"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals PAUL WICKHAM SCHMIDT and DR. ALICIA TRICHE, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
MacKenzie Scott Philanthropist & Author Official USG Photo from 2016 Naturalization Ceremony Public Realm
Bess Levin Politics & Finance Writer Vanity Fair
Bess Levin in the Levin Report:
On Tuesday, for the third time in less than a year, Mackenzie Scott, the ex-wife of Jeff Bezos, announced that she had given more than a billion dollars to charity. This time, it was $2.74 billion to 286 different organizations, including ones focused racial justice. That brings her charitable giving since divorcing Bezos in 2019 to more than $8 billion, with much of it coming in the last 12 months, including $4.2 billion in grants announced last December. In a Medium post published this morning, Scott wrote that she and her new husband, Dan Jewett, as well as “a constellation of researchers and administrators and advisors,” are “attempting to give away a fortune that was enabled by systems in need of change,” and that they are “governed by a humbling belief that it would be better if disproportionate wealth were not concentrated in a small number of hands.” She didn’t add, “like those of my cheapskate ex-husband, Jeff,” though it’s hard to believe she wasn’t thinking it!
Even if Scott was not, few people will be able to look at the huge amounts of money she has been giving away and not think about the fact that Bezos, the literal richest man in the world, has distributed what philanthropic experts define as “diddly-squat” as a proportion of his wealth, preferring instead to focus on launching himself into space. In 2018, amidst substantiatedreports that Amazon employees relieve themselves in bottles or forego bathroom breaks for fear “of being disciplined for idling and losing their jobs as a result,” and data revealing that nearly one third of Amazon’s Arizona employees were relying on food stamps, Bezos said in an interview that he couldn’t for the life of him think of a way to spend his vast fortune outside of funding his for-profit rocket-ship company, Blue Origin. (“The only way that I can see to deploy this much financial resource is by converting my Amazon winnings into space travel,” he told Axel Springer CEO Mathias Döpfner. “That is basically it.… I am currently liquidating about $1 billion a year of Amazon stock to fund Blue Origin. And I plan to continue to do that for a long time. Because you’re right, you’re not going to spend it on a second dinner out.”) A month after that, Amazon was instrumental in killing a proposed $275-per-employee tax for large Seattle–based businesses that would have helped alleviate the city’s serious homeless problem caused by companies like Amazon.
Over the years, Bezos has said things about charitable giving like, “Our core business activities are probably the most important thing we do to contribute, as well as our employment in the area,” and, “I’m convinced that in many cases, for-profit models improve the world more than philanthropy models, if they can be made to work.” In 2010 he donated $100,000 to help vanquish an initiative to impose a state income tax on Washington’s wealthiest residents, per The Seattle Times. “There’s almost nothing I could have predicted with more precision than that Jeff would hate the idea,” early Amazon investor Nick Hanauer, a backer of the initiative, told the outlet.
Speaking of taxes, Amazon, of course, pays very little of them, having avoided federal income taxes in numerous years. Meanwhile, Bezos himself was recently featured in ProPublica for paying nothing in federal income taxes in 2007 and 2011, and paying a “true tax rate” of 0.98% between 2014 and 2018. He also applied for and received a $4,000 tax credit for his children in 2011, when he was worth roughly $18 billion, ProPublica reported.
Only being human, Bezos apparently doesn’t like it when people start wondering why he doesn’t give away more of his $195.2 billion fortune. After The New York Times insinuated a few years ago that he was a cheap prick, Bezos announced that he would donate $2 billion to philanthropic ventures, which at the time represented a tiny fraction of his net worth (now, it’s much less). Last year, he pledge significantly more through the Bezos Earth Fund, though as Recode noted in February:
…the fact is that we don’t even know where that $10 billion sits. Is the money actually placed in a charitable vehicle like a foundation, a donor-advised fund, or a limited liability company? Or is it more of a rhetorical pledge, similar to Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan’s commitment in 2015 to set aside 99 percent of their money to philanthropy.… We don’t know. Bezos’s representatives have consistently declined to share information on the Earth Fund’s structure.
Next month, Bezos will (temporarily) leave earth, after adding $65 billion to his net worth during the pandemic.
******************
Read the rest of the always entertaining Levin Report at this link:
Result of Tulsa Race Atrocity, June 1, 1921 “All that was left of his home after the Tulsa race riot” Unknown photographer Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons
As we recognize the 100th anniversary of the “Tulsa Atrocity” and our failure to properly acknowledge it, teach it, condemn the failures of our legal system, and/or hold the perpetrators accountable, this is a course that every American should view!
Dehumanization of “the other,” grotesque minimization and distortion of their achievements and key contributions to our nation’s prosperity and survival, and legal systems that knowingly and intentionally denied legal, constitutional, and human rights to our fellow Americans are a long and dishonorable part of our history, often denied or intentionally whitewashed by those who fear truth. The long struggle against “America’s original sin” involved fierce resistance by African American slaves as well as concerted cooperative efforts between free African Americans and White opponents of slavery. But, there were also tensions, squabbles, false starts, petty “turf wars,” and fundamental disagreements among slavery’sopponents. Shockingly, but not surprisingly, many slaves found that suicide was their only effective form of protest against, and escape from, this vilest of all American institutions.
The struggle against slavery’s toxic legacy and its existence in various forms in modern America continues. And, there is a direct connection with America’s continuing mistreatment of immigrants, particularly people of color and asylum seekers, and the failure of our legal system, even today, to protect them rather than abuse and dehumanize them.
The ongoing struggle is reflected in the Biden Administration’s apparent naive belief that they can effectively address racial injustice in America while continuing to treat asylum seeking migrants, many women, children, and people of color, as “non-persons” or “less than human” under our Constitution and laws. Ending “Dred Scottification of the other” — in all its forms — is key to America’s getting beyond the mistakes, tragedies, and injustices of our past and creating a better future for all persons in America!
FULL DISCLOSURE: Our son William P. Schmidt works for The Great Courses.
Joan Hodges Wu Founder & Executive Director AsylumWorks
AMother’s Day “Gift of Goodness” that Supports Asylum-Seeking Moms
For an entire year, COVID-19 has disrupted work and home life and moms have been stretched so thin – acting as caregivers, teachers, and earners, often all at the same time.
Asylum-seeking moms have been particularly impacted. After overcoming tremendous obstacles to be reunited with their children or to bring their families to safety, these women are now forced to navigate the COVID-19 pandemic without the support network of extended family or friends. With the rise of xenophobia and the slumping of the U.S. economy, many asylum-seeking mothers and families have been forced into isolation and destitution – ineligible to receive government assistance while they wait for the backlog of asylum claims to be processed.
As many of us know, when asylum seekers are unable to meet their basic needs, they often struggle to retain or work with legal representation. It can be hard to focus on writing a personal statement or gathering evidence when you don’t know where your next paycheck will come from or how you will put food on the table for your children.
That is where nonprofit organizations, like AsylumWorks, come in. Founded in 2016 by a frustrated social worker who saw underlying gaps in assistance for asylum seekers,AsylumWorks provides asylum seekers and their families with holistic services and support to complement the work of legal representation. In 2020 alone, AsylumWorks served over 370 asylum seekers – providing trauma-informed social services, employment assistance, and community building to help asylum seekers rebuild their lives with dignity and purpose. Because they work to connect asylum seekers to a network of support, their clients are dramatically more likely to win their asylum cases.
This year, AsylumWorks wants to celebrate and support mothers and caregivers in the asylum-seeking community who have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19. That’s why they’ve recently launched a Mother’s Day Campaign in collaboration with Immigrant Food (a cause-casual restaurant in DC). Their “gifts of goodness” can be purchased and sent to a mother in your life or donated to one of the hundreds of asylum-seeking moms they work with.
Funds raised will go directly to supporting holistic, trauma-informed programs for asylum-seekers like Berhanu, a 38-year-old Ethiopian mother and political activist. After being beaten within inches of her life, a pregnant Berhanu fled her country to seek asylum in the United States. Upon arrival, she found herself alone with a newborn son, struggling to navigate a new country, a global pandemic, and a complicated legal system. Working together, AsylumWorks brought Berhanu into their employment program to re-enter the workforce, connected her with a doctor to treat her son’s medical condition, and referred her to a private immigration firm that agreed to give her a generous client discount. Berhanu and her son are now stable and live in Virginia. Despite COVID-19, they continue to attend AsylumWorks’s virtual community-building events to meet new friends as they await their pending cases.
Berahu is one of the hundreds of thousands of asylum-seeking mothers who deserve to feel seen and appreciated this Mother’s Day. If you are moved by the work of AsylumWorks, consider purchasing one of these unique gifts of goodness. Pre-orders are available throughout the month of April. For more information, or to purchase a gift of goodness, please visit https: //www.mothersday.asylumworks.org/
*******************
Great organization; great cause!
And, speaking of “women who move us forward and inspire us,”Joan Hodges Wu and her friend and colleague Professor Lindsay Muir Harris of UDC are certainly two of the most notable in that category! Thanks for all you do, my friends!
Leon Krauze in the WashPost tells us what’s really happening at the border. WARNING: It has little to do with the myths and false narratives being peddled by the GOP, the Administration, and the media.
The current emergency at the border has found the U. S. media at its most solipsistic. Coverage seems more focused on whether the emergency should be called “a crisis” (it should) and what the political fallout for the Biden administration will be. With few exceptions — like the remarkable work of MSNBC’s Jacob Soboroff or Politico’s Sabrina Rodriguez — many news outlets seem utterly uninterested in the stories of the migrants themselves.
This is wrong because it fails to provide one crucial piece of the puzzle: the very concrete context of human suffering.
. . . .
This by no means excuses the stories of anguish and confinement that have emerged over the last few weeks from within the facilities set up by the Biden administration to deal with the number of young migrants crossing the border, nor does it absolve the president himself from delivering on his promise of a humane immigration system, diametrically opposed to Trump’s cruel policies, designed in collaboration with unapologetic racist xenophobes like Stephen Miller.
The Biden administration can and should do better. But the current debate cannot ignore the very concrete despair facing thousands of immigrant families who, under the direct threat of violence or abuse, chose to push their young children to the United States, in search of safety.
If the alternative was famine, gang violence, kidnapping, rape or sexual slavery, wouldn’t you bet it all on the journey north? If more people understood this, the political debate and the coverage surrounding the crisis would be much more empathetic and we would get closer at delivering concrete, humane solutions.
Now, let’s hear more “simple truth” from Suzanne Gamboa over at NBC News:
Suzanne Gamboa, Political Editor, NBCLatino, NBC NewsDate: October 21, 2013 Place: Washington, DC Credit: Maria Patricia Leiva/OAS Creative Commons License
America’s immigration impasse — an endless loop across different administrations — is largely self-inflicted, because Congress has repeatedly failed to acknowledge one simple thing: Immigration happens.
Accordingly, immigration laws must be continually adjusted, reformed and revised, experts say.
“People will always want to come to the U.S., and the U.S. will always need people,” said former Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, who was a top immigration adviser to President George W. Bush.
Until there is a system that allows enough legal immigration to meet the economy’s needs, there will be illegal immigration, Gutierrez said.
“That’s just part of how our economy is set up. It’s part of demographics,” Gutierrez said. “Our birthrate is not high enough to be able to fill the needs of our economy.”
The coronavirus pandemic reinforced the importance of immigrant labor to the American economy, including labor by the undocumented.
All of those people and many other immigrants, including young immigrants — often called “Dreamers” based on never-passed proposals in Congress called the DREAM Act — will play a key role in helping the economy recover from its pandemic bust.
But immigration requires periodic calibration, and the economics and the changing patterns are lost in the politics.
“People are going to move — as they are all around the world — where they think they can find places to better feed their children. That’s the bottom line, and that’s the history of migration to the United States,” said Luis Fraga, director of the Institute for Latino Studies at the University of Notre Dame.
. . . .
*******************
Everyone should read the rest of the stories at the above link.
Degrading Ourselves As A Nation Won’t Stop Human Migration
By Judge (Ret) Paul Wickham Schmidt
“Courtside” Exclusive
March 26, 2021
Notwithstanding the endlessly disingenuous and self-centered alarmist rhetoric coming from all directions on the border mess, often mindlessly regurgitated by the press (not just Fox News), the real “crisis” involves the human lives at stake and the unnecessary human misery we are causing by failing to establish, professionally staff, and fairly and competently operate the legal refugee and particularly asylum systems required by law. This “due process crisis” actually has devastating and debilitating practical effects, starting with the dysfunctional immigration, refugee, and asylum system and the beyond dysfunctional Immigration Courts.
Heck, we don’t even pretend to comply with Constitutionally-required due process of law for asylum seekers who present themselves to us seeking life-saving refuge. Most of those who show up at legally-established border ports are told that the border is “closed” and that there is no way for them to apply. OK, so they attempt to cross between ports and immediately present themselves to the Border Patrol. But, they also are told there is no way to apply and are orbited back to some of the most dangerous countries in the world without any process whatsoever, let alone due process of law. Who are we kidding with all our dishonest pontificating about “the rule of law?”
It’s a strange way to implement the statutory command that any foreign national “irrespective of . . . status, may apply for asylum,” along with a constitutional guarantee that “No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” Gee, you don’t even need one of those fancy Ivy League law degrees to understand that language. You just have to be able to read, comprehend, and act.
What you do have to do to get where we are today is to view asylum seekers and other migrants (predominantly people of color) as less than human — “non-persons” in a constitutional sense. It’s what some of us call “Dred Scottification of the other” and it has accelerated over the past four years — not just in immigration.
The whole idea of a “court system” being run by the Executive who also is the chief of enforcement is beyond constitutionally preposterous. It’s a “negative tribute” to the Supremes and other Article III life-tenured judges who have grown so distant from their own humanity and immigration stories as to become willfully blind to the ongoing farce that constitutes “justice” and “due process of law” for asylum seekers and other immigrants in the U.S.
Today’s nearly non-existent “asylum system” is a deadly and illegal “catch 22,” with the Supremes sitting in their marble palace refusing to do the primary task that justifies their continued existence: enforce the Constitution against Government misbehavior and in favor of the “little guys” and the “vulnerable.” No thanks, not up to the job!
The real tragedy is that there are plenty of folks out here with the knowledge, integrity, courage, and ability to establish a legal system that would actually comply with out laws, our Constitution, and further offer the hope of constructively addressing some problems before refugees arrive at our borders. But, they remain “benched,” even by the Biden Team. So the “good guys”are going to keep attacking the corrupt and broken system in court and at the polls for as long as it takes to get some course correction — years, decades, centuries — ask most African Americans how long it takes to achieve the true justice that America promises to all, but historically has only delivered to some.
In the long run, a fair system would undoubtedly accept many more legal refugees and asylum seekers. That’s what happens in refugee situations — it’s the core of what we call “forced migration” — when you sign on to international conventions intended to prevent the “next holocaust,” and you fairly and humanely apply the rules meant to protect refugees and those who face torture. And, as they have in the past, the overwhelming number of refugees and asylees, like the overwhelming majority of immigrants (essentially all of us, except Native Americans) will adapt, fit in, and contribute to the health, wealth, and future of our nation. They will change, but so will we — ultimately for the better!
Sure, America wouldn’t be as white, “Christian” (to the extent that adherence to a nominal Christian denomination, rather than actually performing Christ’s extremely difficult, self-sacrificing, risky, compassionate mission, defines Christianity), and nominally heterosexual as it was when White Nationalist myths and whitewashed history ruled the roost. But, it would be a better nation — one that actually has a chance of prospering, realizing the full potential of all its residents, and leading the world in the 21st century. A nation that could devote more human, natural, and monetary resources to building and exporting greatness, rather than to an endless stream of cruel, inhuman, stupid, and wasteful enforcement and deterrence gimmicks.
Bottom line, folks are going to come to America, as they have throughout history. Some will stay, some won’t. But, come they will, unless and until those like Trump and the GOP create such a mess that our own people start fleeing to foreign shores. Immigration, regardless of status, is a sign of strength. Xenophobia a sign of fatal weakness.
Our real choice isn’t whether we want to “close” borders, bar refugees, and abuse children as the Cottons, Cruzes, Millers, and Hawleys advocate. It’s whether we create a robust, orderly, rational legal system to screen, regulate, and distribute the inevitable flow or whether, as we have for the past decades, we force millions to reside and work underground — part of an “extralegal” or “black market” system that pols of both parties and those who profit from that underground system have created.
Sprawling mismanaged enforcement bureaucracies, dysfunctional “courts,” armies of publicly-paid lawyers defending the indefensible, for-profit civil prisons, big agriculture, hospitality giants, loads of upwardly mobile professionals who need child care to pursue careers, communities that live off of marketing ethnic culture, meat packing conglomerates, architects and construction firms who are “building America,” even news media fixated on hyping the problem rather than fixing it (see, e.g., yesterday’s Biden press conference), the list of those who profit from a talented, hard working, reliable, loyal, yet politically and socially disenfranchised, workforce is endless.
Even the GOP’s “Cotton-Cruz crowd” benefits from having an imaginary enemy to rant and rail and gin up hate against — safe in the knowledge that the tanking of our economy, upheaval of society, and possible threat to their privilege that would result from realizing their disingenuous call to boot the entire undocumented population will never happen. Their kids and grandkids can continue to reap the privilege that comes from exploiting an essential, yet politically neutered, workforce. It’s really more about institutionalizing racism to maintain economic and political power over the eventual non-white majority that drives their bogus and ugly narratives.
We can degrade ourselves as a nation, but it won’t stop human migration!
🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽⚖️Due Process Forever! It’s a vision based on a written promise, not a “pipe dream!”
Thanks to our leading “Warrior Queen” Ilyce and her team of knightesses and knights who took the lead on this phase of the never ending battle for “truth, justice, and the American way.”
I trust that it will take more than another pathetic “Alternative Fact Sheet” 🤥 to save the sorry bunch @ “EOIR’s Clown Tower”🤡🦹🏿♂️ in Falls Church from accountability for their sycophancy, false narratives, and constant assaults on due process, the rule of law, truth, and human decency. 👎🏻🏴☠️☠️⚰️🤮 https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1161001/download
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”“Justice” Star Chamber StyleBIA Asylum Panel In Action Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Indicative and very telling that as justice further deteriorates, backlogs mushroom, productivity drops, public outrage grows, chaos reigns, (already rock bottom) morale plummets, and vulnerable humans suffer, the “malicious incompetents” 🤡🦹🏿♂️ at EOIR spend time and public resources on this nonsense!
There will be neither racial justice nor social justice in America without “radical due process reform” that ends forever the disgraceful “Dred Scottification” of “the other” (particularly migrants of color, women, families, and, most disgustingly, children) by the EOIR Clown Courts!🤡🦹🏿♂️☠️ To paraphrase Rev. King, “Injustice to one is injustice to all.”
Due Process Forever!⚖️🗽🇺🇸👍🏼 EOIR’s Assault On Asylum Seekers, Never!👎🏻🏴☠️
This is the first time in the pollster’s decades of tracking the country’s thoughts on immigration that more people would favor more immigration compared to those who want to see less.
Of those surveyed, 34 percent said that they want to see the U.S.’s level of immigration increase, while 28 percent said they want to see it decreased. Thirty-six percent said that the country’s immigration rate should remain the same.
Conducted May 28-June 4, the survey was completed before the Trump administration stopped the issuing of any new H-1B and other visas through the end of the year. It also came before the Supreme Court ruled that the administration’s rollback of the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Act was illegal.
. . . .
************
Read Marty’s full article at the link.
Interestingly, I’ve been saying on Courtside that Dems should make robust, sensible, humane, practical, immigration, refugee, and human rights policies that recognize the reality of human migration, pay attention to market forces, boost the economy, and promote Constitutional due process, equal justice, and human dignity for all in America a centerpiece of the Biden campaign.
Social justice isn’t just “aspirational” — it’s a Constitutional and a human right!
We need leaders who not only “talk the talk, but walk the walk.”
This November, vote like your life depends on it. Because it does!
Young immigrants across the country were elated after the Supreme Court’s favorable ruling Thursday for DACA, the program that temporarily shields about 650,000 undocumented people from deportation. But Maria Garcia is not cheering—at least not yet.
Garcia, who is 17 and just finished high school in Tempe, Arizona, has everything needed to be eligible for DACA. She was 4 years old when her Mexican parents sent her across the border with a smuggler—“some random lady,” as she remembers it. She has never been in legal trouble and graduated with a 4.0 grade point average. She is two years older than the program’s lower age limit of 15.
Yet Garcia has not been able to apply for DACA. After President Trump’s decision to cancel the program in 2017, and the court fights that followed, immigrants who already had two-year permits under DACA have been allowed to renew them. But no new applications were accepted.
She is in a cohort of foreign-born teenagers, part of a group sometimes called Dreamers, who turned 15 after the program was terminated on Sept. 5, 2017. They are coming of age without legal papers, facing fears, frustrations and roadblocks that immigrants just a few years older have avoided with DACA. There are about 66,000 of them, according to an estimate by the Migration Policy Institute, a non-partisan research center, and they could be eligible to apply for DACA after the Supreme Court decision.
But it is not clear that Trump will let them in.
Lawyers are debating the impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling. In a 5-to-4 decision, the court found that the Trump administration acted unlawfully in ending the program, failing to follow procedural rules or to take into account the hardships for immigrants who had built their lives around it. The court sent the matter back to the Department of Homeland Security “so that it may consider the problem anew,” and sent three cases back to lower courts for further action.
Trump, who once called DACA holders “incredible kids,” immediately threatened to cancel the program again.
As President of the United States, I am asking for a legal solution on DACA, not a political one, consistent with the rule of law. The Supreme Court is not willing to give us one, so now we have to start this process all over again.
Chad Wolf, the acting secretary of Homeland Security, said the ruling “usurps the clear authority of the executive branch to end unlawful programs.” But administration officials issued no guidance on how they planned to proceed.
Some legal scholars argued that the administration is required to restore the program with no delay and begin taking new applications. “The effect of the ruling is we go back to life as it was before September 2017,” said Marisol Orihuela, a professor at Yale Law School.
Others predicted the administration would not accept new applications unless, after further court battles, a judge orders them to re-open the program completely. If Trump moves to end DACA again, bureaucratic procedures and court fights would likely leave the current configuration in place past the election in November.
The legal fog was bewildering to young people who could be receiving DACA’s protections but are still left out.
“What happened is one step,” Garcia said guardedly of the Supreme Court’s ruling, by phone from her home in Phoenix, “but we still have a way to go.”
Reyna Montoya, who lives in Gilbert, Arizona, knows her own DACA permit is preserved for now, but she worries about undocumented students. MATT YORK/ASSOCIATED PRESS
The Obama administration created DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, in 2012, and the program doesn’t grant a formal immigration status. For undocumented immigrants who came here as children, it offers temporary protection from deportation and a two-year, renewable work permit with a Social Security number. But the program removed obstacles many young people faced because of their lack of legal status, opening door after door.
“Within a year, they were already taking giant steps,” said Roberto Gonzales, a professor at Harvard Graduate School of Education who has studied the program since it started. “They found new jobs. They increased their earnings. They acquired driver’s licenses. They began to build credit through opening bank accounts and obtaining credit cards.”
For Garcia, however, Trump’s cancellation of DACA just when she was old enough to apply was a painful blow.
Aside from her schoolwork, she started running track for her Tempe high school. By senior year she was the school’s top runner, she said. But as she applied to colleges and scholarships, she received only impersonal form letters of rejection because she didn’t have a Social Security number.
“I basically didn’t know where I was going in my life,” she said. “I wanted to give up.”
At the last minute she discovered a scholarship program called TheDream.US, which provides financial aid for college even if students are undocumented. She was approved and plans to attend Arizona State University in the fall, hoping to study aerospace engineering.
As protesters are marching against police brutality and demanding reforms, Garcia said she is even more aware of her fears of government authorities anytime she goes out into the street. To get to school she sometimes has to drive, and with no license because of her immigration status, her anxiety spikes when she sees a police car.
Garcia said she doesn’t fear “being shot and actually dying” in a police encounter. “But we do have that fear of being deported.”
Reyna Montoya, a DACA holder who is 29, created Aliento, an organization in Phoenix that provides support for immigrant youth. More than 500 teenagers who have been shut out of DACA have come to the group for legal and financial help, and solace.
“I feel I can finally catch my breath,” Montoya said on Thursday, knowing her own DACA permit is preserved for now. But she remains surrounded by students “like my past undocumented high school self, who was so sad and depressed about my future.”
One is Milagros Heredia, 18, whose mother carried her across the border to Arizona when she was nine months old. Her mother, Rosa Alcantar, is 36 and has a DACA permit.
Milagros Heredia and her mother, Rosa Alcantar, in 2019. COURTESY OF MILAGROS HEREDIA
Heredia’s childhood was spent in hospitals and chemotherapy after doctors found a large tumor in her brain. Her worry then was the mortification of losing her hair. “Appearances were everything in third grade,” she said.
Doctors determined the tumor was growing but benign. In high school Heredia became an honors student and a leader of a Latinx student organization. Having won a scholarship from TheDream.US, she plans to enroll at Grand Canyon University in August.
She was relieved Thursday to learn that her mother’s DACA permit remains in place. But Heredia still can’t work or drive legally. She has to be careful looking for part-time jobs to help her family.
“You’re never sure who’s with you and who’s against you,” she said.
She’s been watching the police protests in Phoenix. “In the back of my head I always know the police could stop me,” she said, and because of her undocumented status, “I potentially could lose everything.”
Julia Preston covered immigration for The New York Times for 10 years, until 2016. She was a member of The Times staff that won the 1998 Pulitzer Prize for reporting on international affairs, for its series that profiled the corrosive effects of drug corruption in Mexico. She is a 1997 recipient of the Maria Moors Cabot Prize for distinguished coverage of Latin America and a 1994 winner of the Robert F. Kennedy Award for Humanitarian Journalism.
**************************
Always an honor to feature Julia, a “First Ballot Hall of Famer” among journalists, on Courtside. Few in America have done more to show the human side and human effects of immigration law and their inextricable ties to the continuing battle for social justice for all.
One of many great things about retirement is having a chance to get to know the “real persons behind the mastheads and bylines” among immigration and justice reporters. They are right up there with pro bono immigration lawyers and human rights activists among those who embody the very best and most courageous our nation has to offer.
Notwithstanding the Chief Justice’s fantastic claim, incredibly joined by seven of his intellectual-honesty-and-basic-Con-Law-challenged colleagues, that there was no showing of racial animus in the DACA repeal, that is, of course, untrue, as almost any honest observer recognizes.
Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor had the courage, integrity, and decency to acknowledge the overt bigotry and racism that motivates every Trump immigration policy. It’s almost like the other eight Justices don’t know who Stephen Miller is and what he stands for. Or, they never heard Trump spew out his racist dog whistles at his rallies or on Twitter. Or, they have never compared the faces of those behind Trump at his rallies with pictures of White hate at the Museum of African American History or the pictures from Hitler rallies at the Holocaust Museum. Or, they weren’t able to comprehend Dana Milbank’s recent exposition of Trump’s racism in Trump’s own words. But, of course, they do know all these things. Full well! There’s ignorance. Then there is willful ignorance by those who know better!
Every aspect of the Trump regime’s vicious attack on the legal rights and humanity of migrants has been motivated by an ugly combination of racism, bigotry, White Nationalism, and wanton cruelty. You need to look no further than Trump’s contemptuous, belligerent, and ignorant reaction to the ruling to see that nothing except racism and using Dreamers as “hostages” for race-driven immigration “reforms” was ever behind the attack on DACA.
For Justices, who are law school grads and members of the bar, to take seriously the regime’s patently bogus claim of prosecutorial illegality (actually rationality) on the part of the Obama Administration from an Administration that has actively chosen not to enforce a myriad of duly enacted environmental, civil rights, voting rights, healthcare, ethics, consumer safety as well as immigration benefits laws while declining to prosecute serious crimes and devoting prosecutorial time to punishing border crossers is, of course, beyond preposterous. The bad faith and dishonesty dripping from Justice Thomas’s absurdist dissent in DHS v. Regents shows why the Court as an institution has become disreputable during the TrumpAdministration.
As pointed out by Adam Serwer in The Atlantic, https://apple.news/Akv4yN8i5Qv-Rz6r79m_O7Q, Roberts essentially begged Trump to take the time and effort to create some, minimal non-racist, totally bogus but facially rational “pretext” for the termination, so that he and other righty judges would have some “cover” for future votes to uphold or enable invidiously racist policies directed against the Latino and Black communities, as they had dutifully done in the past. He also implicitly suggested that Trump keep his big mouth shut, lock Stephen Miller in the White House basement, and let the Noel Franciscos, Billy Barrs, Cooch Cooches, and other members of Trump’s ethics-and-morality-free “legal team” finish the hatchet job on the Dreamers. Additionally, he hinted that Trump would do well to “bury” this issue till after the election.
I don’t see this regime as giving any quarter to Dreamers. Since their malicious incompetence has bankrupted once-flush USCIS, which they are now, outrageously, “holding for ransom” that the House Dems should refuse, I doubt that Trump will bother to comply with any part of the ruling unless specifically ordered to do so under penalty of contempt in an individual case. Maybe not even then. After all, since his corrupt acquittal by the Senate he has openly advertised that he now is above any law. He’s too busy spreading disease, dismantling the justice system, and trying his hardest along with Billy Barr to provoke racial strife throughout the nation. Why bother with the mere “mechanics” of government of which he knows nothing and cares even less.
Roberts has asked little of an Administration that he has basically allowed to operate outside the law and human morality, for the most part. His “ask” in this case is exceedingly modest. In an earlier case where Trump failed to deliver, Roberts only wanted him not to use perjured testimony of a Cabinet Member as a cover for a racially motivated attack on the census. It’s a mark of the deep contempt in which Trump holds Roberts, judges, the Constitution, the rule of law, and humanity that he has chosen to “spit in the Chief Justice’s face,” not to mention the faces of the many young Dreamers who are our path to a better future as a nation.
That would be a nation where the likes of Trump, his GOP toadies, and their enablers are banished from power and public office by the voters, forever. And, a nation that eventually achieves a Supreme Court with Justices who uniformly believe in Constitutionally-required “equal justice for all” and enforce it, rather than just looking for ways to skirt and avoid it while disingenuously hiding their misdeeds behind obvious (sometimes even actively solicited) pretexts and obtuse right-wing “philosophies.” The latter are essentially thin intellectual cover for attacks on humanity and looking the other way when the powerful abuse the vulnerable.
We’re a long way from where we need to be as a nation. But, if we don’t get started on the path this November, the “grand American experiment” will come crashing down in a heap. I doubt that this “Clown Show” can continue, even with Supreme complicity as an ally.
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ET AL. v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 18–587. Argued November 12, 2019—Decided June 18, 2020*
In 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a memo- randum announcing an immigration relief program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which allows certain unauthor- ized aliens who arrived in the United States as children to apply for a two-year forbearance of removal. Those granted such relief become eligible for work authorization and various federal benefits. Some 700,000 aliens have availed themselves of this opportunity.
Two years later, DHS expanded DACA eligibility and created a re- lated program known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA). If implemented, that program would have made 4.3 million parents of U. S. citizens or lawful perma- nent residents eligible for the same forbearance from removal, work eligibility, and other benefits as DACA recipients. Texas, joined by 25 other States, secured a nationwide preliminary injunction barring im- plementation of both the DACA expansion and DAPA. The Fifth Cir- cuit upheld the injunction, concluding that the program violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which carefully defines eligi- bility for benefits. This Court affirmed by an equally divided vote, and
——————
*Together with No. 18–588, Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People et al., on certiorari before judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and No. 18–589, Wolf, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, et al. v. Batalla Vidal et al., on certiorari before judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
2
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY v. REGENTS OF UNIV. OF CAL.
Syllabus
the litigation then continued in the District Court.
In June 2017, following a change in Presidential administrations,
DHS rescinded the DAPA Memorandum, citing, among other reasons, the ongoing suit by Texas and new policy priorities. That September, the Attorney General advised Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Elaine C. Duke that DACA shared DAPA’s legal flaws and should also be rescinded. The next day, Duke acted on that advice. Taking into consideration the Fifth Circuit and Supreme Court rulings and the At- torney General’s letter, Duke decided to terminate the program. She explained that DHS would no longer accept new applications, but that existing DACA recipients whose benefits were set to expire within six months could apply for a two-year renewal. For all other DACA recip- ients, previously issued grants of relief would expire on their own terms, with no prospect for renewal.
Several groups of plaintiffs challenged Duke’s decision to rescind DACA, claiming that it was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and infringed the equal protec- tion guarantee of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. District Courts in California (Regents, No. 18–587), New York (Batalla Vidal, No. 18–589), and the District of Columbia (NAACP, No. 18–588) all ruled for the plaintiffs. Each court rejected the Government’s argu- ments that the claims were unreviewable under the APA and that the INA deprived the courts of jurisdiction. In Regents and Batalla Vidal, the District Courts further held that the equal protection claims were adequately alleged, and they entered coextensive nationwide prelimi- nary injunctions based on the conclusion that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their APA claims. The District Court in NAACP took a different approach. It deferred ruling on the equal protection chal- lenge but granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs on their APA claim, finding that the rescission was inadequately explained. The court then stayed its order for 90 days to permit DHS to reissue a memorandum rescinding DACA, this time with a fuller explanation of the conclusion that DACA was unlawful. Two months later, Duke’s successor, Secretary Kirstjen M. Nielsen, responded to the court’s or- der. She declined to disturb or replace Duke’s rescission decision and instead explained why she thought her predecessor’s decision was sound. In addition to reiterating the illegality conclusion, she offered several new justifications for the rescission. The Government moved for the District Court to reconsider in light of this additional explana- tion, but the court concluded that the new reasoning failed to elaborate meaningfully on the illegality rationale.
The Government appealed the various District Court decisions to the Second, Ninth, and D. C. Circuits, respectively. While those ap- peals were pending, the Government filed three petitions for certiorari
Cite as: 591 U. S. ____ (2020) 3 Syllabus
before judgment. Following the Ninth Circuit affirmance in Regents, this Court granted certiorari.
Held: The judgment in No. 18–587 is vacated in part and reversed in part; the judgment in No. 18–588 is affirmed; the February 13, 2018 order in No. 18–589 is vacated, the November 9, 2017 order is affirmed in part, and the March 29, 2018 order is reversed in part; and all of the cases are remanded.
No. 18–587, 908 F. 3d 476, vacated in part and reversed in part; No. 18– 588, affirmed; and No. 18–589, February 13, 2018 order vacated, No- vember 9, 2017 order affirmed in part, and March 29, 2018 order re- versed in part; all cases remanded.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part IV, concluding:
1. DHS’s rescission decision is reviewable under the APA and is within this Court’s jurisdiction. Pp. 9–13.
(a) The APA’s “basic presumption of judicial review” of agency ac- tion, Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U. S. 136, 140, can be rebut- ted by showing that the “agency action is committed to agency discre- tion by law,” 5 U. S. C. §701(a)(2). In Heckler v. Chaney, the Court held that this narrow exception includes an agency’s decision not to insti- tute an enforcement action. 470 U. S. 821, 831–832. The Government contends that DACA is a general non-enforcement policy equivalent to the individual non-enforcement decision in Chaney. But the DACA Memorandum did not merely decline to institute enforcement proceed- ings; it created a program for conferring affirmative immigration re- lief. Therefore, unlike the non-enforcement decision in Chaney, DACA’s creation—and its rescission—is an “action [that] provides a focus for judicial review.” Id., at 832. In addition, by virtue of receiving deferred action, 700,000 DACA recipients may request work authori- zation and are eligible for Social Security and Medicare. Access to such benefits is an interest “courts often are called upon to protect.” Ibid. DACA’s rescission is thus subject to review under the APA. Pp. 9–12.
(b) The two jurisdictional provisions of the INA invoked by the Government do not apply. Title 8 U. S. C. §1252(b)(9), which bars re- view of claims arising from “action[s]” or “proceeding[s] brought to re- move an alien,” is inapplicable where, as here, the parties do not chal- lenge any removal proceedings. And the rescission is not a decision “to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders” within the meaning of §1252(g). Pp. 12–13.
2. DHS’s decision to rescind DACA was arbitrary and capricious un- der the APA. Pp. 13–26.
(a) In assessing the rescission, the Government urges the Court to consider not just the contemporaneous explanation offered by Acting Secretary Duke but also the additional reasons supplied by Secretary
4
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY v. REGENTS OF UNIV. OF CAL.
Syllabus
Nielsen nine months later. Judicial review of agency action, however, is limited to “the grounds that the agency invoked when it took the action.” Michigan v. EPA, 576 U. S. 743, 758. If those grounds are inadequate, a court may remand for the agency to offer “a fuller expla- nation of the agency’s reasoning at the time of the agency action,” Pen- sion Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. LTV Corp., 496 U. S. 633, 654 (emphasis added), or to “deal with the problem afresh” by taking new agency action, SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U. S. 194, 201. Because Sec- retary Nielsen chose not to take new action, she was limited to elabo- rating on the agency’s original reasons. But her reasoning bears little relationship to that of her predecessor and consists primarily of imper- missible “post hoc rationalization.” Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U. S. 402, 420. The rule requiring a new decision before considering new reasons is not merely a formality. It serves important administrative law values by promoting agency accounta- bility to the public, instilling confidence that the reasons given are not simply convenient litigating positions, and facilitating orderly review. Each of these values would be markedly undermined if this Court al- lowed DHS to rely on reasons offered nine months after the rescission and after three different courts had identified flaws in the original ex- planation. Pp. 13–17.
(b) ActingSecretaryDuke’srescissionmemorandumfailedtocon- sider important aspects of the problem before the agency. Although Duke was bound by the Attorney General’s determination that DACA is illegal, see 8 U. S. C. §1103(a)(1), deciding how best to address that determination involved important policy choices reserved for DHS. Acting Secretary Duke plainly exercised such discretionary authority in winding down the program, but she did not appreciate the full scope of her discretion. The Attorney General concluded that the legal de- fects in DACA mirrored those that the courts had recognized in DAPA. The Fifth Circuit, the highest court to offer a reasoned opinion on DAPA’s legality, found that DAPA violated the INA because it ex- tended eligibility for benefits to a class of unauthorized aliens. But the defining feature of DAPA (and DACA) is DHS’s decision to defer re- moval, and the Fifth Circuit carefully distinguished that forbearance component from the associated benefits eligibility. Eliminating bene- fits eligibility while continuing forbearance thus remained squarely within Duke’s discretion. Yet, rather than addressing forbearance in her decision, Duke treated the Attorney General’s conclusion regard- ing the illegality of benefits as sufficient to rescind both benefits and forbearance, without explanation. That reasoning repeated the error in Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United States, Inc. v. State Farm— treating a rationale that applied to only part of a policy as sufficient to rescind the entire policy. 463 U. S. 29, 51. While DHS
Cite as: 591 U. S. ____ (2020) 5 Syllabus
was not required to “consider all policy alternatives,” ibid., deferred action was “within the ambit of the existing” policy, ibid.; indeed, it was the centerpiece of the policy. In failing to consider the option to retain deferred action, Duke “failed to supply the requisite ‘reasoned analysis.’ ” Id., at 57.
That omission alone renders Duke’s decision arbitrary and capri- cious, but it was not the only defect. Duke also failed to address whether there was “legitimate reliance” on the DACA Memorandum. Smiley v. Citibank (South Dakota), N. A., 517 U. S. 735, 742. Certain features of the DACA policy may affect the strength of any reliance interests, but those features are for the agency to consider in the first instance. DHS has flexibility in addressing any reliance interests and could have considered various accommodations. While the agency was not required to pursue these accommodations, it was required to assess the existence and strength of any reliance interests, and weigh them against competing policy concerns. Its failure to do so was arbitrary and capricious. Pp. 17–26.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE, joined by JUSTICE GINSBURG, JUSTICE BREYER, and JUSTICE KAGAN, concluded in Part IV that respondents’ claims fail to establish a plausible inference that the rescission was motivated by animus in violation of the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 27–29.
ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part IV. GINSBURG, BREYER, and KAGAN, JJ., joined that opinion in full, and SO- TOMAYOR, J., joined as to all but Part IV. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part, and dissenting in part. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which ALITO and GORSUCH, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., and KAVANAUGH, J., filed opinions concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.
********************
Whew! Disaster avoided, at least for now! That was close for America and 800,000 of our most promising young people. A good day for justice, humanity, and common sense. The Supremes finally slow down the White Nationalist immigration juggernaught.
Thanks Chief Justice Roberts! Thanks for having the legal acumen, moral courage, independence, and human decency to get to the correct result. This could be your finest moment, where you have saved America from further social upheaval and outrage at a time of national instability and lack of credible leadership. That’s actually what your job is all about. You have missed some opportunities in the past, but better late than never in one of our darkest and most difficult hours as a nation! Justice without mercy and humanity is not justice at all. Thanks for recognizing that in this particular case.
In Plain English: Cutting Through The Legalese:
Roberts’s Majority:It would be insane, inane, and inhumane to do this to our kids at this point in time.
Sotomayor’s Concurring/Dissenting: Come on guys, you don’t have to be rocket scientists to connect the dots between the Administration’s racistapproach to immigration and possible violations of constitutional Equal Protection.
Thomas’s Dissenting/Concurring: Stupidity, inhumanity, and injustice need no justification so long as they are directed against vulnerable migrants. Never let your sense of justice, practicality, or human decency interfere with right-wing ideology.
As an Immigration Judge I saw the justice, beauty, practicality, and real life positive results for America and for humanity from DACA. Lives saved! Cases that never should have been brought in the first place, taken off overcrowded dockets! Human potential unleashed! Fair, professional, uniform nationwide administration by USCIS! A “big win” for America, humanity, and everyone involved! Probably the best thing the Obama Administration achieved in its otherwise largely inept, lackadaisical, and tone-deaf approach to justice for immigrants.
The reprieve is narrow and temporary. It will become apyrrhic victory for social justice if we don’t remove Trump and the GOP from power in November.
This November, vote like your life and the lives of many others depend on it! Because they do!
And in Albence v. Guzman Chavez, the justices will decide which provision of immigration law – 8 U.S.C. § 1231 or 8 U.S.C. § 1226 – applies to the detention of a noncitizen who is seeking withholding of removal after a prior removal order has been reinstated. As John Elwood explained last week, the issue is arcane but the distinction between the two provisions matters, because under Section 1226 noncitizens generally have the right to a bond hearing, while the government argues that they do not have that right under Section 1231.
**************************
This was another of Solicitor General Francisco’s petitions, after the DHS and DOJ quite deservedly lost on the bond issue in the Fourth Circuit.
While presented as an issue of statutory interpretation, the DOJ/DHS restrictive bond procedures are riddled with 5th Amendment unconstitutionality, including denial of opportunity to seek a bond before an fair and impartial decision-maker, putting the burden of proof on the prisoner, and failing to consider ability to pay, to name a few.
These abuses came to light recently in a comprehensive ruling invalidating unconstitutional bond practices in the Baltimore Immigration Court,Miranda v. Barr, U.S.D.C. D. MD., U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Blake, 05-29-20.
It’s not a difficult constitutional issue. It would take a Court that saw immigrants as fellow human beings and were willing to apply its own due process precedents about six sentences to unanimously throw DOJ and DHS out on their tails for such unconstitutional behavior, statute or no.
But, this version of the Supremes is all over the place on immigration. While immigrants have scored a few well-deserved victories, mostly on issues involving misinterpretation of statutes by the immigration bureaucracy, the Supremes have “tanked” on the larger issues involving constitutional and human rights.
They actually have furthered and in some cases bought into the false narratives and dehumanization of migrants, particularly asylum seekers, by Trump & co. That’s why folks who probably should be granted asylum or long since admitted as refugees were the government required to follow the law and the Court’s 1987 ruling inINS v. Cardoza Fonseca are instead illegally condemned to rot in Mexico, suffer in refugee camps, arbitrarily and capriciously returned to danger zones to face torture and possible death, separated from their families, or put in cages and “iceboxes.”
Depending on how you characterize it, the Supremes’ majority have been part of judicially-enabled child abuse or “Dred Scottification” of immigrants. Either way, it’s legally wrong and morally indefensible. Equal justice and social justice for all in America will continue to be both elusive and divisive until we get a majority of Supreme Court Justices who believe in it, put it first, and require it even in the face of a recalcitrant Executive whose political agenda is built on the exact opposite.
I find no reason for circumspection about the failure of privileged judges at the top of our legal system who are unwilling to treat vulnerable individuals as human beings and to give them the legal and constitutional protections to which they are entitled. Enabling the cruel, illegal, and racially-driven Trump immigration agenda is disgraceful conduct that deserves to be called out. Three-plus years into a regime dedicated to running roughshod over our Constitution and eradicating human rights we “are where we are” to a large extent because those empowered and entrusted to prevent such abuses have failed — miserably!
And, with an emboldened scofflaw Administration promoting an unconscionable and illegal trashing of the little still left of our imperfect, yet previously functional and occasionally aspirational, asylum system by Executive fiat, the worst is yet to come if we don’t get better performance from the Supremes!We have a “Frankenstein proposal” out now because we have a Supremes’ majority who think “Frankenstein is OK” as long as the monster only devours migrants and their families (folks apparently below their “humanity index”). Wait till it turns on them and their families!
Javier H. Valdes Co-Director Make the Road NYNedia Morsy Organizing Director Make the Road NJ
https://apple.news/AZ3raIrMIQX2JtEjfdMbJRw
Javier H. Valdés & Nedia Morsy write in the NY Daily News:
Immigrants are on the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic, but they’re being left out of the federal government’s solutions.
Immigrants are our delivery workers, grocery-store and warehouse workers, nurses, janitors and more. They make up more than 50% of the city’s frontline workers. Many don’t have the luxury of working remotely; millions are going to work, putting themselves at risk to provide others with food, basic necessities and care.
Few employers provide adequate protective materials or protocols to reduce risk to workers. Amazon workers on Staten Island, many of them immigrants, have walked off the job because the company failed to provide safe working conditions despite confirmed COVID-19 cases on-site. Employees at another company’s New Jersey warehouse were told to report to work and were not given adequate protective gear, before being unlawfully told they could not take paid sick days. They continue working in a tinderbox of potential infection.
Meanwhile, other immigrants have been devastated by joblessness. Unemployment has disproportionately hit Hispanic and immigrant communities. In New York City, where a CUNY study found 29% of households have at least one newly jobless person in this crisis, the figure for Hispanic households is 41%.
Immigrant communities have also been hit hardest by the virus itself, with communities like Corona, Queens and the South Bronx reporting the highest death tolls.
We hear daily from desperate workers who have lost their jobs, but, because they are undocumented, are ineligible for unemployment insurance. And they don’t have enough savings to pay rent.
Take Alejandra, a pregnant Long Island mother, who, until last month, worked a minimum-wage factory job. She was laid off and doesn’t know how she will pay her bills. Since her health insurance was through work, she also faces the uncertainty of getting through her pregnancy uninsured.
So far, the Trump administration and Congress have mostly excluded immigrants like Alejandra from relief. The cash assistance passed in the third stimulus bill, the CARES Act, excludes Individual Taxpayer Identification Number filers, a tax status many undocumented immigrants use. Many of the millions of children and spouses of ITIN holders will also be ineligible, even if they are U.S. citizens.
. . . .
Having already prioritized the Trump administration’s enormous slush fund for Wall Street, Congress must advance a just recovery package that puts people first, regardless of immigration status. That means immediate, recurring cash payments and unemployment insurance for all. It means testing and treatment for all. It means worker safety provisions and paid sick leave for all. It means a rent freeze so families have safe spaces to self-quarantine. And it means releasing people from jails, prisons and detention centers at grave risk.
While state and local governments must also respond quickly and prioritize the most vulnerable, only Washington can ensure recovery at the necessary scale.
We need a recovery package that goes directly to working-class and low-income people and includes everyone. If we leave immigrants behind, everyone will suffer.
Valdés* is the co-executive director of Make the Road New York. Morsy is the organizing director of Make the Road New Jersey.*
***************************************
Read the complete article at the link.
The GOP Right’s view of who is “critical” or “essential” to society has been wrong from the git go. Indeed, the many undocumented workers laboring in our food supply chain have proved to be essential to our survival. In fact, they always have been essential. The pandemic and ensuing crisis has just made the truth more obvious.
But, don’t expect the dose of reality dished out by the pandemic to change GOP dogma going forward. Policies driven largely by racism, classism, and the desire to maintain disproportionate power have always dealt in myths, rather than facts, anyway. That makes them largely “factproof.”
It will be up to the rest of us, working together and cooperatively, to build a fairer, juster, more humane, better nation “on the other side” of the current crisis.
Join the New Due Process Army & Fight For a Just America For Everyone!
Today’s biggest story set the scene for news that continues to develop about the Ukraine scandal.
The big story, in terms of its ability to frame the crazy events coming at us at top speed, happened last night, when Attorney General William Barr gave a speech to the Federalist Society, a group of conservative and libertarian lawyers who argue for an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. The conviction of members of the Federalist Society that courts should not do anything that is not listed in the original Constitution makes them great friends to business and to white men, since they focus on the protection of property and deny that laws can regulate business, provide a basic social safety net, or protect minority or women’s rights. The Federalist Society organized in 1982 to push back against what its members felt was an activist court system that tried to reorganize society from the bench. It has been extraordinarily successful in taking over the courts: currently five members of the nine-member Supreme Court are current or past Federalist Society members: Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh.
In his speech, Attorney General William Barr claimed he was going truly to be an originalist, and explained by taking American history back to its roots. In contrast to every single American historian in, well, American history, Barr argued that Americans had rebelled not against King George III in 1776, but rather against Parliament. What the Founders feared, he said, was not a strong executive, but rather a strong Parliament. (You can tell where this is going, right?) Barr was setting up the idea that Congress has grown far too strong lately (in fact, virtually every scholar will tell you that it is the Executive that has grown terribly strong since 1981) and that it is badly hampering the president’s ability to do his job. The president should be able to act on his own initiative, and not be checked by either congressional or judicial oversight, Barr insisted, in a theory known as that of the “unitary executive.”
Barr did not stop there, though. He went on to blame “The Resistance” for sabotaging the Trump administration, and claimed that its members were “engaged in a war to cripple, by any means necessary, a duly elected government.” More, he claimed “the Left” is “engaged in the systematic shredding of norms and the undermining of the rule of law.” Conservatives, he said, were at a disadvantage against progressive’s “holy war” because they “have more scruple over their political tactics” especially when facing “a hyper-partisan media.” (You might want to reread those last two sentences.)
Richard Painter, who was George W. Bush’s ethics lawyer, called this a “lunatic authoritarian speech.” Attorneys General are supposed to be non-partisan, and Barr lumped all opposition to Trump as the dangerous far left. The “Left,” in America, generally refers to those few people who advocate for communism—a system in which the government owns and controls all industries and businesses– or anarchy, a system in which there is no central authority at all. It’s actually a pretty small group. But Barr, and other recent Republicans, have included in “the Left” everyone who believes that the government has any role to play in regulating business, providing a basic social safety net, and promoting infrastructure, all those things the Federalist Society opposes. In fact, most of us, regardless of whether we vote Republican or Democratic, want some basic regulations, social welfare programs, and infrastructure development.
But now the Attorney General, who is charged with overseeing our justice system, has declared that anyone standing in the way of Trump is not just a member of “the Left” but also is waging war against America. Painter is quite right: this is the language that enables a leader to imprison people he considers his enemies.
Barr is not saying all this in a vacuum. More news dropped today about the Ukraine scandal, filling in the lines we already suspected. Congress released transcripts today from Tim Morrison and Jennifer Williams, both of whom were deeply involved in the Ukraine mess and were on the July 25 call between Trump and Zelensky. A long-time career official in the State Department, Morrison replaced Fiona Hill as the Senior Director for Russia and Europe in July 2019. Williams is another long-standing career officer in the State Department. Since April 2019, she has been the Special Adviser for Europe and Russia for Vice President Mike Pence. Morrison said that Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland made it clear that aid was being withheld until there was an announcement about an investigation into Burisma, the company on whose board Hunter Biden sat.
This jibed with the opening statement of David Holmes, the political counselor at the Embassy in Kyiv, who testified for seven hours yesterday behind closed doors. Holmes was an eye-witness to the efforts of Trump, his lawyer Rudy Giuiliani, and Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, to pressure the new Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky into announcing an investigation into Burisma, the company on whose board Hunter Biden sat. Holmes’s opening statement was explosive. It was not only first hand, but also it tied Trump directly into the efforts, and it made very clear that the administration was demanding the announcement of an investigation before it would release the money Congress had appropriated for Ukraine’s fight against Russian incursions. Holmes also said that he had reported what he had heard to John Eisenberg, Legal Advisor to the National Security Council, the same man to whom Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman had reported the July 25 call, and, once again, Eisenberg had done nothing. (Eisenberg is refusing to honor a subpoena to testify.)
Then, CNN dropped the story that at last year’s White House Hanukkah party Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman met privately with Trump and Giuiliani. After the meeting, Parnas told two people that the president had given him a secret mission to pressure the Ukraine government to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden. The Wall Street Journal reports that in February, Parnas and Fruman met with the Ukraine President at the time, Petro Poroshenko, and his Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko, offering to invite Poroshenko to a White House State dinner if he publicly announced an investigation. As I wrote here two days ago, this would have boosted both Poroshenko’s and Trump’s reelection campaigns. In March, Lutsenko smeared U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch to an American reporter and Sean Hannity ran with the story on his show, but the scheme fell apart when voters elected Zelensky instead of reelecting the corrupt oligarch Poroshenko. Then they had to scramble to come up with a new plan, and the whole ham fisted Ukraine scandal took off.
The Ukraine scandal is fleshing out, and it is truly astonishing that there is not more evidence that can be read in Trump’s favor. This increasingly just looks like a shakedown that weakened national security to help Trump rig the 2020 election. Meanwhile, in northern Syria, where Turkish and Russian troops moved in when we moved out, the Russians boasted yesterday that they have now occupied a former U.S. air base.
Trump spent several hours today at Walter Reed hospital. The visit was unexpected and unannounced, but the White House said he had decided to have portions of his annual physical done three months early.
Attorney General Bill Barr Is Getting Roasted for His Outrageous Speech Blasting Progressives
As the impeachment hearings continued, Attorney General Bill Barr on Friday trash-talked Democrats for attempting to “drown the executive branch with oversight demands,” saying they were working for political gain without thinking of the consequences.
“In waging a scorched-earth, no-holds-barred war against this administration, it is the left that is engaged in shredding norms and undermining the rule of law,” Barr told a room of attorneys at the annual gathering of the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group that has been influential in determining President Donald Trump’s nominees for federal judges.
The remarks about Democrats ignoring the rule of law were especially ironic because they came a mere hours after Roger Stone, one of Trump’s previous advisers, was convicted on all counts for lying to Congress during its probe into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. The attorney general’s speech also came on the second day of presidential impeachment hearings examining allegations that Trump attempted to interfere in the 2020 elections by asking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter.
Barr criticized Democrats for launching a “holy war” and using “any means necessary to gain momentary advantage,” while he said conservatives “tend to have more scruple over their political tactics and rarely feel that the ends justify the means.”
. . . .
Barr reportedly received a standing ovation, but outside the halls of the Federalist Society, his remarks sparked outrage and intensified calls from the left to impeach not only the president, but the attorney general himself. Others were quick to roast Barr for his statements. “Bill Barr is the type of bare knuckles lawyer the Church would have hired thirty years ago to cover up sex abuse cases,” Richard Painter, a former White House ethics counsel, tweeted.
. . . .
“Yesterday AG Barr addressed a radical political group and gave one of the most vicious partisan screeds ever uttered by a US cabinet officer,” Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) tweeted Saturday morning. “Barr says trump should have king-like powers. Barr is a liar and a fanatic and should be impeached and stripped of his law licenses.”
. . . .
*********************************
Read Samantha’s complete article which includes the full the two of a number of tweets at the link.
Hours after a new witness testified in the House’s latest impeachment hearing on Friday, Attorney General William Barr railed against Democrats for declaring a “war of resistance against this administration.”
In a speech before the conservative Federalist Society, Barr rebuked lawmakers for probing President Donald Trump’s potential power abuses, suggesting their efforts are illegitimate.
“The sheer volume of what we see today ― the pursuit of scores of parallel investigations through an avalanche of subpoenas ― is plainly designed to incapacitate the executive branch, and indeed is touted as such,” Barr said. “The costs of this constant harassment are real.”
Barr’s portrayal of oversight as harassment echoes Trump’s repeated claims that he is the victim of a partisan “witch hunt” rather than the subject of a justified inquiry into his dealings with Ukraine, which remain at the heart of Democratic-led impeachment proceedings.
“The fact of the matter is that, in waging a scorched earth, no-holds-barred war of resistance against this administration, it is the left that is engaged in the systematic shredding of norms and undermining the rule of law,” Barr added. “This highlights a basic disadvantage that conservatives have had in contesting the political issues of the day.”
President Trump is convinced he has the “absolute right” to do anything from asking other countries to investigate his political opponents to pardoning himself. But he couldn’t possibly tell you why — aside from his innate conviction that “when you’re a star, they let you do it” — you can get away with anything. Enter Attorney General William P. Barr to put a pseudo-intellectual gloss on Trump’s authoritarian instincts. In a Friday night speech to the Federalist Society, Barr gave a chilling defense of virtually unlimited executive authority.
Barr’s wrongheaded assumption was that “over the past several decades, we have seen steady encroachment on presidential authority by the other branches of government.” His view faithfully reflects the conservative consensus of the 1970s when he was a CIA analyst and a law student. Few serious analysts share that view today at a time when the president claims the authority to kill suspected terrorists anywhere in the world without any judicial oversight. In fact, conservatives decried President Barack Obama’s tendency to rule by fiat — for example, in protecting “dreamers” from deportation or reaching a nuclear agreement with Iran that wasn’t submitted for Senate ratification.
Trump has now taken rule-by-executive-order to the next level by declaring a “state of emergency” to spend money on his border wall that Congress refused to appropriate. Trump has also misused his authority in myriad other ways, including obstructing justice (as outlined in a special counsel report that Barr deliberately mischaracterized) and soliciting a bribe from Ukraine to release congressionally appropriated military aid.
Yet, to hear Barr tell it, Trump is somehow denied power by the nefarious “Resistance.” Barr decried Trump critics who do not view “themselves as the ‘loyal opposition,’” but rather “see themselves as engaged in a war to cripple, by any means necessary, a duly elected government.”
Earth to Barr: Trump does not treat his critics as “the loyal opposition.” He calls them “human scum,” “traitors” and “the enemy of the people,” using the language of dictators. And it is Trump and his toadies — not his opponents — who are “willing to use any means necessary to gain momentary advantage.”
Barr went on to blame the “Resistance” for Trump’s failure to get more nominees confirmed. The real problem is Trump’s incompetence and his preference for “acting” appointees to dodge the constitutional requirement to seek the Senate’s “advice and consent.” (Trump has not nominated anyone for nearly 20 percent of the top federal jobs.) If Barr wants to find a real abuse of the confirmation process, he should talk to Merrick Garland.
As devoid of self-awareness as his master, Barr whines about “the pursuit of scores of parallel ‘investigations’ through an avalanche of subpoenas.” He conveniently forgets that Republicans tried to impeach President Bill Clinton for lying about sex and spent years probing the Benghazi, Libya, attack in a failed attempt to blame Hillary Clinton. Trump is stonewalling congressional subpoenas at an unprecedented rate, forcing Congress to seek judicial assistance to enforce legitimate requests for documents and witnesses. But Barr denies that the courts have any right to “resolve … disputes” between the executive and legislative branches — effectively allowing the president to act like a king.
The attorney general went on to rail against judicial review of administration actions such as “the travel ban.” This was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court after the administration rewrote the initial versions, which constituted clear discrimination on religious grounds. Yet Barr is still aggrieved that the courts dared “to inquire into the subjective motivation behind governmental action” — i.e., to look at Trump’s own words about banning Muslims rather than accept the administration’s disingenuous explanations.
Barr blamed the courts and the president’s critics for the fact that so many administration actions have been challenged in court. The truth is Trump has nobody but himself to blame. Many of the lawsuits accuse the administration of violating the Administrative Procedure Act, which the executive branch can comply with simply by showing that its actions are not “arbitrary and capricious.” This is an incredibly low standard, which is why the normal “win rate” for the government in such cases is about 70 percent. According to the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law, the Trump administration’s win rate is less than 7 percent.
Trump likes to blame such setbacks on “Obama judges,” but many of the judges ruling against him are Republican appointees. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., for example, wrote the 5-to-4 decision in June in which the Supreme Court blocked Trump’s attempt to include a citizenship question on the 2020 Census.
“In this partisan age,” Barr sanctimoniously concluded, “we should take special care not to allow the passions of the moment to cause us to permanently disfigure the genius of our Constitutional structure.” He is right, but not in the way he intended. The real threat to “our Constitutional structure” emanates not from administration critics who struggle to uphold the rule of law but from a lawless president who is aided and abetted in his reckless actions by unscrupulous and unprincipled partisans — including the attorney general of the United States.
********************************
Mary Papenfuss Contributor HuffPost
Finally, let’s hear from Mary Papenfuss, also at HuffPost:
Attorney General William Barr’s latest extreme defense of Donald Trump has triggered a wave of calls for his impeachment — and disbarment.
Richard Painter, the former chief White House ethics attorney in the George W. Bush administration, tweeted that Barr’s remarks Friday before the conservative Federalist Society were “another lunatic authoritarian speech” amid an impeachment investigation into the president. He claimed that Barr — a member of the conservative Catholic society Opus Dei — is “the type of bare knuckles lawyer the Church would have hired thirty years ago to cover up sex abuse cases.”
. . . .
*****************************
Read the rest of Mary’s article at the link.
******************************
Somewhat “below the radar screen:” Barr’s repetition of Session’s blatantly unethical performance by acting as a “quasi-judicial decision maker” in Immigration Court cases where he clearly has both an actual and apparent bias in favor of a party, the DHS, and against another party, the individual migrant, particularly any asylum seeker.
Obviously, viewed through Barr’s perverted historical lens, we’ve made some seriously wrong moves.According to Barr’s interpretation, we should have allied ourselves with Hitler during World War II. Now, there’s a guy who understood the concept of the “Unitary Executive.” And, he sure knew how to deal with opposing legislators, “the resistance,” and others who were “enemies of the state” or of “inferior stock.” Why on earth would we have aligned ourselves with, and helped rebuild, the noxious parliamentary democracies of the West?
One of our allies, Stalin, did actually demonstrate the wonderful power of the “Unitary Executive” — talk about a guy who WAS the State and annihilated all opposition, real and imagined! He certainly would have known what to do with subversives who preached “impeachment” under the Constitution!
But, concededly, Stalin’s godless communism doesn’t fit in well with Barr’s Catholic Christian theocracy (minus, of course, the social justice teachings of Christ and the Catholic Church). Hitler’s pure Aryian Christian superiority was a much better fit with Barr’s historical outlook.
Of course, according to the Barr view, the seminal figure in Republicanism, Abe Lincoln, erred by not aligning himself with Jeff Davis and the Confederacy. Davis certainly knew how to operate without much legislative accountability. And the founders of the Confederacy also possessed Barr’s superior understanding of the relationship between the State and the Divine: “establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity — invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God.”
Sure, easy to believe that God was always a big fan of enslavement, rape, brutality, white privilege, and theft of services from enslaved African Americans, who also happened to be believers in God. Fits right in with Barr’s dehumanization of Hispanic workers, trashing of LGBTQ Americans, denial of rights to asylum seekers, threats to political opponents, and war on Hispanic Americans who have the audacity of wanting to vote and live peacefully in their communities without being terrorized by DHS enforcement.
George Washington, who wrongly refused to install himself as either King or “President for Life” was, according to Barr’s historical perspective, a dangerous wimp who diminished the potential powers of the “Unitary Executive.”
Undoubtedly, our Founders had their flaws. After all, the Constitution not only enshrined the dehumanization of African Americans, who had actually made the success and prosperity of the American Republic possible, but also excluded the majority of inhabitants from political participation.
But, unlike Barr and his fellow “originalists,” our Founders were largely persons of vision and good will who had enough self awareness and humility to see a better and more dynamic future. They would certainly be shocked and dismayed to find out that rather than viewing our Constitution rationally, as a blueprint to be built upon for a better, more inclusive, more tolerant future, two plus centuries later, individuals like Barr holding supposedly responsible positions under our Republic, would be mindlessly and immorally urging us never to escape the limitations and mistakes of our distant past.
Disturbingly unqualified as he is to serve as our Attorney General, Barr does illustrate the moral and legal bankruptcy of the “fake doctrine” of “originalism.” It’s actually an intellectually indefensible excuse for an empowered, largely White, predominantly male, minority to exclude the majority of America’s inhabitants and their hopes and dreams from full participation in our democracy. It’s as ugly and dishonest as Barr’s own tenure as Attorney General.
Evy Warshawski, The Arts Landscape: A retired judge Polly Webber creates a refugee narrative
Evy Warshawski
Updated
“Caught in the Covfefe” (24 by 18 inches) is one of Polly Webber’s rug designs. The retired judge takes on the topic of immigration in her rug designs.
Submitted photo
Retired judge Polly Webber began creating hooked rugs as “a form of meditation.”
Immigration is a complicated issue.
Rarely a day goes by when we’re not hearing about it, reading about it, talking about it and shaking our heads at our leaders’ constantly shifting laws, policies and reforms. Like the unpredictability of Napa’s weather, the myriad issues surrounding immigration keep us constantly guessing about the outcomes.
Newish-to-Napa resident Polly A. Webber has been in the thick of immigration law for more than three decades.
Her resumé reads like a “Who’s Who” on the subject. She served 21 years as a trial level administrative judge in San Francisco, rendering oral and written decisions for more than 19,000 cases. She also served as national president of the American Bar Association-affiliated American Immigration Lawyers Association and held faculty positions at Santa Clara University School of Law and Lincoln Law School in San Jose. In private practice for 18 years, she has written articles for distinguished legal publications and earned a plethora of awards and accolades earned throughout her legal career.
During her last 10 years on the bench as well as in retirement, Webber has been creating fiber works, through rug hooking and yarn arts, describing her artistry as “a form of meditation” and a way “to get out of my head.”
“There is a pressing need for immigration reform in the United States,” Webber has written. “The Dreamers captured the hearts of a majority of Americans, and the taking of the children captured their outrage. It is time to bring this issue forward whatever way possible. This is my small contribution.”
Webber calls her folk art inspired, refugee-themed triptych of rugs “Refugee Dilemma.” Each wall hanging pays tribute to the thousands of people all over the world who flee and seek refuge from their places of origin.
The first in the series, “Fleeing from Persecution,” was completed in August, 2017. The image portrays Webber’s interpretation of the iconic, but now extinct, set of traffic signs used in San Diego – ostensibly meant to protect fleeing refugees. The plea “help us” appears in Spanish, Mayan, Haitian, Arabic, Pashto, Somali, Sudanese, Russian and English.
“I used marbled red and brown wool for the silhouettes,” Webber said, “to make them more human and universal. The white outline around the figures is a technique found in Russian art.”
“Caught in the Covfefe,” completed in December, 2018, portrays a border patrol officer taking a young girl from her undocumented mother, who pleads in Spanish, “Don’t take my daughter!” Webber describes the image: “An officer’s face is hooked in pure white, an institutional and domineering color, and he is given an almost robotic stance. The mother is frenzied, understandably, and the child is traumatized. The chicken wire fence around them with its barbed wire atop, and the borders around the rug are all done to project the feeling of being trapped. With the more open border at the top, there is hope.”
The most recently-completed rug in September, 2018, “Safe Haven,” illustrates two Central American women and their children in a place of relative safety. “For some,” Webber explains, “this is still aspirational, while others have succeeded. Their smiles are tired smiles, but full of hope. The pattern for this rug was developed from a rug my aunt, Emma Webber, hooked decades ago from a 1950s UNICEF card. Knowing how much my aunt would have appreciated this group of rugs, I wanted to honor her as well.”
Webber has hooked upwards of 25 rugs and often uses patterns made from photographs or draws images freehand. She’s “hooked” her brother’s home and a portrait of her parents with materials consisting of 100 percent wool cloth cut into strips about 1/4 inch thick.
“There are a number of wine country rug hooking groups in Santa Rosa, “ said Webber, “and we sit around and hook with other people. There are also camps that bring in specialized teachers and cutters, and it’s a true art form to go to these places.”
“I poured my heart and soul into these rugs,” Webber said, “and I still think assimilation and advocacy are important parts of the refugee narrative. There may be one or two more rugs coming!”
a) “Fleeing From Persecution;” b) “Caught in the Covfefe;” c) “Safe Haven;”
The stories behold each rug by the artist, Hon. Polly Webber;
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase & Hon. Polly Webber admiring “Caught in the Covfefe” during a break at the 2019 FBA New York Asylum & Immigration Law Conference at NY Law School on March 8, 2019;
Closeup of “Caught in the Covfefe.”
Art powerfully expresses the overwhelming need to fight for social justice and human dignity in the age of Trump’s unabashed cruelty, racism, and White Nationalism.
It’s even more powerful when the artist is Retired U.S. Immigration Judge Polly Webber (a proud member of “Our Gang” of retired judges) who has spent her life promoting Due Process, fundamental fairness, justice, and the rule of law in American immigration. She has served as an immigration attorney, former President of AILA, U.S. Immigration Judge, and now amazing textile artist bringing her full and rich life and deeply held humane values to the forefront of her art.
Thanks, Polly, for using your many talents to inspire a new generation of the “New Due Process Army!”
I’m only sorry that my photos don’t do justice to Polly’s art. Hopefully, the “real deal” will come to a venue near you in the future!
“In a statement issued Tuesday evening, Green Bay Packers players invited fans attending their game Thursday against the Chicago Bears to join them in locking arms together during the national anthem at Lambeau Field.
Here is the complete statement:
“The NFL family is one of the most diverse communities in the world. Just look around! The eclectic group of players that you root for, the coaches you admire, the people you sit next to in the stands, those high-fiving on military bases, fans at the sports bar or during tailgate parties—we all come from different walks of life and have unique backgrounds and stories.
“The game of football brings people together. As NFL players, we are a living testimony that individuals from different backgrounds and with different life experiences can work together toward a common goal.
RELATED: Aaron Rodgers asks fans to lock arms in unity during anthem
“This Thursday during the national anthem at Lambeau Field, Packers players, coaches and staff will join together with arms intertwined—connected like the threads on your favorite jersey. When we take this action, what you will see will be so much more than just a bunch of football players locking arms. The image you will see on September 28th will be one of unity. It will represent a coming together of players who want the same things that all of us do—freedom, equality, tolerance, understanding, and justice for those who have been unjustly treated, discriminated against or otherwise treated unfairly. You will see the sons of police officers, kids who grew up in military families, people who have themselves experienced injustice and discrimination firsthand, and an array of others all linking together in a display of unity.
“Those of us joining arms on Thursday will be different in so many ways, but one thing that binds us together is that we are all individuals who want to help make our society, our country and our world a better place. We believe that in diversity there can be UNI-versity. Intertwined, we represent the many people who helped build this country, and we are joining together to show that we are ready to continue to build.
“Let’s work together to build a society that is more fair and just.
“Join us this Thursday by locking arms with whoever you’re with, stranger or loved one, wherever you are—intertwined and included—in this moment of unification.”
