that decision was made. At one point, he took a knee and raised a fist in the air. A line of people, who, like him, had worked with the immigrant advocacy group CASA toward that moment, did the same.
It’s a posture that has been seen over and over again in recent weeks as streets across the country have filled with people protesting police brutality and other racial inequities. The push to “Defund the Police,” which has grown from those protests, may seem a distant fight from the effort to “Abolish ICE,” which immigrant rights groups have demanded, but many of the activists who are on the front lines right now, pushing for change, see the two as connected. They see them as two cries in the same battle.
What “Defund the Police” and “Abolish ICE” share is an acknowledgment that bad law enforcement practices, no matter what the badge looks like, unjustly separate families. They leave children not knowing whether their dads (or moms) will make it home, not because of what they did that day, but because of who they are.
Both also directly affect black immigrants.
In rallies that took place before the Prince William County decision, brown hands held white signs declaring “Black Lives Matter.” And in the hours after the Supreme Court decision, black activists called for an end to how the country enforces immigration. The system, which has seen in-custody deaths of adults and children, criminalizes people for entering the country while not providing clear paths to citizenship.
“These movements should be very linked, and I believe they are getting more and more linked as we are fighting together,” says Luis Aguilar, the Virginia state director for CASA. He is a DACA recipient and has spent years working toward seeing Prince William County end its agreement with ICE.
He is also Afro-Mexican. His dad comes from a region of Mexico where runaway slaves settled.
“When I see things like what happened to George Floyd, it goes beyond the personal,” the 33-year-old says of the police-custody killing that has sparked weeks of protests. “It goes to a space where you start thinking about why these things are happening, and you realize that currently society isn’t in a place where it truly respects each person as a human being.”
Aguilar was 15 and living in Falls Church when his father was deported.
“I would not want any other child to experience the results of a broken immigration system,” he says. “I think we owe it to society to fix the system.”
The decision by Prince William lawmakers not to renew its agreement with ICE when it expires at the end of the month received a blip of attention compared with the Supreme Court decision. But it is a significant development for the Washington region. That program changed the county. It created a hostile atmosphere, and not just for undocumented immigrants. It forced Latino families to leave the county and some to avoid calling the police, even when they needed help.
I know this not only from studies that have been conducted over the years, but also from personal observation.
When I came to The Washington Post, it wasn’t as a columnist. I was hired to cover the Prince William County Police Department. I had been in that job less than a year when county lawmakers approved 287(g), which gave law enforcement officials some of the same powers as immigration enforcement agents. They did that despite hearing concerns from the police department that it would erode community trust, prevent immigrants from reporting crimes and require a whole lot of money.
When Corey Stewart was running for a Senate seat, I wrote about what I saw and experienced after the crackdown happened — including how a man yelled at me, “Go back to your country!” — to show the intangible ways in which it failed the community. (And for those who want to point to it as a solution to crime, Prince William Police Chief Barry M. Barnard was recently quoted as saying, “I’m not seeing any hard data where the 287 program has been shown to be the direct cause of any measurable crime reduction.”)
Instead, it left people feeling scared and targeted — and it did that to residents who weren’t even out of elementary school yet.
Angel Romero says for him, “that moment just changed everything.”
“It changed my personality,” he says. “I used to be a really talkative kid, and I had like a switch, where I became very closed off and introverted.”
When Sharet Garcia heard the U.S. Supreme Court decided to uphold the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, all she could do was cry.
“I just couldn’t believe it,” she said.
As a DACA recipient and founder of the online networking space UndocuProfessionals, Garcia said that the decision came as a shock. “We’re very excited, of course, and very happy…but at the same time, we know there’s still a lot of work to be done,” she said.
In the year since its creation, UndocuProfessionals has garnered a nationwide following. In the past months, it has become a gathering space for DACA recipients — also called DREAMers — to find support through the uncertainty of the approaching decision.
Garcia said she stayed awake into the early hours Thursday morning answering messages from other DREAMers who were anxiously awaiting the results.
“I was there trying to support them in the best way I can,” she said.
The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision, which came after months of anticipation, ruled that the Trump administration improperly ended the DACA program in 2017. The announcement left DREAMers and their loved ones with “an amazing feeling of relief,” said Centro Hispano director Karen Menendez Coller.
It was the second defeat this week for the Trump administration, coming just days after the court ruled in favor of anti-discrimination protection for LGBTQIA+ employees under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
“The emotional impact is huge,” Menendez Coller said. “I can’t even describe the burden that this has lifted from so many people in the community.”
Anticipating the court’s decision against the backdrop of the pandemic, she added, was “an incredible load to carry,” noting the financial impact as well as the daily emotional turmoil that DREAMers face.
“You kind of have to put [the worry] at the back of your mind and ignore it,” said a Madison-area DACA recipient, who asked to remain anonymous. At the same time, she said, the thought was always lurking. “At any moment, had the outcome been negative, your whole world is going to change.”
She added that while many people weren’t hopeful about the decision, she was.
“There’s a lot more opportunities that people have had now for eight years,” she said, noting that, since the program’s 2012 inception, DREAMers have started small businesses, graduated college and worked for big companies.
“I think that that’s a big reason why I was like, maybe they’ll think twice about it. And thankfully they did.”
Though she counts the decision as a win, Menendez Collar said that the path to equity is “a long road.” Centro Hispano plans to continue mobilizing and raising funds to assist DREAMers and the undocumented community. They plan to collaborate with the Immigration Office of Affairs and increase the Immigrant Assistance Fund, which is housed at the Madison Community Foundation and helps DREAMers access legal help and cover fees associated with filing DACA applications.
. . . .
********************
Read the rest of Theresa’s and Sophie’s articles at the respective links above.
Imagine how many lives could be saved and changed for the better and how great America could become as a nation if Chief Justice Roberts and all other Federal Judges could find it within themselves to stand up for the legal, human, and Constitutional rights of refugees, asylum applicants, and migrants in every case challenging the Administration’s systemic, lawless, and invidiously motivated attacks on our legal system and the lives and humanity of the most vulnerable among us?
And, special thanks to Theresa and Sophie for reporting that puts humanity back in the law where it belongs. Without mercy, humanity, fairness, and decency, there can be neither law nor true justice.
SPLIT DECISION: Supremes Deliver “Gut Punch” To Transgender Americans, But Give Another Round To Dreamers
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
United States Immigration Judge (Retired)
On Tuesday, a divided Supreme Court allowed a portion of Trump’s homophobic ban on certain transgender troops to go into effect. At the same time, they properly squelched the arrogantly disingenuous attempt by Trump and his “go along to get along” Solicitor General Noel Francisco to “expedite” review of lower court rulings that found that Trump, former Attorney General Sessions, and DHS acted lawlessly and without any apparent legal rationale in terminating the “DACA” program. In simple terms, decisions that required the Administration to follow the law.
Prior Solicitors General have sometimes balked at representing liars and presenting disingenuous arguments in behalf of their Government “clients.” (Actually, somewhat of a bureaucratic misnomer, because the “institutional client” is really the “People of the U.S.” who pay Government salaries, regardless of whether they are citizens or can vote.) Not this one, who seems to savor the opportunity to carry Trump’s more than ample “dirty water” and reduce the credibility of his one-respected office to around zero. As I predicted, nobody serves Trump without being tarnished.
For the LGBTQ community, it’s a horrible signal that a narrow majority of the Supremes are unwilling to move into the 21stcentury and recognize their Constitutional rights to equal protection under the 14thAmendment as well as their rights as human beings. It’s also shockingly disrespectful to those who have stepped forward to risk their lives in the name of our country, something Trump took great pains to avoid. It’s doubly disappointing that Chief Justice John Roberts joined his far-right colleagues on this one, at least in part (he rejected the bogus argument for immediate review put forth by Francesco and instead sent the case back to the lower courts for further development).
Unlike some of his colleagues on the right, Roberts has some sense of institutional history, the horror and existential dangers to democracy of Trump as Chief Executive, and the future. Come on, “Chiefie,” we can all get smarter as we get older! Don’t blow your chance to “get on the right side of history.” Leave the “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse” behind in their dust and join your four more enlightened colleagues in moving America forward and showing some leadership and courage on the Supremes. As this month has shown, you might be the only person able to save America.
Paraphrasing what many pundits have said, “The Supremes can basically do anything they want, whenever they want to, for any reason they can come up with, because they are Supreme.” With that caveat in mind, the Court’s well-deserved slap down of Trump on DACA basically leaves the full protections in effect for Dreamers until the end of the Trump Administration. At that point, we’ll either get a new President, or there won’t be any country left for the “Dreamers,” the Supremes, or the rest of us to “dream about” or live in. The so-called “American Dream” will be at a tragic end. We’ll all be living in a continuing nightmare of cruelty, incompetence, and randomness.
I think the Supremes would be wise not to take up the DACA issue ever. It needs to be resolved by the lower courts, who have for the most part done a fine job, and the Congress, which hasn’t. But, assuming the Supremes do take the issue, they probably wouldn’t schedule argument before the October Term 2020. That makes it highly unlikely that they would reach and issue any final decision before the November 2020 elections. There would certainly be no reason for them to “rush to judgement” on this one.
Thus, Trump’s hollow offer of meager “Dreamer relief,” no path to green cards or citizenship and less than they have now under the court decisions, is even less of a legitimate “bargaining chip” than it was before. And, “poisoning the well” with Stephen Miller’s White Nationalist anti-asylum, child-abuse agenda shows how intellectually dishonest Trump and the GOP are and that the rancid “thousand pages of vile gibberish” that they launched as a “fake offer to reopen our Government” is a pure political stunt and an insult to 800,000 unpaid Government workers.
Moreover, all of this nonsense must be viewed in context of reality. That’s something that seldom intrudes on the daily intentionally created chaos and national dysfunction of this Administration. The Dreamers aren’t going anywhere! Almost all of them have legitimate applications for immigration relief that they can file in Immigration Court, including cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the CAT.
Trump, Sessions, and now Whitaker have totally destroyed the U.S. Immigration Court system. I’m not sure it will be able to reopen even when the Trump shutdown finally ends. With a politically-created backlog of well over one million cases, growing by tens of thousands with every day of the mindless Trump shutdown, virtually no “Dreamer” (other than a minute percentage who might be convicted of crimes and probably would have had their DACA status revoked or denied on that basis) would be scheduled for removal proceedings within the next four years, let alone by 2020. Indeed, if Congress doesn’t step in and provide Dreamer relief and an Article I independent Immigration Court to replace the current dysfunctional mess in the DOJ, some of these cases may well still be pending a decade from now!
This context also reaffirms the total disingenuous absurdity of SG Francisco’s argument that this is an “emergency” requiring “early intervention” by the Supremes. Nothing could be further from the truth. The only “emergency” is the one intentionally caused by his “client” Trump — by illegally and unnecessarily trying to shut down the DACA program and aggravated by his Administration’s wanton destruction of our U.S. Immigration Courts, and by the “Trump shutdown.”
The Supremes must take a “hard line” against being “sucked in” to the many bogus “emergencies” that Trump creates to detract attention from his and his party’s inability to govern in even a minimally fair and effective manner. Perhaps, it’s also time for Francisco to reread the rule of ethics for lawyers and have a “heart to heart” with his “client” about abusing the Federal Courts with semi-frivolous litigation and presenting lies as “facts.” It’s never too late to learn!
