"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.
Forgot to thank both of you for an amazing semester! This class has helped me not feel too down about law school and not judge my intelligence. I liked that both of you show the human side of law. Thank you for not only showing us that the subject is based on people, but also teaching in a way that showed you were approachable. I love that both of you know how to turn off the legal side and just talk to students about ordinary life, which has helped a lot in my ability to approach other professors. And, you both taught in a language that I can actually understand. Thanks again and I hope to have other professors like the two of you in the future!”
From a student in our Immigration Law I course. Thursday was the final class of the semester.
*******************
This is one reason why the NDPA has been such a formidable force for due process and against Government human rights abuses and “bad law.”
It also shows why more and more immigration and immigration clinical professors are not only receiving tenure, but are “moving up the leadership ladder” at their institutions.
Immigration law teaching has been far, far ahead of the curve in teaching “law you can use” and practical skills that not only spell success in legal practice but in all aspects of life. One of these is taking complex subjects and breaking them down into understandable terms and pieces that make sense and relate to human experience.
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.
I am reaching out again to ask for your help in recruiting adjunct professors for VIISTA, the new online certificate program I created at Villanova University to train immigrant advocates. The program launched in the fall and will start again in May. We expect to need 3-5 additional adjunct professors to start in May, August and/or January.
The VIISTA certificate program is aimed at people who are passionate about immigrant justice but are not interested in pursuing a law degree at the moment, such as recent college grads, people seeking an encore career, retirees and the many who currently work with migrants and want to understand more about the immigration laws that impact them. It is also attractive to students seeking to take a gap year or two between college and law school or high school and college.
VIISTA is offered entirely online and is asynchronous, allowing students to work at their own pace and at times that are most convenient for them. I piloted the curriculum during last academic year and the students loved it. It launches full time in August, and will subsequently be offered each semester, so students can start in August, January, and May.
The Adjunct Professors will work with me to teach cohorts of students as they move through the 3-Module curriculum. Module 1 focuses on how to work effectively with immigrants. Module 2 is designed to teach the immigration law and policy needed for graduates to apply to become partially accredited representatives. Module 3 has more law, and a lot of trial advocacy for those who want to apply for full DOJ accreditation. Each Module is comprised of 2×7-week sessions and students report that they have worked between 10-15 hours/week on the course materials. As an adjunct professor, you will provide feedback weekly on student work product, conduct live office hours with students and work to build engagement and community among the students in your cohort. Tuition for each Module is $1270, it is $3810 for the entire 3-Module certificate program.
I would love for you to help me by sharing this with former students and immigration lawyers in your networks. Here is a link to the job posting:
Also, please note that scholarships are being offered through the Augustinian Defenders of the Rights of the Poor to select students who are sponsored to take VIISTA by recognized organizations. For more information on the scholarships, visit this page, https://www.rightsofthepoor.org/viista-scholarship-program
My best,
Michele
Michele
Michele R. Pistone
Professor of Law
Villanova University, Charles Widger School of Law
Founding Faculty Director, VIISTA: Villanova Interdisciplinary Immigration Studies Training for Advocates
Michele tells me that the time commitment is approximately 8-10 hrs/week, and significantly, the teaching can be done from anywhere you have an internet connection!
For those of you who haven’t taught law online, I was amazingly pleased by my experience last summer at Georgetown Law. Of course, I attribute that almost all to the remarkable skills of the students in creating dialogue and sharing information. They also did it with humor, creativity, and “presence,” showing that they understood the ”performing artist” aspects of lawyering, judging, and teaching!
I also benefitted from the outstanding technical support, instruction, and patience from the Georgetown Law staff! I know that Michele’s technical support is also some the most talented out there on the internet!
And, the best part of the job would, in my view, be working with Michele who is one of the best, most creative, and most “constructively disruptive”minds in American law, as well as being just a wonderful human being! I learn something new every time I speak with her!
Michele’s goal for VIISTA is to get 10,000 more trained accredited representatives out there representing asylum seekers in 10 years (or fewer). Let’s help her get there!
