Sanctuary Cities – Page 29 – immigrationcourtside.com

PRACTICAL SCHOLARSHIP — PROFESSOR LAILA HLASS @ TULANE LAW TAKES ON “GUILT BY ASSOCIATION” AND “IMPLICIT BIAS “ IN IMMIGRATION ADJUDICATIONS INVOLVING GANG ALLEGATIONS!

HERE’S PROFESSOR HLASS:

HERE’S THE “ABSTRACT:”

The School to Deportation Pipeline

Georgia State University Law Review, Vol. 34, No. 3, 2018

Tulane Public Law Research Paper No. 18-1

60 Pages Posted: 8 Mar 2018

Laila Hlass

Tulane University – Law School

Date Written: 2018

Abstract

The United States immigration regime has a long and sordid history of explicit racism, including limiting citizenship to free whites, excluding Chinese immigrants, deporting massive numbers of Mexican immigrants and U.S. citizens of Mexican ancestry, and implementing a national quotas system preferencing Western Europeans. More subtle bias has seeped into the system through the convergence of the criminal and immigration law regimes. Immigration enforcement has seen a rise in mass immigrant detention and deportation, bolstered by provocative language casting immigrants as undeserving undesirables: criminals, gang members, and terrorists. Immigrant children, particularly black and Latino boys, are increasingly finding themselves in the crosshairs of a punitive immigration system, over-policing within schools, and law enforcement, all of which can be compounded by racial biases and a lack of special protections for youth in the immigration regime. The confluence of these systems results in a trajectory that has been referred to as “the school to deportation pipeline.”

Gang allegations in immigration proceedings are an emerging practice in this trajectory. Using non-uniform and broad guidelines, law enforcement, school officials, and immigration agents may label immigrant youth as gang-affiliated based on youths’ clothes, friends, or even where they live. These allegations serve as the basis to detain, deny bond, deny immigration benefits, and deport youth in growing numbers. This Article posits that gang allegations are a natural outgrowth of the convergence of the criminal and immigration schemes, serving as a means to preserve racial inequality. This Article further suggests excluding the consideration of gang allegations from immigration adjudications because their use undermines fundamental fairness. Finally, this Article proposes a three-pronged approach to counter the use of gang allegations, including initiatives to interrupt bias, take youthfulness into account, and increase access to counsel in immigration proceedings.

Keywords: Immigration, Children, Deportation, Immigration Representation, migrant youth, school-to-deportation-pipeline, race, gangs

Suggested Citation:

Hlass, Laila, The School to Deportation Pipeline (2018). Georgia State University Law Review, Vol. 34, No. 3, 2018; Tulane Public Law Research Paper No. 18-1. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3132754

HERE ARE SOME “KEY QUOTES:”

“To be sure, the problem of gang violence in this country is a serious one. It is a problem that requires sustained attention to the complex (and diverse) sociological and neurological reasons that young people decide to associate with gangs or, as the case may be, disengage from them.27 Those concerns, however important, are beyond the scope of this Article. Instead, the goal of this Article is to shed light on the practical realities faced by immigrant youth caught in the school to deportation pipeline, where entrenched biases and insufficient procedural safeguards virtually guarantee their removal based on gang affiliation, no matter how flimsy the evidence supporting that label.28”

. . . .

“Gang allegations in immigration proceedings are part of the immigration regime’s long and ignoble history of explicit and implicit racism. Immigrant children, particularly youth of color, increasingly find themselves in the crosshairs of a punitive immigration system and subject to over-policing within schools and by law enforcement. These factors converge with existing racial biases and a lack of special protections for youth in the immigration regime, creating a perfect storm. To address this problem, gang allegations and related evidence should be excluded from immigration adjudications due to their unreliability and prejudicial nature. Furthermore, safeguards must be implemented to address this phenomenon, particularly as gang allegations appear to be on the rise. The immigration agency should attempt to interrupt adjudicator bias through education, improved decision-making conditions, and data collection. Secondly, youth should explicitly be a positive factor in discretion and bond decisions. Finally, to stall the school to deportation pipeline, children should have access to representation in immigration adjudications.”

AND, HERE’S A LINK TO THE FULL ARTICLE IN THE GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW:

Hlass-Gangs

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

Laila was my colleague at Georgetown Law when she was a Fellow at the CALS Asylum Clinic. In fact, she was a “Guest Lecturer” in my Immigration Law & Policy class.

Although Laila takes the much more scholarly approach, I have been saying consistently that this Administration’s harsh rhetoric and strictly law enforcement approach to diminishing the power of gangs is not only likely to fail, but is almost guaranteed to make the problems worse. Indeed, it’s basically an “on rhetorical steroids” version of the gang enforcement policies that have consistently been failing since the Reagan Administration.

But, we now have folks in charge who glory in their ignorance and bias. Consequently, they refuse to learn from past mistakes and will not embrace more effective community-based strategies that over time would deal with the causes of gang membership and help reduce gang violence.

PWS

03-14-18

GONZO’S WORLD: ICE SPOKESMAN QUITS AFTER BEING ORDERED TO LIE IN SUPPORT OF SESSIONS/HOMAN FALSE NARRATIVE ON IMMIGRANTS & CRIME — “I quit because I didn’t want to perpetuate misleading facts!”

https://s2.washingtonpost.com/camp-rw/?e=amVubmluZ3MxMkBhb2wuY29t&s=5aa7c521fe1ff62bafaa308e

James Hohmann reports in the Washington Post “Daily 202:”

Jeff Sessions attacked Oakland’s mayor in a speech last week in Sacramento. An ICE spokesman has resigned over what he says were false statements by the attorney general. (Rich Pedroncelli/AP)

— “The San Francisco spokesman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has resigned over what he described as ‘false’ and ‘misleading’ statements made by top-ranking officials, including Attorney General Jeff Sessions and ICE Acting Director Thomas D. Homan,”Meagan Flynn reports. “The now-former spokesman, James Schwab, told news outlets late Monday that his resignation stemmed from statements by Homan and Sessions that potentially hundreds of ‘criminal aliens’ evaded ICE during a Northern California raid in February because Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf warned the immigrant community in advance. Schwab said he pushed back on that characterization — but said ICE instructed him to ‘deflect’ questions from the press.”

“I quit because I didn’t want to perpetuate misleading facts,” he told the San Francisco Chronicle. “I asked them to change the information. I told them that the information was wrong, they asked me to deflect, and I didn’t agree with that. Then I took some time and I quit. … I didn’t feel like fabricating the truth to defend ourselves against her actions was the way to go about it.”

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

https://s2.washingtonpost.com/camp-rw/?e=amVubmluZ3MxMkBhb2wuY29t&s=5aa7c521fe1ff62bafaa308e

It’s not like James Schwab and James Hohmann are the only ones calling out Trump & Sessions for their consistent lies and misrepresentations about immigration. As reported by the always amazing Tal Kopan @ CNN last week, California Governor Jerry Brown essentially issued the same warning that you can’t believe much of anything that comes out of our Attorney General’s mouth:

“California Gov. Jerry Brown fired back at Attorney General Jeff Sessions and President Donald Trump on Wednesday after their lawsuit challenging the state’s immigration laws, calling the administration “full of liars” and repeatedly referencing the special counsel investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 US election.

Jeff Sessions takes immigration fight to California, announces lawsuit

The Democratic governor was speaking on the heels of Sessions’ visit to Sacramento to announce a lawsuit against California for its so-called sanctuary policies of non-cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

In slamming Sessions’ appearance as a “political stunt” that was full of “lies” and untruths, Brown needled Sessions personally and his relationship with the President, which is famously fraught.

“I do think this is pure red meat for the base, and I would assume — this is pure speculation — that Jeff thinks Donald will be happier with him and I bet Donald will be tweeting his joy with this stunt,” Brown said.”

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

You can read both Hohmann’s and Tal’s complete articles at the links.

Sadly, the Trump Administration as a whole, and Jeff Sessions in particular, have made lies, misrepresentations, and knowingly false narratives a staple of their tortured and often illegal immigration policies. I think that, rather than “biased Federal Judges” as disingenuously claimed by Sessions, has led to an impressive string of losses for the Administration and the DOJ in the lower Federal Courts on immigration issues.

I predict that the losing has just begun. If and when Sessions follows through on his apparent plan to destroy the U.S. Immigration Court System, literally thousands of cases are likely to be sent back or permanently blocked by legal rulings in the Circuit Courts.

Although Sessions arrogantly claims that a majority of the Supremes are “in the Administration’s pocket” and therefore can be counted on to overrule the Circuits, fact is that the Supremes can’t and won’t take every big immigration case the Government loses. So, Trump and Sessions better get used to “living with defeat.” It’s going to become a way of life, as our immigration and justice systems deteriorate under this Administration’s toxic leadership.

PWS

03-14-18

Sean McElwee @ The Nation – WHY ICE MUST GO! — A Radical Idea Whose Time Has Come! — “Next to death, being stripped from your home, family, and community is the worst fate that can be inflicted on a human, as many societies practicing banishment have recognized. It’s time to rein in the greatest threat we face: an unaccountable strike force executing a campaign of ethnic cleansing.”

https://www.thenation.com/article/its-time-to-abolish-ice/

McElwee writes:

. . . .

The call to abolish ICE is, above all, a demand for the Democratic Party to begin seriously resisting an unbridled white-supremacist surveillance state that it had a hand in creating. Though the party has moved left on core issues from reproductive rights to single-payer health care, it’s time for progressives to put forward a demand that deportation be taken not as the norm but rather as a disturbing indicator of authoritarianism.

White supremacy can no longer be the center of the immigration debate. Democrats have voted to fully fund ICE with limited fanfare, because in the American immigration discussion, the right-wing position is the center and the left has no voice. There has been disturbing word fatigue around “mass deportation,” and the threat of deportation is so often taken lightly that many have lost the ability to conceptualize what it means. Next to death, being stripped from your home, family, and community is the worst fate that can be inflicted on a human, as many societies practicing banishment have recognized. It’s time to rein in the greatest threat we face: an unaccountable strike force executing a campaign of ethnic cleansing.

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

Read the rest of McElwee’s well-written and very provocative article at the link.

Not going to happen! Yet the out of control misconduct by ICE and its leadership during this Administration certainly helps McElwee make a powerful moral, if not practical political, case for elimination. Definitely worth a read.

PWS

03-13-18

TAL @ CNN TELLS ALL ON HOW SESSIONS IS USING HIS AUTHORITY OVER THE SCREWED UP U.S. IMMIGRATION COURTS TO ATTACK DUE PROCESS & TARGET VULNERABLE ASYLUM SEEKERS — One Of My Quotes: “I think due process is under huge attack in the immigration courts. Every once in a while Sessions says something about due process, but his actions say something quite different.”

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/10/politics/sessions-immigration-appeals-decision/index.html

Sessions tests limits of immigration powers with asylum moves
Tal Kopan
By Tal Kopan, CNN
Updated 8:01 AM ET, Sat March 10, 2018

Washington (CNN)The US immigration courts are set up to give the attorney general substantial power to almost single-handedly direct how immigration law is interpreted in this country — and Jeff Sessions is embracing that authority.

Sessions quietly moved this week to adjust the way asylum cases are decided in the immigration courts, an effort that has the potential to test the limits of the attorney general’s power to dictate whether immigrants are allowed to enter and stay in the US and, immigration advocates fear, could make it much harder for would-be asylees to make their cases to stay here.
Sessions used a lesser-known authority this week to refer to himself two decisions from the Board of Immigration Appeals, the appellate level of the immigration courts. Both deal with asylum claims — the right of immigrants who are at the border or in the US to stay based on fear of persecution back home.

In one case, Sessions reached into the Board of Immigration Appeals archives and overturned a ruling from 2014 — a precedent-setting decision that all asylum cases are entitled to a hearing before their claims can be rejected. In the other, Sessions is asking for briefs on an unpublished opinion as to how much the threat of being the victim of a crime can qualify for asylum. The latter has groups puzzled and concerned, as the underlying case remains confidential, per the Justice Department, and thus the potential implications are harder to discern. Experts suspect the interest has to do with whether fear of gang violence — a major issue in Central America — can support asylum claims.
A Justice official would say only on the latter case that the department is considering the issue due to a “lack of clarity” in the court system on the subject. On the former, spokesman Devin O’Malley said the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 2014 holding “added unnecessary cases to the dockets of immigration judges who are working hard to reduce an already large immigration court backlog.”
Tightening asylum
Sessions referring the cases to himself follows other efforts during his tenure to influence the courts, the Justice Department says, in an effort to make them quicker and more efficient. In addition to expanding the number of Board of Immigration Appeals judges and hiring immigration judges at all levels at a rapid clip, the Justice Department has rolled out guidance and policies to try to move cases more quickly through the system, including possible performance measures that have the judges’ union concerned they could be evaluated on the number of closed cases.

“What is he up to? That would be speculation to say, but definitely there have been moves in the name of efficiency that, if not implemented correctly, could jeopardize due process,” said Rená Cutlip-Mason, until last year a Justice Department immigration courts official and now a leader at the Tahirih Justice Center, a nonprofit that supports immigrant women and girls fleeing violence.
“I think it’s important that the courts balance efficiencies with due process, and any efforts that are made, I think, need to be made with that in mind,” she added.
The Board of Immigration Appeals decisions could allow Sessions to make it much harder to seek asylum in the US.
Asylum is a favorite target of immigration hardliners, who argue that because of the years-long backlog to hear cases, immigrants are coached to make asylum claims for what’s billed as a guaranteed free pass to stay in the country illegally.
Advocates, however, say the vast majority of asylum claims are legitimate and that trying to stack the decks against immigrants fleeing dangerous situations is immoral and contrary to international law. Making the process quicker, they argue, makes it harder for asylum seekers — who are often traumatized, unfamiliar with English and US law, and may not have advanced education — to secure legal representation to help make their cases. The immigration courts allow immigrants to have counsel but no legal assistance is provided by the government, unlike in criminal courts.
Reshaping the immigration courts
Beyond asylum, Sessions’ efforts could have far-reaching implications for the entire immigration system, and illustrate the unique nature of the immigration court system, which gives him near singular authority to interpret immigration laws.
Immigration cases are heard outside of the broader federal court system. The immigration courts operate as the trial- or district-level equivalent and the Board of Immigration Appeals serves as the appellate- or circuit court-level. Both are staffed with judges selected by the attorney general, who do not require any third-party confirmation.
How Trump changed the rules to arrest more non-criminal immigrants
How Trump changed the rules to arrest more non-criminal immigrants
In this system, the attorney general him or herself sits at the Supreme Court’s level, with even more authority than the high court to handpick decisions. The attorney general has the authority to refer any Board of Immigration Appeals decision to his or her office for review, and can single-handedly overturn decisions and set interpretations of immigration law that become precedent followed by the immigration courts.
The power is not absolute — immigrants can appeal their cases to the federal circuit courts, and at times those courts and, eventually, the Supreme Court will overrule immigration courts’ or Justice Department decisions. That’s especially true when cases deal with constitutional rights, said former Obama administration Justice Department immigration official Leon Fresco. Fresco added that the federal courts’ deference to the immigration courts’ interpretation of the law has decreased in the past 10 years, though that could change as more of the President’s chosen judges are added to the bench.
But Sessions could be on track to test the limits of his power, and the moves might set up further intense litigation on the subject.
“From what I can see, Sessions is really testing how far those powers really go,” said Cutlip-Mason. “The fact that the attorney general can have this much power is a very interesting way that the system’s been set up.”
Retired immigration Judge Paul Wickham Schmidt, who served for years in federal immigration agencies and the immigration courts, said that to say the immigration courts are full due process is “sort of a bait and switch.” He says despite the presentation of the courts’ decisions externally, the message to immigration judges internally is that they work for the attorney general.
“I think due process is under huge attack in the immigration courts. Every once in a while Sessions says something about due process, but his actions say something quite different.”

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

The idea that the U.S. Immigration Courts can fairly adjudicate asylum cases and provide Due Process to migrants with Jeff Sessions in charge is a bad joke.

America needs an independent Article I Immigration Court.

Harm to the most vulnerable among us is harm to all of us.

PWS

03-11–17

NOLAN @ THE HILL: IF CA WINS “SANCTUARY CASE” THEY MIGHT REGRET IT — The Wrath & Vengeance Of Trump, Sessions, & DHS Could Be Devastating To Communities & Undocumented Populations!

http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/377605-even-without-trumps-lawsuit-california-may-have-to-abandon-sanctuary

This case is very risky for Trump. He is likely to lose in the Ninth Circuit, and it is difficult to predict how the Supreme Court would handle this federal vs. state rights issue. Immigration experts on both sides say this lawsuit takes the sanctuary-cities debate into uncharted territory.

The only certainty is that a loss would clear the way for the enactment of more sanctuary laws in California and other states.

Ironically, California’s sanctuary policies make it easier for ICE to find undocumented aliens.

Instead of being spread out across the United States, a quarter of the nation’s undocumented aliens are living in California. California’s labor force has 1.75 million undocumented aliens. Nearly 10 percent of its workers are undocumented aliens. And in 2014, more undocumented aliens lived in Los Angeles County, Calif., than in any other county in the United States.

This would make it easy for Trump to carry out a successful, large-scale enforcement campaign in California to arrest undocumented aliens and impose sanctions on the businesses that employ them, which is likely to be his next step if the lawsuit fails.

California could end up having to abandon its sanctuary policies to protect its undocumented population.

Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an executive branch immigration law expert for three years; he subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years.

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

Go on over to The Hill at the link for Nolan’s complete article.

Putting together Nolan’s analysis with that of Professor Peter Markowitz in the preceding article, one can conclude that both sides are likely to come out losers in this contest. We’ll see.

PWS

03-10-18

PETER MARKOWITZ IN THE NYT: CA Can Thank The Late Justice Scalia For Likely Win On Sanctuary Case!

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/09/opinion/trump-california-sanctuary-movement.html

The Justice Department lawsuit emphasizes that immigration is a federal matter, that we must have a uniform scheme to oversee it and that this scheme is being undermined by sanctuary laws. In most states, federal immigration authorities are able to leverage state and local criminal justice systems. The Justice Department is arguing that California’s refusal to participate requires it to adapt and employ different enforcement strategies.
It is fair to ask whether states should have the power to abstain from federal law enforcement programs that they view as immoral or adverse to their local interests. It is not, however, a new question.
In fact, the question was decisively answered by the Supreme Court in 1997 in a case called Printz v. United States. That case involved a challenge to the federal Brady Act, which required local sheriffs to conduct background checks for gun purchasers. Some sheriffs resisted because they objected to the federal regulation of firearms. The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, made clear that the sheriffs, and states generally, have a right to abstain from federal law enforcement schemes with which they disagreed.
It is this principle that distinguishes California’s decision to opt out of deportation efforts from Arizona’s decision to opt in.
The Justice Department is correct that the regulation of immigration is a federal matter. That’s why the Supreme Court made clear in the Arizona case that states may not insert themselves into immigration enforcement by directing its officers to arrest people on immigration charges. California, far from inserting itself, has extracted itself from federal immigration enforcement efforts in precisely the same way that the sheriffs in Printz extracted themselves from the federal effort to regulate the purchase of firearms.
Attorney General Sessions’s attempt to spin his attack on sanctuary laws as a logical extension of the Supreme Court’s Arizona decision is a transparent attempt to sidestep the clear rule established in Printz.
As California’s attorney general, Xavier Becerra, recently explained, “California is in the business of public safety, not in the business of deportations.” By exercising their constitutional right to stay out of the business of deportation, California and other sanctuary jurisdictions have been able to strengthen ties between local law enforcement and immigrant communities. Those ties, in turn, mean that immigrant witnesses and victims of crime are not fearful of coming forward to assist the local police. That is why a recent report by the Center for American Progress demonstrated that, contrary to Mr. Trump and Mr. Sessions’s heated rhetoric, sanctuary laws improve public safety by driving down overall crime rates.
This is precisely the type of legitimate justification for local abstention that the Supreme Court established as a bedrock principle of our federal system of government over two decades ago.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.
Peter L. Markowitz is a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.

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

Interesting point. Strange bedfellows. Read the rest of Professor Markowitz’s article at the link.

PWS

03-10-18

APOCALYPTO NOW! — CAL TO GONZO: “BRING IT ON, BABY!”

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/latimes/defaul t.aspx?pubid=50435180-e58e-48b5-8e0c-236bf740270e

From the LA Times Editorial Board:

Jeff Sessions vs. California
Ironically, the attorney general’s lawsuit could help dispel myths about ‘sanctuary state’ laws.
Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions warned California on Wednesday that “there is no secession” from federal jurisdiction as he appeared before members of the California Peace Officers Assn. in Sacramento to announce a lawsuit against three so-called sanctuary state laws. His claims drew immediate rebukes from state officials, with Gov. Jerry Brown’s initial response after the suit was filed late Tuesday standing as one of the better jabs: “At a time of unprecedented political turmoil, Jeff Sessions has come to California to further divide and polarize America. Jeff, these political stunts may be the norm in Washington, but they don’t work here. SAD!!!” He followed it at a news conference with another shot at Sessions, a former U.S. senator: “A fellow from Alabama talking to us about secession?” Grab the popcorn; this could get interesting.

Oddly, we (sort of) welcome the Trump administration’s legal challenge in hopes that it will clarify not just for state officials but for the federal government where the lines of responsibility and culpability might lie. We suspect the courts will side with California on most if not all of the legal issues Session’s lawsuit raises, and in the process could underscore the reality that California’s menu of state and local laws limiting involvement with federal immigration enforcement do not offer anyone anything remotely like sanctuary.

Just consider the statistics provided in its lawsuit. Last year, 14% of Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrests occurred in California. So far this year, the state accounts for 13% of the national total. So the laws at issue don’t seem to have done much to hinder enforcement here.

The federal challenge hinges on the Constitution’s “supremacy clause,” which says federal laws take precedence over state laws. That’s true, but that doesn’t mean the federal government can dragoon state authorities into enforcing federal statutes. Similarly, states should not craft laws on immigration policy — that’s a federal responsibility — and should not undermine the federal government as it enforces its own immigration codes. But the state laws at issue here do not set immigration policy. As the news website Vox points out, the federal lawsuit isn’t really about restoring ICE’s abilities, “but rather about making it easier for the agency to do its job.” California isn’t stopping federal enforcement (a recent series of raids up and down the state are proof of that); it is saying that it won’t help.

That’s more than just a legitimate position — it’s one that local law enforcement officials insist is better for public safety. There’s research to back them up, too. When local communities view police, who are responsible for enforcing criminal laws and protecting public safety, as immigration enforcers in a different uniform, fewer crimes get reported and fewer witnesses come forward. That undermines community safety and the criminal justice system.

Do some specific elements of the state laws at issue cross the line from non-involvement to impediment? That’s a good question for the courts. One of the laws tells businesses that they can’t voluntarily cooperate with immigration agents, which could be an overstep — what right does a state have to tell a private business when it can and can’t offer information to federal officials? But another law targeted by Sessions helps the state carry out its duty to ensure the safety of public facilities. That measure establishes a state inspection regimen of facilities with which the federal government contracts to house detainees. The vast majority of those, including the Adelanto Detention Facility in San Bernardino County, are owned and operated by private corporations, and the state has a responsibility to make certain such facilities meet state health and safety codes even if the sole customer is the federal government.

What this lawsuit really is about is politics. California political leaders have persistently challenged a wide range of Trump administration policies. Brown is the main figure in a global coalition of sub-national governments seeking to meet global-warming emissions under the Paris Agreement that Trump is walking away from. State Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra has sued the administration over the suspension of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, the travel ban, a Trump rule allowing more employers to stop offering insurance coverage for birth control, and on and on.

For the administration, liberal and ethnically diverse California is the America its political supporters hate, and this lawsuit is another front in our ongoing culture wars. So as state Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León tweeted, “bring it on.” Clarifying these lines of responsibility just might do everyone some good.

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

Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions might wish he hadn’t started this civil war. California doesn’t have much to lose by defending its laws. But, Gonzo could see all or part of his attack on American communities go down in flames!

As this editorial suggests, it’s probably time to have this fought out in court, rather than in the battle of words and insults.

On the other hand, at a time when the country is faced with many other real problems, this kind of unnecessary fight picked by Sessions on behalf of Trump and the White Nationalists seems like a waste of time and resources that could be better spent elsewhere. But, wasting the taxpayers’ money while lining the pockets of the rich is one of the hallmarks of the Trump Administration.

PWS

03-08-18

WNYC’S BETH FERTIG FERRETS OUT FOOLISHNESS BEHIND THE SESSIONS/DHS ATTACK ON ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSING AND PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION – I’m Quoted and Pictured!

https://www.wnyc.org/story/trump-administration-reviewing-thousands-deportation-cases-once-put-pause

Beth reports:

“Last year, a young mother who came to the U.S. illegally from Mexico as a child thought she’d essentially won her fight against deportation.

Twenty-four year old Jenny isn’t eligible for DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. She was in the midst of immigration court proceedings when she told her attorney that she was a victim of domestic violence, which is why WNYC agreed not to use her real name.

In May, Jenny reported her boyfriend to police for allegedly beating and trying to choke her. That action suddenly changed the course of her immigration case.

Jenny was able to apply for what’s called a U visa that would allow her to stay in the U.S. It’s for immigrant victims of crime who cooperate with law enforecement.

The waiting list for a U visa is about three years. But because Jenny met the criteria, and got the Brooklyn District Attorney’s office to sign off on her documents, the immigration judge agreed to put her cause on hold. The legal term for this is administrative closure. The government would no longer seek to deport her while she waited for her special visa.

But a month later, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) asked the same judge to recalender Jenny’s case and put it back on the docket — meaning she’d have to fight against deportation all over again.

The reason? ICE wrote that Jenny’s U visa was “speculative” and “not available within a reasonable period of time.” The agency said three years was too long to wait — even though they’re controlled by another governmental agency, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (both are within the Department of Homeland Security). ICE said she could wait for her U visa while in Mexico.

The agency also noted that Jenny had been convicted of petit larceny when she was 18. Though it’s not considered a crime that could lead to an immigrant’s removal, it brought her to ICE’s attention a few years ago, and her unlawful presence in the U.S. triggered the deportation proceedings.

For Jenny, the about face was extremely upsetting after suffering domestic abuse and moving into a women’s shelter. “I seek help and I’m still kind of being, you know, bullied,” she said.

Her attorney, Kendal Nystedt of the immigrant rights group Make the Road New York, said ICE seemed to mischaracterize immigration law and said its arguments “were also insulting given the humanity of my client.”

The judge apparently agreed. Late last year, in a one page memo, he denied the government’s request and let Jenny remain in the U.S. But data obtained by WNYC shows that Jenny wasn’t the only immigrant who thought they could stay, only to have the government give their case a second look.

In Fiscal Year 2017, ICE asked to recalendar almost 9400 cases that were administratively closed, or put on pause. That’s an increase of almost 74 percent from the year before President Trump took office. In response, it appears immigration judges may be applying more scrutiny to the government’s requests. They granted 85 percent of those motions to put the cases back on their dockets in 2017, compared to 96 percent in 2016.

When asked why the government is revisiting more cases, ICE spokewoman Jennifer Elzea said the agency generally reviews cases that were administratively closed “to see if the basis for prosecutorial discretion is still appropriate.”

But it’s clear this legal strategy also lets the Trump administration try to deport more immigrants. Former immigration judge Andrew Arthur said there’s a good reason. “Under the Obama Administration, administrative closure was treated as a form of amnesty,” he explained.

Arthur is a fellow with the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that supports more restrictive immigration policies. Without commenting on Jenny’s situation he said some cases that were administratively closed involved immigrants who may never qualify for whatever benefit they thought they were likely to receive. But he said the previous administration didn’t act because there were “not deemed a priority for removal.”

In other words, he Obama administration had made criminals the top priority for removal, letting too many others remain.

Retired immigration judge Paul Wickham Schmidt

Beth Fertig/WNYC

Another former immigration judge said that Obama era policy made sense, however. Paul Wickham Schmidt granted administrative closures when he worked in the Arlington, Virginia court.

“An example of a type of case that gets closed quite a bit are cases of individuals who have relatives petitioning for them. And there’s a big backlog of petitions,” Schmidt explained. “So rather than continuing the case time after time, sometimes for years, judges were saying ‘look I’m going to take this case off the docket.'”

He said this management strategy was necessary. The immigration courts have a backlog of 670,000 thousand pending cases. “You’re not even going to complete 670,000 cases probably within my lifetime. You’ve got to decide which cases really belong at the front of the line and which cases you’re not going to prioritize,” he said. “Wasting time in immigration court just doesn’t make sense.”

Despite concerns about further burdening an immigration court system that’s already bursting at the seems, Attorney General Jeff Sessions is considering a much more dramatic step than simply seeking to recalendar the 9400 cases that were reviewed last year. He’s looking into recalendaring all cases that were administratively closed – and there are estimates there could 350,000 of them.”

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

Go to the link to hear the audio from WNYC!

Putting cases like “Jenny’s” back on the already overcrowded dockets is cruel, counterproductive, and wasteful of judicial time. She’s established the qualifications for a U visa, for Pete’s sake. There really isn’t any “uncertainty” — if she stays out of trouble with the law, she’ll get a U visa when her number comes up. No reason on earth for her to “occupy space” on the Immigration Court’s docket.

If she were unwise enough to get into legal trouble before then (seldom happens, in my experience), then that would be the time to 1) revoke her U visa approval, and 2) put her back on the docket. With dockets stretching out for years, why would an Immigration Judge do anything other than keep putting a case like Jenny’s at the end of the docket until her “U number” is reached?

Just because somebody is “removable” doesn’t mean that it makes any sense to put them on already overcrowded Immigration Court dockets. That’s particularly true of an individual who meets the requirements for a legal status (albeit one that because of the arcane structure of the Federal Regulations, an Immigration Judge can’t actually grant).

It’s analogous to the local prosecutor jamming a judge’s docket with jaywalking, littering, and unleashed dog cases so that there isn’t time to hear felony rape and robbery cases! No other law enforcement agency in America that I’m aware of operates without any real prosecution priorities the way Sessions and the DHS are trying to do in this Administration.

And, of course, one large class of “Administratively Closed” cases involves those who had their DACA applications approved by USCIS after Removal Proceedings had been initiated. What would be the point of putting such cases “back on the docket” if DACA were actually terminated?

Even the DHS claims that “Dreamer” cases would not be an “enforcement priority.” (Although, during the Trump Administration such claims by DHS have often proved to be “not credible.”) Therefore, it would literally be years before they could be heard. And many of them have strong cases for other forms of immigration relief such as Cancellation of Removal. I want to believe that the fate of the Dreamers will be resolved long before then.

PWS

03-07-18

NEW SCHOLARSHIP FROM PROFESSOR RUTH ELLEN WASEM, LBJ SCHOOL @ UT TAKES ON PROBLEMS OF 21ST CENTURY IMMIGRATION GOVERNANCE — “Immigration is not a program to be administered; rather, it is a phenomenon to be managed.”

Immigration Governance for the Twenty-First

Ruth Ellen Wasem The University of Texas at Austin

6 Journal on Migration and Human Security 97 (2018)

KEY QUOTE:

Even with fragmented governance and strained resources, the US immigration system has enjoyed successes. Each year, approximately one million foreign nationals legally become permanent residents in the United States. In FY 2015 and FY 2016, the Bureau of Consular Affairs issued over 10 million visas each year to foreign nationals coming to the United States as nonimmigrants (i.e., for a temporary purpose and a temporary period of time) and over half a million visas to LPRs (Bureau of Consular Affairs 2017). CBP admitted almost 77 million foreign nationals as nonimmigrant admissions to the United States in FY 2015 (Office of Immigration Statistics 2016). That year, DOL processed 711,820 employer applications for 1,580,778 positions for temporary and permanent labor certifications Immigration Governance for the Twenty-First Century 117 (Office of Foreign Labor Certification 2016). In FY 2015, there were 730,259 LPRs who became US citizens. That same year, the United States admitted 69,920 refugees, and USCIS approved 26,124 asylees. DHS apprehended 462,388 foreign nationals and deported 444,431 foreign nationals in FY 2015. Another 253,509 foreign nationals were denied entry, and 129,122 foreign nationals returned home without a formal order of removal (Office of Immigration Statistics 2016). In FY 2016, EOIR judges received 328,122 cases and completed 273,390, including those of 8,726 foreign nationals who were granted asylum (EOIR 2017). Considerable credit is due to the people carrying out immigration-related responsibilities across the federal government.

Immigration is not a program to be administered; rather, it is a phenomenon to be managed. While there are limits to how much one government can control migration, the building blocks in Figure 3 offer a reasonable set of priorities. Effective immigration governance, coupled with laws and policies that incorporate the national interests, is key to maintaining a robust sovereign nation.

Get the entire article, which I highly recommend, at this link:

Wasem,ImmigrationGovernance21st Century

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

Words of wisdom, to be sure. If only our policy makers had the same degree of understanding.

Today, we operate on an illusion that a few folks sitting in Washington, D.C. can “pull all the strings” to seal borders, override market forces, ignore international conditions and agreements, change behavior in foreign countries, and dominate forces of human migration that have been at work since before all of us were born and will continue long after we’re all gone. It’s a toxic mix of arrogance and ignorance that will leave immigration and refugee policy in tatters for years to come.

I can only hope that there are those out there in the upcoming generations who will bring to the immigration phenomenon practical scholarship, reason, humanity, fairness, and better ideas on management of our laws for the benefit of our country and humanity as a whole.

PWS

03-07-18

GONZO’S WORLD: WHILE PUTIN DISMANTLES US DEMOCRACY, GONZO ATTACKS CAL. – Gov. Brown Calls DOJ Suit “Political Stunt!”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/doj-sanctuary-cities-suit_us_5a9ec5a4e4b0e9381c12c0e8

Elise Foley reports for HuffPost:

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration will ramp up its fight against so-called “sanctuary” policies by filing a lawsuit on Tuesday against the state of California over its laws meant to protect undocumented immigrants.

The lawsuit, which Attorney General Jeff Sessions will formally announce on Wednesday, is the latest in a string of moves by the White House, Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security to combat local efforts to limit police cooperation with deportation. Thus far, this has largely involved condemnations and threats, including the withholding of federal funds and prosecuting public officials.

Now, the administration is seeking to block three California laws by arguing that they violate the Constitution and federal law.

“The Department of Justice and the Trump administration are going to fight these unjust, unfair and unconstitutional policies that have been imposed on you,” Sessions is expected to tell law enforcement officers during a speech on Wednesday, according to prepared remarks. “We are fighting to make your jobs safer and to help you reduce crime in America. And I believe that we are going to win.”

To make its case, the DOJ is in part pointing to a ruling on a very different state-level immigration law: Arizona’s SB 1070, which was meant to expand local police efforts to find and arrest undocumented immigrants. The Supreme Court sided with the Obama administration by striking down major provisions of that law in 2012.

The Trump administration plans to argue that California is similarly overstepping its authority, senior DOJ officials said Tuesday. The lawsuit will challenge three laws that DOJ officials say hurt the government’s ability to carry out immigration enforcement.

Supporters of the California laws and “sanctuary” policies in general argue that they make communities safer by allowing local police to work better with immigrant communities and focus time and resources on duties other than immigration matters. (“Sanctuary” policies differ widely from place to place and there is no set definition for the term.)

California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) responded to Sessions’ suit Tuesday evening, calling it a “political stunt.”

“At a time of unprecedented political turmoil, Jeff Sessions has come to California to further divide and polarize America,” he said in a statement. “Jeff, these political stunts may be the norm in Washington, but they don’t work here. SAD!!!”

. . . .

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

Read Elise’s full article at the above link.

So far, Gonzo hasn’t had much luck on his anti-Sanctuary Cities campaign. But, sooner or later, if he keeps filing suits, he’ll probably get a Federal Judge who agrees with at least part of his position.

The suit has little if anything to do with effective law enforcement and everything to do with right-wing politics. Strangely, for one who is so disdainful of lawyers and their functions in society, Gonzo’s regime has been essentially a “full employment for lawyers” boon. And, of course, “Chuckie” Cooper is on Gonzo’s personal retainer, trying, so far successfully, to keep him out of jail in the Russia investigation.

PWS

03-07-18

TAL SAYS THE DREAM SEEMS TO HAVE PASSED – “Dreamers” Are Waking Up To The Reality That They Are Back In “Limboland” With No End In Sight!

http://www.cnn.com/2018/03/05/politics/daca-deadline-march-5-passing-immigration-courts/index.html

DACA’s March 5 ‘deadline’ marks only inaction

By Tal Kopan, CNN

It’s been six months since President Donald Trump moved to end a program that protected young undocumented immigrants from deportation, and Washington seems to be no closer to a resolution on the day everything was supposed to be solved by.

March 5 was originally conceived to be a deadline of sorts for action. When Trump ended the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program in September, he created a six-month delay to give Congress time to come up with a legislative version of the policy, which protected young undocumented immigrants who had come to the US as children.

The Department of Homeland Security was going to renew two-year DACA permits that expired before March 5, and Monday was to be the day after which those permits began expiring for good.

But multiple federal judges ruled that the justification the Trump administration was using to terminate the program was shaky at best — and ordered DHS to resume renewing all existing DACA permits. And the Supreme Court declined the administration’s unusual request to leapfrog the appellate courts and consider immediately whether to overrule those decisions.

That court intervention effectively rendered the March 5 deadline meaningless — and, paired with a dramatic failure on the Senate floor to pass a legislative fix, the wind has been mostly taken out of the sails of any potential compromise.

Activists are still marking Monday with demonstrations and advocacy campaigns. Hundreds of DACA supporters were expected to descend on Washington to push for action.

But the calls for a fix stand in contrast with the lack of momentum for any progress in Washington, with little likelihood of that changing in the near future. Congress has a few options lingering on the back burner, but none are showing signs of imminent movement.

March 23 is the next government funding deadline, and some lawmakers have suggested they may try to use the must-pass package of funding bills as a point of leverage.

But sources close to the process say it’s more likely that efforts will be made to keep a bad deal out of the omnibus spending measure than to come up with a compromise to attach to it, as no solution has a clear path to passing either chamber and the House Republican leadership has opposed attaching any immigration matter to a spending deal.

“I have a feeling that anything that goes with the omnibus is going to be a punt, so I’m not excited about that. That’s not my goal,” Rep. Carlos Curbelo, a Florida Republican who has been one of the loudest voices pushing for a DACA fix on the GOP side, told reporters last week.

In the Senate, Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican, and Heidi Heitkamp, a North Dakota Democrat, have introduced a bill that would give three-year extension to the DACA program along with three years of border security funding, though that legislation has yet to pick up any momentum and many lawmakers remain hesitant to give up on a more permanent fix. The Senate is also still feeling the residual effect of the failure of a bipartisan group to get 60 votes for a negotiated compromise bill, which suffered from a relentless opposition campaign from the administration. Trump’s preferred bill failed to get even 40 votes, far fewer than the bipartisan group’s.

On the House side of the Capitol, a more conservative bill than even Trump’s proposal has been taking up the focus. The legislation from Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, a Virginia Republican, and others contains a number of hardline positions and no pathway to citizenship for DACA recipients, and it fails to have enough Republican votes even to pass the House. It is considered dead on arrival in the Senate.

But conservatives in the House, buoyed by the President’s vocal support for the bill, have gotten leadership’s commitment to whip the measure, and leadership has been complying for now. According to lawmakers and sources familiar, House Speaker Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican, talked about the bill in a GOP conference meeting during the House’s short workweek last week, and continued to discuss ways to get enough votes.

Lawmakers estimate that at this point, the measure had somewhere between 150 and 170 votes in its favor, far fewer than the 218 it would need. But the bill’s authors are working with leadership to see whether it can be changed enough to lock up more, even as moderates and Democrats remain skeptical it can get there.

“The vote count is looking better every day,” said Rep. Jim Jordan, a conservative Ohio Republican who has been a vocal advocate for the bill. “I think if leadership puts the full weight of leadership behind it, we can get there. … The most recent report I’ve heard is whip count is getting better.”

Moderate Republicans, however, are holding out hope that the party can move on from that bill and seek something that could survive the Senate and become law.

“Bring up the Goodlatte bill that went through Judiciary. If it does not have 218 votes, then let’s go to the next one that makes sense for DACA,” said Rep. Jeff Denham, a California Republican who has supported a compromise on DACA.

In the meantime, most think DACA recipients will continue in limbo, especially with the courts ensuring that renewals can continue for now.

“It’s good news for people in the DACA program, because they can continue renewing their permits. I have mixed feelings on what it means for us here, because we know this institution sometimes only works as deadlines approach, and now there isn’t a deadline,” Curbelo said.

(Published Sunday)

http://www.cnn.com/2018/03/04/politics/daca-advocacy-push-aclu-trump-immigration/index.html

Advocates target Trump in DACA push ahead of March 5

By: Tal Kopan, CNN

Immigration advocates are unveiling a fresh advocacy campaign on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program aimed directly at President Donald Trump — even as a March 5 deadline has been rendered toothless and Congress is retreating from action.

The American Civil Liberties Union is launching a six-figure campaign Sunday to keep the issue up front, using digital and TV advertising as well as local protests and targeted messaging.

The campaign is designed to get the President’s attention, using a mix of digital geo-targeting and physical presence.

The ACLU’s national political director, Faiz Shakir, described the theory behind the effort as getting the issue in front of Trump and sending the message that he uniquely can reach a solution if he commits to it.

“I think the one important thing that I feel like we all appreciated and learned about Donald Trump is that he is a person who reacts to headlines. He’s a person who reacts to PR, publicity and attention, and if you’re not in his face on headlines and press, then essentially you’re kind of outside of his scope,” Shakir said in an interview. “Whatever we can do to try to make it a front-and-center, in-front-of-his-face issue, that’s what we’re going to try to do.”

As of Sunday, the ACLU campaign will be on TV screens, in DC cabs, local political newspapers and other outlets, and streaming apps.

The civil liberties group also plans to buy ads on “Fox and Friends,” a show the President regularly watches, and Twitter ads designed to help supporters tweet directly at Trump and get into his Twitter feed, another presidential favorite.

The 30-second ad intersperses clips of Trump saying how much he supports DACA and its recipients with direct calls to action, saying in text directed at the President: “You killed DACA. … Fix what you broke before it’s too late.”

The group will also debut a banner with Trump’s face and a countdown clock to March 5 in front of the White House on Sunday, as well as work to have demonstrators in California when Trump travels to San Diego, perhaps later this month, to see his border wall prototypes.

The campaign demonstrates the long odds of achieving action on DACA in Washington, as well as the loss of meaning for the March 5 deadline. When Trump opted to terminate the program, which protects from deportation young undocumented immigrants who came to the US as children, he planned for the permits to begin expiring after March 5, giving Congress six months to act to make the program permanent.

But court decisions have required the administration to resume renewing the two-year DACA permits indefinitely, and after a failed attempt in the Senate to pass bipartisan legislation over objections from Trump, Congress has retreated from the issue with the deadline no longer offering urgency.

Shakir said the ACLU plans to continue the push in the coming weeks and into November’s elections, urging action however it can send the message.

“We’re trying to find a way to be positive and optimistic to keep the enthusiasm going,” Shakir said. “The court injunctions are helpful in that … we have some hopes that we’ll be able to have months of reprieve, but we don’t know how many months.”

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

I think it’s going to take “regime change.” And, “regime change” takes time and great effort. And, the outcome is always far from certain.

PWS

03-05-18

WASHPOST: ANOTHER DAY, ANOTHER ACT OF WANTON CRUELTY BY NIELSEN’S DHS — “Gratuitous malice toward children is not a characteristic one generally associates with the United States, but under Ms. Nielsen’s guidance, the Department of Homeland Security seems intent on changing that.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/gratuitous-cruelty-by-homeland-security-separating-a-7-year-old-from-her-mother/2018/03/04/98fae4f0-1bff-11e8-ae5a-16e60e4605f3_story.html

Gratuitous cruelty by Homeland Security: Separating a 7-year-old from her mother

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen in the White House on March 1. (Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images)
By Editorial Board March 4 at 7:11 PM
WHAT, EXACTLY, did a 7-year-old Congolese girl do to the United States to deserve the trauma that has been visited upon her — including forcible separation from her mother — by Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and her immigration agents?

There is no allegation that the little girl, known in court filings only as S.S., is a terrorist, nor is there any suggestion her mother is one. Neither was involved with smuggling, nor contraband, nor lawbreaking of any other variety. Rather, S.S.’s 39-year-old mother presented herself and her daughter to U.S. officials when they crossed the border from Mexico four months ago, explaining they had fled extreme violence in Congo, and requesting asylum.

A U.S. asylum officer interviewed Ms. L, as the mother is called in a lawsuit filed on her behalf by the American Civil Liberties Union, determined that she had a credible fear of harm if she were returned to Congo and stood a decent chance of ultimately being granted asylum. Despite that preliminary finding, officials decided that the right thing to do was to wrench S.S. from her mother, whereupon the mother “could hear her daughter in the next room frantically screaming that she wanted to remain with her mother,” the lawsuit states.

The Trump administration has said that it is considering separating parents from their children as a means of deterring other families, most of them Central American, from undertaking the perilous trip necessary to reach the United States and seek asylum. Now, without any formal announcement, that cruel practice, ruled out by previous administrations, has become increasingly common, immigrant advocacy groups say. In the nine months preceding February, government agents separated children from their parents 53 times, according to data compiled by the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service.

Make no mistake: Ms. L and S.S. could have been placed together in a family detention center. There has been no explanation of why the determination was made to separate them; nor is there any allegation that Ms. L. is an unfit parent. The only principle at work, if it can be called that, is the idea that future asylum seekers might be deterred if they are convinced that the United States is actually a crueler and more heartless place than their native country.

Gratuitous malice toward children is not a characteristic one generally associates with the United States, but under Ms. Nielsen’s guidance, the Department of Homeland Security seems intent on changing that. A Homeland Security spokesman would not comment on this case but said that the department does not “currently” have a policy regarding separating asylum-seeking parents and children who are detained.

Separating children from their parents while they await adjudication of asylum claims is of a piece with arresting and deporting upstanding, otherwise law-abiding unauthorized immigrants who have lived and worked for decades in the United States and are the parents of U.S.-born children. That practice, too, carried out by Homeland Security deportation agents, has become far more common under the Trump administration.

Since being torn away in early November, S.S., who is being held at a facility in Chicago, has been permitted to speak with her mother, who is in a detention center in San Diego, just half a dozen times by phone. The girl, who turned 7 in December, routinely cries on the phone, according to the ACLU lawsuit. Is this the kind of protection Americans want from their Department of Homeland Security?

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

It’s almost (but not quite) unfair to blame Nielsen for this garbage. After all, she was selected for the DHS position precisely because she is a gutless intellectual lightweight who will just do the foul bidding of Trump, Sessions, Kelly, and Miller no questions asked and no resistance tolerated. That’s what “government by sycophants” is all about.

In the meantime, the New Due Process Army and the rest of us who still believe in our Constitution and humane values have to redouble our resistance to the evil of the Trumpsters and their allies. In the end, it’s a fight for the heart and soul of America as nation!

PWS

03-05-18

THE GUARDIAN: USCIS TURNS ITS BACK ON THE REAL AMERICA – “TRULY A NATION OF IMMIGRANTS!” – “The recent barrage of exclusionary immigration policy proposals are attempts to sow the seeds of fear, anxiety, and distrust. Rather than pursue policies that set immigrants apart, we should seek to integrate immigrants and highlight the assets they bring to communities across our nation.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/02/america-nation-immigrants-uscis-deleted?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Professors Linda R. Tropp and Dina G. Okamoto write in The Guardian:

“For more than a century, the identity of the United States has been grounded in the notion that we are a “nation of immigrants.” Immigrants have made innumerable contributions to our economy, infrastructure, and culture – building our railroads and bridges, bringing innovation and new ideas, and settling in communities that thrive throughout our country today. But now, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), a federal agency charged with immigrant affairs, has turned its back on this rich legacy.

As of last week, the mission statement of the USCIS has changed. No longer does its mission speak to “America’s promise as a nation of immigrants” that promotes “an awareness and understanding of citizenship” along with “ensuring the integrity of our immigration system.” Now, the new version focuses on “adjudicating requests for immigrant benefits” while “protecting Americans” and “securing the homeland”.

Why do changes to the USCIS’s mission statement matter? It may seem like just a few words, but this new language is happening within the context of other alarming changes to our national immigration policies and practices.

Refugee admissions have been curbed to a historic low, and people with “temporary protected status” who fled their homelands due to natural disasters or civil wars are being sent back.

Several crucial programs are at risk of being terminated, including programs that allow 50,000 people from countries underrepresented in current immigration streams to come to the US, pathways for those who arrived in the US as children without legal documents to remain in the US to work and attend school, and the family-based system of immigration – a cornerstone of US immigration policy – which allows US citizens to reunite with family members by sponsoring their migration to the US.

All of these changes have been presented under the guise of protecting against threats to our national security. But these policies stand in stark contrast to the will of the American people. Despite increased attention on anti-immigrant sentiments, Americans across the country largely embrace immigrants of all faiths and cultures and want our government to do the same.

Most Americans believe the numbers of immigrants coming to the United States should be kept at its present level or increased. And 60% percent of Americans oppose building a wall on our border with Mexico. Nearly three-quarters of Americans now supportgranting legal status to immigrants originally brought to the US without papers as children, driven by the same moral imperative that has guided family reunification efforts over the last 50 years.

These levels of endorsement in national polls are bolstered by the actions of US citizens from many walks of life who have taken to the streets in protest, boldly stating that “immigrants are welcome here”.

Indeed, across the country, people and communities have been sending the clear message that immigrants are not only welcomed, but valued. Hundreds of local governments have advocated for their cities and towns to be recognized as “welcoming cities” for immigrants.

Spanning from the industrial rust-belt of the midwest to our nation’s borders, civic leaders have gone to great lengths to welcome immigrants, because they open up new businesses, populate local schools, revitalize housing markets, and infuse new life into local communities. And while the majority of immigrants in the US are here legally, nearly 500 US cities have chosen to become “sanctuary cities” to protect immigrants without legal status from deportation, even at the risk of losing federal funding.

These actions by everyday Americans uphold our nation’s values and reflect the best of who we are as a country, while our federal immigration policies are seeking to close doors and build walls. One of the best ways to honor our values as a nation is not to close opportunities to immigrants, but to successfully integrate them into the fabric of our society. As researchers who have been studying immigration and race relations for 20 years, our research shows that one of the best ways to integrate immigrants into the fabric of society is to interact with and welcome them.

Such encouraging effects of contact between US citizens and immigrants are not limited to big cities or liberal-leaning areas. Recent immigrants have established themselves both in diverse urban areas and new destinations across the United States.

According to recent poll data, more than 75% of US adults report that there are immigrants living in their community, with about a quarter (27%) reporting many recent immigrants in the community where they live. Our surveys of US citizens, including both white and black Americans, show that the more they encounter and interact with immigrants, the more inclined they are to welcome them into their communities.

This significance of welcoming does not simply serve to express our national values or concern about immigrants and their wellbeing. Welcoming immigrants is also important for creating a shared sense of identity and community within our nation. Parallel surveys we have conducted with immigrants show that the more they feel welcome by Americans, the more they come to identify as American themselves and to seek to become US citizens – factors that can fuel greater civic participation and contributions to our society.

The recent barrage of exclusionary immigration policy proposals are attempts to sow the seeds of fear, anxiety, and distrust. Rather than pursue policies that set immigrants apart, we should seek to integrate immigrants and highlight the assets they bring to communities across our nation.

Linda R Tropp is a professor of social psychology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Dina G Okamoto is the director of the Center for Research on Race and Ethnicity in Society at Indiana University. They are both visiting scholars at the Russell Sage Foundation.”

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

Trump and the GOP restrictionists are trying to “whitewash” American history by denying and downplaying the achievements of immigrants, particularly those of color, without which American could never have survived and prospered. Don’t let them get away with their disingenuous and anti-historical efforts. Don’t let this (unjustifiably) disgruntled minority of (largely White, badly misinformed) Americans hijack our country and its future.

PWS

PROFESSOR DANIEL PENA — Supremes Anti-Latino Decision In Jennings v. Rodriguez Threatens The Due Process Rights of All Americans — When The Thugs Come for YOU, Who Will Stand Up For YOUR Rights If YOU Stand By While Others’ Rights Are Trashed?

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/supreme-court-s-latest-immigration-ruling-formalizes-terror-against-latinos-ncna851966

Pena writes:

“The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Jennings v. Rodriguez on Tuesday is a bizarre and dark new development in the American experiment. Not only because it’s a breakdown of the court’s ability to properly interpret the constitution (as they formally institutionalize a de facto second class of citizens), but because it’s a dereliction of the court’s duty as a part of a system of checks and balances designed to protect the constitutional rights of people in this country, regardless of country of origin, from a tyrannical government that would subvert our founding document for political or racist ends.

This ruling only formalizes what many of us in the Latinx community have known for generations: that the perpetuation of systems and laws that instill fear in immigrants (detained or not) is a form of state-sponsored terror. Now the court is complicit and part of that terror. And as pathways to legal status for immigrants come under attack by the current administration, this kind of terror is increasingly designed to incarcerate people for no other reason than for their inability to access pathways toward legal status — which is how this ruling will likely be used by this current administration.

The court ruled in Jennings v. Rodriguez that all immigrants, even those with protected legal status or asylum seekers, do not have a right to periodic bond hearing after detention, which makes it possible for them to be detained indefinitely. The defendant, Alejandro Rodriguez, who was brought to the United States from Mexico as an infant and became a permanent legal resident, was detained for three years for joy riding and possession of a controlled substance; the ACLU was fighting for his right to a hearing.

A U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent. David Maung / Bloomberg Via Getty Images

It comes a day after another Supreme Court decision not to rule on the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which in effect leaves that program safe for at least another year. But while the ruling on DACA might give the impression of an impartial system of courts, the latter development undermines that illusion by giving this discriminatory Trump administration its seal of approval in the name of the law.

All three branches are now in sync with their consensus to terrorize detained immigrants, documented and undocumented alike. And the explicit message of this ruling against Rodriguez is that, no matter your legal status, the constitution does not work for you if you’re an immigrant. You can be extracted from the American fabric for seemingly arbitrary reasons, by virtue of that now-institutionalized second class status.

What we’ve seen is the majority of this court, our last branch of un-bought government, actively buying out of the idea of America as a melting pot, as a nation of immigrants who deserve certain unalienable rights, not unlike life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents serve an employment audit notice at a 7-Eleven convenience store on January 10, 2018, in Los Angeles. Chris Carlson / AP

This should be a wake-up call to anyone who thought (maybe still thinks) that they have nothing to fear because they are documented, or that they have nothing to fear because they’re not Latinx, or that they have nothing to fear because they are another type of immigrant, or they have nothing to fear because they’ve done nothing wrong. The ruling makes it possible to target, criminalize and then indefinitely detain someone for no other offense than being systematically denied a pathway toward legal status in the first place — or even if they did.”

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

Read Pena’s full article at the link.

I’ve pointed out before that it’s still not clear on what side of history this version of the Supremes stand. So far, as a group, they have shown little backbone or desire to stand up to the Trump Administrations’s all-out assaults on the Constitution, the “rule of law,” and human rights. That could be a big mistake, since the Trumpsters, to a man (not many women in the “land of misogyny”) have shown total disrespect and disdain for judges at all levels, particularly Federal Judges.

Latinos must get to the polls in larger numbers and “un-elect” at all levels a GOP that has largely gone over to a White Nationalist, anti-Latino racist agenda. Votes are power! That’s why the GOP cherishes voter suppression and gerrymandering so much.

PWS

03-04-18

ICE ENFORCEMENT: CRUELTY WITHOUT BOUNDS – Wisconsin Rapids Family & Community Ripped Apart By Mindless “Gonzo” Immigration Enforcement — While Worthwhile USG Programs Are Being Cut, Your Tax Dollars Being Squandered To Make America Worse!

https://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/2018/03/02/family-fights-keep-wisconsin-rapids-father-truck-driver-deportation-ice/389513002/

Melissa Siegler reports in the Green Bay Press Gazette:

“WISCONSIN RAPIDS – Katrina Jabbi’s daughters keep asking for their daddy.

Her husband, Buba Jabbi, 41, on Feb. 15 was detained by immigration officials when he voluntarily reported at an annual check-in. He has since then been held in federal detention, and Katrina has been notified by U.S. government officials that on Tuesday he will be deported to The Gambia — a West African country he hasn’t called home for more than 20 years.

“I don’t want my kids to feel like their father abandoned them,” she said. “They’re asking and crying for daddy every single day.”

Katrina Jabbi is a Wisconsin Rapids native. She met Buba on a Greyhound bus in 2009, she said, and fell in love with him for his kind, loving spirit. They got married in 2013 and have two daughters, Nalia, 5, and Aisha, 1. Katrina said she works part-time from home; her husband had been working as a truck driver.

The couple moved back to Wisconsin Rapids in 2016 to be closer to Katrina’s family. They are expecting their third child in October.

Buba Jabbi appears to be part of efforts by the Trump administration to increase strict enforcement of immigration laws. He has not been charged with a crime in Wisconsin and his detention was not the result of an arrest.

According to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement data, the U.S. is stopping fewer people crossing the border illegally but deporting more who already were in the country without legal documentation. According to the data, ICE removed more that 81,000 illegal immigrants in 2017. Of those, 61,000 occurred after Jan. 20 of last year, which was an increase of 37 percent over the same time period in 2016.

The New Sanctuary Movement of Milwaukee, organized by immigration advocacy group Voces de la Frontera, has also seen an increase in the number of people being detained, according to the movement’s coordinator, Shana Harvey.

RELATED: Wisconsin Rapids father of two to be deported to West Africa

RELATED: UWSP students uncertain about a future without DACA protection

Buba Jabbi came to the United States in 1995 on a temporary travel visa to attend the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta, Georgia, according to Katrina. She said she wasn’t sure about the amount of time his visa allowed him to remain in the country, but that he overstayed the visa. When he tried to change his status, the paperwork he filed was incorrect and he was moved into removal proceedings, where he remained for several years, she said.

“He kind of got stuck in a system,” Katrina Jabbi said. “It was hard for him to move out of that.”

However, Buba Jabbi was considered “undeportable” because his country would not provide travel documents on his behalf, she said. Instead, he was given orders of supervision, requiring him to report to immigration once a year and obtain work authorization, which, according to Katrina Jabbi, he has done for the last 10 years.

Buba was at his annual appointment Feb. 15 in Milwaukee with immigration officials when he was detained and told he would be deported, according to Katrina.

Katrina and Buba Jabbi with their daughters, Nalia, 5, and Aisha, 1. (Photo: Courtesy of Katrina Jabbi)

His attorney filed a stay of removal on Buba’s behalf. According to ICE Public Affairs Officer Nicole Alberico, a stay of removal can be granted for up to one year and is meant to give the deportee time to get their affairs in order.

Alberico declined to speak about the details of Buba Jabbi’s case.

Katrina said she will continue to fight for her husband by filing a 601 Waiver, which argues that the Jabbi family would endure extreme hardship as a result of Buba’s deportation.

Katrina, who first shared her family’s story on a GoFundMe page, said she finds comfort in knowing that Buba will be with his family in The Gambia, including his parents, whom he hasn’t seen since coming to the U.S.

“I really appreciate everyone’s support and kindness,” she said. “It’s humbling to know so many people are supportive of our situation. It is a very complex situation. I appreciate the people that open their minds and try to understand.”

But, the affected U.s. citizens do have the “ultimate remedy.” They can vote Trump and his enablers out of office and demand sane, humane, sensible immigration laws and enforcement that benefits, not hurts, America and our future. “Green Card ” holders can eventually become citizens and vote. If everyone in America who has been affected by the evils of Trumpism goes to the polls, the next two years could be better, and Trump can be removed after four years.

U.S. citizen children who now are helpless victims of Trump’s ICE will eventually grow up and become voters. They should remember who took their mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters away from them!

PWS

03-04-18

The School to Deportation Pipeline

Abstract

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Harm to the most vulnerable among us is harm to all of us.

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: