CONTINUING JUDICIAL EDUCATION FOR ARTICLE III JUDGES: “Kids In Cages” Ought To Be Displayed Outside Every Federal Courthouse & The Supremes So That “Robed Enablers” Can See The Results Of Their Abdication Of Constitutional Duties!

https://apple.news/Au_bQMKN3QxmsBKokkqyP3w

Sarah Ruiz’s-Grossman reports for HuffPost:

U.S. NEWS

06/12/2019 05:25 PM EDT

Cages With ‘Kids’ Pop Up Around NYC To Protest Immigrant Detention

The art installations were meant to bring awareness to the horrific conditions children and other migrants face at the southern U.S. border.

Some people in New York City were confronted with an alarming image as they walked down the street on Wednesday morning: a chain-link cage on the sidewalk containing a child-size mannequin wrapped in a foil blanket, with audio playing of migrant children crying.

More than 20 cages were placed around Manhattan and Brooklyn ― from Union Square to the Barclays Center sports arena ― as part of a campaign called #NoKidsInCages by immigration nonprofit RAICES and ad agency Badger & Winters.

It was meant to draw Americans’ attention to the children and other migrants being held in alarming conditions at the U.S.-Mexico border.

Speakers in the cages played the viral recording released by ProPublica last summer of kids wailing for their “mamá” and “papá” after having been separated from them at the border as a result of the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” immigration policy.

“We want to bring this back to the consciousness of the American people,” RAICES CEO Jonathan Ryan told HuffPost. “One of the many unfortunate consequences of the repeated traumatic stories coming from the border is that, as horrified and angry as people have been, we also become desensitized. It’s important for people … to be confronted with the reality that this is about children, human beings, whose lives are forever affected.”

“This is being done in our name by people who we elected,” he added. “And if we don’t do something to stop this, this will become who we are.”

About two dozen cages were dropped around the city from about 4 a.m. to 5 a.m., Ryan said. By midafternoon most of them had been taken down by police or city employees, with three remaining around 2 p.m., per Ryan. The New York Police Department confirmed to HuffPost that more than half a dozen cages had been removed around Manhattan, but did not respond to questions as to why.

The online campaign associated with the installations recalls the family separations under President Donald Trump’s hard-line zero-tolerance policy, which led to the separation of thousands of children from their parents last year. The policy sparked protests nationwide and was reversed by executive order in late June. But a January report from the Department of Health and Human Services found the administration may have separated thousands more kids from their families than was previously known, and it did not know how many or whether they were reunited.

RAICES also wants people to become aware of other issues migrants face, Ryan said.

He noted undocumented immigrant families are still separated “routinely” at the border, including when migrant kids are split from other guardians like uncles and aunts or older siblings. Separations occur inside the country too, he said, when a child’s undocumented mom or dad is arrested by immigration agents, for instance in a workplace raid.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection apprehended over 109,000 people at the border in April ― more than double the number of migrants detained during that month last year. A majority of the migrants apprehended were either families traveling together or unaccompanied kids.

A Department of Homeland Security watchdog, reporting on Border Patrol facilities in El Paso, Texas, found last month that detained migrants were kept in dirty and extremely crowded conditions, forcing some people to stand on toilets to get some breathing room.

Last week, Trump said he reached an agreement with Mexico that includes “rapidly” returning to Mexico anyone who crosses the border seeking asylum in the U.S. Advocates are concerned about the dangerous conditions in cities such as Tijuana and Ciudad Juárez, where more migrants will now be forced to wait as their claims are processed.

“When the American people hear stories of this problem being fixed by the ‘remain in Mexico’ policy, it hasn’t been fixed, it’s just further from their view,” Ryan said. “The suffering will only increase.”

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

Ah, life in the ivory tower of the Article III Federal Judiciary, where you seldom are confronted with the human faces or ugly reality of your abuses and failures to protect the human rights of others.

The “Remain in Mexico” Program is an ongoing affront to our Constitution, the rule of law, and simple human decency for which the judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals who are enabling this ongoing humanitarian outrage and giving it “legal cover” should be held fully morally and historically accountable!

PWS

06-13-19

9TH CIRCUIT JUDGES COMPLICIT IN HUMAN RIGHTS & LEGAL VIOLATIONS INFLICTED ON TERRIFIED TEEN ASYLUM APPLICANTS: Reuters Study Exposes How Disingenuous Article III Judges Are Letting Trump Administration “Get Away With Potential Murder” Under Clearly Illegal, Unconstitutional, & Incompetently Administered “Remain In Mexico” Abomination!

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-returns-exclusive/exclusive-asylum-seekers-returned-to-mexico-rarely-win-bids-to-wait-in-u-s-idUSKCN1TD13Z

(Reuters) – Over two hours on June 1, a Honduran teenager named Tania pleaded with a U.S. official not to be returned to Mexico.

Immigration authorities had allowed her mother and younger sisters into the United States two months earlier to pursue claims for asylum in U.S. immigration court. But they sent Tania back to Tijuana on her own, with no money and no place to stay.

The 18-year-old said she told the U.S. official she had seen people on the streets of Tijuana linked to the Honduran gang that had terrorized her family. She explained that she did not feel safe there.

After the interview, meant to assess her fear of return to Mexico, she hoped to be reunited with her family in California, she said. Instead, she was sent back to Mexico under a Trump administration policy called the “Migrant Protection Protocols”(MPP), which has forced more than 11,000 asylum seekers to wait on the Mexican side of the border for their U.S. court cases to be completed. That process can take months.

Tania’s is not an unusual case. Once asylum seekers are ordered to wait in Mexico, their chances of getting that decision reversed on safety grounds – allowing them to wait out their proceedings in the United States – are exceedingly small, a Reuters analysis of U.S. immigration court data from the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) shows.

. . . .

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

Read the full description of the Trump Administration’s judicially enabled all out assault on the legal, Constitutional, and human rights of vulnerable asylum seekers at the above link.

A complicit panel of 9th Circuit Judges vacated a proper lower court injunction that was preventing this type of intentional child abuse by the Trump Administration. Here’s that panel’s “head in the sand” opinion in Innovation Law Labs. https://immigrationcourtside.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Innovation-Law-Lab-19-15716.pdf.

It’s worth noting that almost every “ameliorating exception” described in the first paragraph of the panel’s opinion is demonstrably untrue — children and those clearly in danger are being returned and the “discretionary parole” is largely a fraud that seldom is granted — according to the Government’s own data (which likely is also falsified or manipulated to some extent to mask or distort abuses). In other words, a “three-reporter panel” of Reuters is more interested and capable of getting to truth than a panel of life-tenured judges.

Oh, that it could be these judges’ kids or grandkids separated from family and sent to live on the mean streets of Tijuana while pursuing their legal rights under US law. Really, how do these child abusers and human rights scofflaws hiding in judicial robes sleep at night?

Guess the can’t hear the screams and moans of those whose rights they are failing to protect and whose human dignity they reject. I’ve heard eyewitness accounts and seen video evidence from the pro bono lawyers courageously (and sometimes at the risk of their own health and safety) trying to protect the lives and rights of asylum seekers at the Southern Border from these abuses of human rights that are enabled by “Remain in Mexico” (a/k/a the disingenuously named “Migrant Protection Protocols”). The truth is no secret for those who actually seek it rather than to ignore it.

Complicit Article III Judges and Government lawyers are keys to Trump’s “dehumanization” program. History must hold them accountable for their abuses of humanity.

PWS

06-13-19

AMERICA’S SHAME: Congress Dithers, Life-Tenured Article III Circuit Judges & Supreme Court Justices Shirk Their Duty, While Trump’s “False Courts” Violate Constitutional, Statutory, Treaty, & Human Rights On A Daily Basis With Impunity! — History Will Remember Those Who Are Complicit In & Who Are Morally Responsible For Unlawful Killings & Other Unspeakable Acts Committed Against Those Most Vulnerable Who Are Merely Seeking Fairness Under Our Broken & Fraudulent Justice System!

NEW REPORT EXAMINES WEAPONIZATION OF IMMIGRATION COURT SYSTEM

Advocates Launch Immigration Court Watch App to Ensure Greater Accountability, Transparency.

No, American institutions aren’t “standing up” to Trump. From the Supremes legally wrong , immoral, and unconstitutional decision in Jennings, to their licensing of blatant racial and religious bias in Travel Ban 3.0, to the Ninth Circuit’s complicity in the mocking of legal, statutory, and Constitutional rights under the fraudulent and illegal “Remain in Mexico,” which they now “own” lock stock, and barrel, to the Eleventh Circuit’s refusal to stop the “law, asylum, justice, and human dignity free zone” in the Atlanta Immigration Courts, Article III Judges are ignoring their oaths of office and turning blind eyes to immigration outrages that are transparent on the records they review and have been building in plain sight for years.

Those in positions of power who fail to fulfill their Constitutional duty to prevent abuse of the most vulnerable among us deserve to be condemned by public opinion and by history. And that goes for Article III Judges, as well as legislators, politicos, and bureaucrats.

PWS

06-12-19

PWS

06-12-19

ANALYSIS: Trump Lays Another Egg On Immigration — Everybody Loses, But It Could Have Been Much, Much Worse

By Paul Wickham Schmidt for immigrationcourtside.com

Alexandria, VA, June 9, 2019. After a week of petulance, threats, and self-created drama, Trump produced a resounding trade and immigration dud. Faced with advisors telling him that he was endangering the economy, the only thing propping up his sagging popularity, a potential rebellion among GOP legislators, and an unexpectedly tough and resolute Mexico, Trump backed off of his insane and blatantly illegal plan to ignore U.S. asylum obligations and thereby rocket the U.S. to the upper echelons of international scofflaws and human rights violators.

The latter scheme, known as “safe third country,” would have mis-designated Mexico and, incredibly, Guatemala, two clearly “unsafe” countries to do the U.S.’s job by processing tens of thousands of asylum applications from those fleeing the Northern Triangle. Neither of the two countries has a viable, fair, and effective asylum adjudication system and both have major safety and human rights issues.

Instead, Trump accepted a vague compact by which Mexico and the U.S. basically agreed to do what they had already been doing without taking any decisive or effective action to address the actual humanitarian crisis in the Northern Triangle that Trump and his flunkies have consistently mischaracterized as a “law enforcement emergency.” Indeed, the New York Times reported that most of Mexico’s “unprecedented steps” had already been worked out in secret with deposed DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen months ago. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/08/us/politics/trump-mexico-deal-tariffs.html. Those interested can read the summary of the agreement prepared by Trump’s own State Department here. https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-us-mexico-tariffs-declaration-20190607-story.html.

To be sure, desperate and vulnerable asylum seekers, particularly women and children, will continue to abused, raped, beaten, extorted, obscenely tortured, and killed with impunity and little if any recourse as a result of this week’s actions. But, at least for now, the U.S. and Mexico are maintaining much of the basic framework of domestic and international protection laws.

Contrary to the lies and false narratives spread by Trump and his DHS cronies, U.S. law is not filled with “loopholes.” Rather, it is a fairly straightforward implementation of the international protection regime and treaties that have been in effect since World War II to prevent another holocaust from occurring on our watch.

If anything, since the enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980, the U.S. has watered down its asylum commitment somewhat by adding a legally tenuous “credible fear” process to “pre-screen” arriving asylum applicants in mass migration situations. However, to date, the DHS under Trump has been too incompetent, misdirected, and frankly downright stupid to utilize this streamlined screening process fairly and efficiently.

By treating a somewhat predictable humanitarian refugee flow as a bogus “law enforcement problem” and mindlessly shoving cases into a “captive” court system that they already had abused, mismanaged, and destroyed, the Administration lost effective control. In panic, they have tried to blame the refugees, Democrats, Mexico, Obama, judges, the media, and even the truly hapless failed states of the Northern Triangle for their largely self-created human and operational disaster.

The first of the “unprecedented steps,” involves Mexico sending approximately 6,000 National Guard troops to the Guatemalan border to control illegal crossings. Never mind that the Mexican National Guard is a recent creation that exists largely on paper. Also, forget that Mexico has a questionable record of controlling corruption and systematic human rights abuses among its existing police and military forces.

The U.S., a much larger, better organized, and more prosperous country than Mexico, has resorted to militarizing the border, mass incarceration, family concentration camps, kids in cages, malicious criminal prosecutions, family separations, walls, fences, overt political interference in the asylum adjudication system, and violating international protection norms. These “gonzo” enforcement efforts not only failed to stem the tide, but have actually aided smugglers and traffickers and increased the flow of migrants.

Will newly minted, untrained Mexican troops succeed where the might of the U.S. has failed miserably? Don’t count on it.

Also, the last time I checked, it appeared that most of the Mexican coast and some parts of the U.S. are reasonably accessible by boat from the Northern Triangle. So, assuming that the Mexicans could “shut down” their land border with Guatemala, why wouldn’t smugglers “take to the sea?” How’s that Mexican Navy?

The second “unprecedented step,” is a continuation and expansion of the existing “Remain in Mexico Program.” This toxic gimmick punishes those who have been legally determined to have a “credible fear” of persecution by making them remain in some of the most dangerous locations in the world where they are intentionally and illegally impeded in many ways from pursuing their U.S. asylum claims from Mexico. To date, this program has only been implemented in a few locations, like San Diego where it has been an unmitigated failure according to a report from Kate Morrissey of the San Diego Union-Tribune. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2019/06/06/cruel-yet-really-stupid-trumps-remain-in-mexico-policy-denies-due-process-while-creating-court-chaos-enfeebled-judges-fume-as-aimless-docket-reshufflin/.

The results of this ill-advised effort by Trump to circumvent U.S. asylum laws reads like a “legal toxicology report:” “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” mass confusion, lack of information, insufficient and deficient hearing notices, massive violations of the statutory right to be represented by counsel, no opportunity to fairly prepare, document, and present asylum claims, interference with the attorney-client relationship by DHS, and few actual case completions to name just a few of the many abuses. And, how will an already dysfunctional EOIR deal with yet another round of “new priorities” and more “Aimless Docket Reshuffling?”

A Federal District Judge actually enjoined this circus before it could get rolling. But, a “tone-deaf panel” of the Ninth Circuit allowed Trump’s assault on the rule of law to go forward, at least for now.

Nevertheless, the case remains pending with the Ninth Circuit. As EOIR’s rushed and sloppy work product starts to accumulate on their docket and the bodies and horror stories start to pile up in Mexico, more responsible Circuit Judges might actually force the Administration to comply with the law and the Constitution, not to mention simple human decency.

Mexico has pledged to “accept and protect” those sentenced to remain there. But, the Mexican border locations to which individuals are forced to return are dangerous for a reason. Presumably, if Mexican can’t maintain safety and order for its own citizens, it won’t do any better for vulnerable asylum seekers.

Finally, in third “unprecedented step,” Mexico and the U.S. agreed to promote the “Comprehensive Development Plan launched by the government of Mexico in concert with the governments of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras” to create “prosperity, good governance and security in Central America.” This part of the agreement makes the most sense. But “promoting” in this case appears limited to using development funds that were “already in the pipeline” in both countries. In other words, nothing really new here.

This was a golden opportunity for the U.S. to show real leadership by dramatically increasing its investment in bringing stability and prosperity to Mexico and Central America. Additionally, we could have created incentives (rather than threats) and benchmarks for Mexico to improve its asylum adjudication system and human rights performance. Partnering with non-governmental-organizations and legal assistance groups on both sides of the border also would bring much needed expertise in resolving asylum issues to the table.

But, that would have taken a President with vision, empathy, compassion, courage, competency, intelligence, and creative problem solving ability. Trump is the exact antithesis of all of these qualities.

Consequently, sooner or later we can expect Trump’s “latest egg” to fail, like all of his other gimmicks and maliciously incompetent schemes on immigration. Our “child president” will undoubtedly then embark on a new barrage of lies, false narratives, idiotic tweets, idle threats, blame shifting, insults, racist dog whistles, and general nonsense aimed at diverting attention from his own failures as a leader and more critically, as a human being.

Innocent people will be harmed and die, America and Mexico will be embarrassed and diminished, and the world will be a worse place. But, until America figures out how to use its democratic institutions to remove the kakistocracy, the disaster will continue. That it could have been worse, is only small consolation.

Why not strive to be the “best that we can be,” rather than just “not as bad as we might have been?”

OUR AMERICAN GULAG: As Cowardly Trump Whines About The “Threat” Posed By Individuals Exercising Their Legal Rights At Border, His Administration Continues To Illegally Hold Children In Substandard Conditions — ABA President Bob Carlson Speaks Out Against This Violation Of Human Rights!

James Hohmann reports for the Washington Post’s “Daily 202:”

— Hundreds of minors are being held at U.S. facilities at the southern border beyond legal time limits. Abigail Hauslohner and Maria Sacchetti report: “Federal law and court orders require that children in Border Patrol custody be transferred to more-hospitable shelters no longer than 72 hours after they are apprehended. But some unaccompanied children are spending longer than a week in Border Patrol stations and processing centers, according to two Customs and Border Protection officials and two other government officials. … One government official said about half of the children in custody — 1,000 — have been with the Border Patrol for longer than 72 hours, and another official said that more than 250 children 12 or younger have been in custody for an average of six days. …

“The McAllen Border Patrol station, a facility near the southern tip of Texas that is routinely overwhelmed, was holding 775 people on Tuesday, nearly double its capacity. The Washington Post this week made a rare visit inside the facility, where adults and their toddler children were packed into concrete holding cells, many of them sleeping head-to-foot on the floor and along the wall-length benches, as they awaited processing at a sparsely staffed circle of computers known as ‘the bubble.’ … Experts say transferring children out of detention facilities as quickly as possible is critical, especially for ‘tender age’ children — those 12 or younger, who face physical and mental health issues even during short periods in detention. They sleep fitfully, do not eat well and suffer anxiety, said Amy Cohen, a child psychiatrist and expert witness in the Flores case.”

— Border agents apprehended 1,036 migrants in a record roundup near El Paso earlier this week. The apprehensions, which included 63 children traveling alone, reflect an uptick in the number of large groups trying to cross the border. Border agents apprehended a group of 424 migrants, the previous record, just last month. (NBC News)

Here’s the statement of ABA President Bob Carlson:

May 31, 2019

Statement of ABA President Bob Carlson, Re: Improper Detention of Immigrant Children

Share this:

WASHINGTON, May 31, 2019 — The American Bar Association is deeply disturbed by reports that hundreds of unaccompanied children seeking refuge in the United States are being held by the U.S. Border Patrol in violation of the law and federal policies.According to federal law and court orders, immigrant children generally cannot be held by law enforcement for more than 72 hours before being transferred to shelters that are better equipped to care for their physical and psychological needs. Yet news reports cite recent federal data that hundreds of children, many aged 12 and younger, have been held in Border Patrol custody for an average of six days, in facilities that are intended to be short-term processing stations.The current situation is unacceptable. Leaders at every level of the federal government, including the White House and Congress, must immediately find legal and humane alternatives that relieve the suffering of these children – and then work to create and fund comprehensive, long-term solutions.

With more than 400,000 members, the American Bar Association is one of the largest voluntary professional membership organizations in the world. As the national voice of the legal profession, the ABA works to improve the administration of justice, promotes programs that assist lawyers and judges in their work, accredits law schools, provides continuing legal education, and works to build public understanding around the world of the importance of the rule of law. View our privacy statement online. Follow the latest ABA news at www.americanbar.org/newsand on Twitter @ABANews.

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

How “gonzo” has our country become? Our dishonest and unqualified “President” makes idiotic threats against our “friends” because his Administration has been too maliciously incompetent to deal with a relatively predictable flow of individuals merely seeking to exercise their legal rights. Somehow, the mess in Central America, for which we share a great part of the blame, becomes Mexico’s problem to solve. But, while the vast majority of those arriving at our borders are surrendering themselves to apply under our laws, the Trump Administration is violating the law on a grand scale by mistreating children and others in detention.

In a rational country, there would be a massive, bipartisan, expedited movement to remove this unqualified demagogue from office before he does more damage to our country and our world. But not in today’s America.

Sadly, that appears to be the real meaning of “American exceptionalism.”

PWS

06-01-19

SPLIT FOURTH CIRCUIT HAMMERS SCOFFLAW SESSIONS’S BOGUS RATIONALE FOR DACA TERMINATION — White Nationalist Former AG’s “Malicious Incompetence” Continues to Be “Outed” — Casa De Maryland v. DHS

Casa De Maryland v. DHS, 4th Cir., 05-17-19, published

DACA decision-May 17 2019-4thCir

PANEL: KING, DIAZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

OPINION BY: JUDGE DIAZ

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION: Judge Richardson

KEY QUOTE FROM MAJORITY:

Plaintiffs argue that DACA’s rescission was arbitrary and capricious because the
Department of Homeland Security failed to give a reasoned explanation for the change in policy, particularly given the significant reliance interests involved. We agree.17
17 Plaintiffs also assert that (1) the district court failed to consider evidence of “bad faith” and “animus” underlying the decision to rescind DACA presented in their complaint and (2) the Department’s conclusions about DACA’s legality are substantively incorrect. Given our disposition, we decline to address these arguments.

30

As we have explained, DACA was rescinded based on the Department’s view that the policy was unlawful. But neither the Attorney General’s September 4 letter nor the Department’s Rescission Memo identify any statutory provision with which the DACA policy conflicts. Cf. Encino Motorcars, 136 S. Ct. at 2127 (rejecting as insufficient agency statement regarding statutory exemption proffered in support of policy change where agency did not “analyze or explain” why statute should be interpreted as agency suggested).
The Attorney General’s letter does mention that the Fifth Circuit affirmed the injunction against the DAPA policy on “multiple legal grounds” in the Texas litigation, J.A. 379, and the Rescission Memo cites to this ruling. The Fifth Circuit’s ruling was based in part on its determination that the DAPA policy likely ran counter to the INA’s “intricate process for illegal aliens to derive a lawful immigration classification from their children’s immigration status.” Texas, 809 F.3d at 179. There is no dispute here, however, that “DACA has no analogue in the INA.” NAACP, 298 F. Supp. 3d at 239 (internal quotation marks omitted). Further, as the Fifth Circuit explained in reaching its conclusion, “DACA and DAPA are not identical.” Texas, 809 F.3d at 174.
The Attorney General’s letter also asserts that DACA suffered from the same “constitutional defects that the courts recognized as to DAPA.” J.A. 379. The courts in the Texas litigation, however, did not address constitutional claims. And while the Attorney General urged in his letter that his office had a duty to “defend the Constitution” and “faithfully execute the laws passed by Congress,” J.A. 379, he does not explain how
allowing the DACA policy to remain in effect would violate that duty.

The Attorney General’s letter and the Rescission Memo also proffer the concern— based on the Attorney General’s determination that the DAPA and DACA policies share the same legal defects—that “potentially imminent” litigation would result in a ruling in the Texas litigation enjoining DACA. Entirely absent, however, is an explanation why it was likely that the district court in the Texas litigation would have enjoined DACA.
Further, the 2014 OLC Opinion outlining the Department’s authority to implement the DAPA policy identified “from the nature of the Take Care duty” at least “four general…principles governing the permissible scope of enforcement discretion,” J.A. 137-38; 2014 WL 10788677, at *5-6, and noted that concerns “animating DACA were . . . consistent with the types of concerns that have customarily guided the exercise of immigration enforcement discretion,” J.A. 149 n.8; 2014 WL 10788677, at *13 n.8.
The point is that the Department had before it at the time it rescinded DACA a reasoned analysis from the office tasked with providing legal advice to all executive branch agencies that supported the policy’s legality. Yet the Department changed course without any explanation for why that analysis was faulty. Cf. Fox Television Stations, 556U.S. at 516 (“[A] reasoned explanation is needed for disregarding facts and circumstances that underlay . . . the prior policy.”).
Nor did the Department adequately account for the reliance interests that would be affected by its decision. Hundreds of thousands of people had structured their lives on the availability of deferred action during the over five years between the implementation of DACA and the decision to rescind. Although the government insists that Acting

Secretary Duke18 considered these interests in connection with her decision to rescind DACA, her Memo makes no mention of them.
Accordingly, we hold that the Department’s decision to rescind DACA was arbitrary and capricious and must be set aside.

KEY QUOTE FROM CONCURRENCE/DISSENT:

Just as in BLE, there is a nonsensical implication in the plaintiffs’ position: that the Executive’s discretion is more constrained when it gives a “reviewable” reason for its actions than when it gives no reason at all. If the Acting Secretary was wrong about the likely illegality of DACA,5 then this might mean that she had provided no lawful reason for the rescission. But in the context of the Executive’s enforcement discretion, this is perfectly appropriate. The Executive need not explain why it makes particular enforcement and non-enforcement decisions. The Judicial Branch cannot bootstrap review of decisions committed to the discretion of the other branches simply because the reasons provided are of a type that judges consider themselves competent to evaluate.
5 Evaluating the actual legality of DACA requires considering whether and how a court may adjudicate an alleged violation of the Take Care Clause. See Kendall v. United States ex rel. Stokes, 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 524, 613 (1838). But it also requires addressing the distinct question of whether and how one presidential administration may determine that a previous administration’s policy was inconsistent with the constitutional obligation to take care that the nation’s immigration laws be faithfully executed. Cf. Letter from President George Washington to Sec’y Alexander Hamilton, U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury (Sept. 7, 1792) in 32 WRITINGS OF GEORGE WASHINGTON 144 (John C. Fitzpatrick ed., 1939) (writing in 1792 about enforcing unpopular tax laws, President Washington explained that it was his “duty to see the Laws executed: to permit them to be trampled upon with impunity would be repugnant to it”).

In any event, the Acting Secretary’s rescission memorandum was not a mere statement on the legality of DACA. Instead, the memorandum considered various court rulings as well as the Attorney General’s letter before concluding that the “DACA program should be terminated.” Duke Memorandum at 4 (emphasis added). She did not say that DACA must be terminated or that she lacked the legal authority to enforce DACA or a DACA-like program. And in declaring the rescission of DACA after a six- month wind-down period, the Acting Secretary invoked her statutory authority to “establish[] national immigration policies and priorities.” Id. The Acting Secretary’s legal analysis was only one aspect of her reasoning for rescinding DACA, and, of course, a prosecutor may consider beliefs about the law when setting enforcement policy, see BLE, 482 U.S. at 283.
For these reasons, I conclude that the plaintiffs’ APA claims are not reviewable and would dismiss them.

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

The “good guys” win again! The forces of White Nationalist irrationality and lawless behavior are thwarted, at least for the present.

Interestingly, Judge Titus was the only Federal Judge that I’m aware of to have upheld the Government’s termination of DACA. Even the Supremes, the majority of whom Trump widely and contemptuously advertises the GOP has “brought and paid for,” weren’t eager to intervene in the Administration’s idiotic “war on DACA, human decency, and common sense” at this point.

But, let’s not forget that we’re only at this point because the Obama Administration and the Dems failed to solve the DACA issue in 2009 and 2010. Never again!

PWS

05-17-19

FRACTURED 9TH GIVES GO-AHEAD TO “REMAIN IN MEXICO” PROGRAM! — Innovation Law Lab v. McAleenan

Innovation Law Lab v. McAleenan, 9th Cir., 05-07-19, published

Innovation Law Lab 19-15716

DHS’s request for a stay GRANTED

PANEL: O’SCANNLAIN, W. FLETCHER, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

OPINION: Per Curiam with Concurring Opinions by Judges Watford & Fletcher

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

Lots of impenetrable legal gobbledegook. Pretty hard to see how Judges Fletcher and Watford concurred in a decision (which appears to have been “ghosted” by Judge O’Scannlain) they really didn’t agree with. But, hey, it’s only human lives at stake here.

Bottom line: Trump wins, asylum seekers with a credible fear of persecution lose. Big Time!

But, in the end, it’s likely to be America and human values that lose here.

PWS

05-07-19

TRUMP SCOFFLAWS STUFFED AGAIN BY COURT ON “SANCTUARY” ISSUES: Trump Keeps Trying To “Punish” Jurisdictions For Acting Legally!

https://apple.news/A47vetrPUSg2Xm8cqHJuFlQ

Sophie Weiner reports for Splinter:

Yet again the Trump administration has had one of their cruel immigration policies smacked down byfederal judges. This time, it was the administration’s attempt to prevent California from carrying out sanctuary laws which protect undocumented immigrants in the state, according to Bloomberg.

A three judge panel at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the administration’s attempt to shut down California sanctuary policies. The panel affirmed a previous decision by a federal judge in Sacramento, who ruled that a 2017 immigrant sanctuary regulation, which restricts local police’s cooperation with federal immigration authorities, doesn’t conflict with constitutional law.

From Bloomberg:

The appeals court concluded that while Congress may have expected cooperation between state and federal authorities on immigration enforcement, Washington doesn’t have the constitutional power to require California’s assistance.

The decision regarded the California law SB 54, also known as the California Values Act, which was signed by former Governor Jerry Brown in 2017.

“SB 54 may well frustrate the federal government’s immigration enforcement efforts,” the court panel wrote. “However, whatever the wisdom of the underlying policy adopted by California, that frustration is permissible, because California has the right, pursuant to the anticommandeering rule, to refrain from assisting with federal efforts.”

The panel also upheld a state law that requires employers to inform workers before workplace inspections by federal immigration authorities, and told a lower court judge to take another look at a law that “authorizes the state attorney general to inspect facilities that house immigrants not detained for criminal offenses,” according to Bloomberg.

Many of the Trump administration’s attempts to harden immigration policy have met resistance in the courts. Most recently, the “Remain in Mexico” policy, which requires asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their claims are processed, was blocked by a federal judge. Since then, the decision has been temporarily reversed.

It’s somewhat ironic that this decision would come down now, the week after it was made public that the Trump administration considered dumping undocumented people in these so-called “sanctuary cities.” After the absurd and cruel suggested policy was publicized, Trump threatened to do something similar, suggesting that immigrants who were caught crossing the border but couldn’t be detained should be sent to liberal cities with sanctuary laws like San Francisco.

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

In addition to being really stupid (you’re not going to get much useful cooperation from states and cities by suing them) this litigation borders on Constitutionally frivolous. It’s wasting the time of the Federal Courts.

Undoubtedly, a competent Administration with rational immigration enforcement priorities could have reached accommodations with most jurisdictions on genuine law enforcement issues (not the mindless “deport anyone who is here without documents” program).

There was a time when professionals with some backbone at the DOJ and in the Solicitor General’s Office would have “just said no” to this type of “garbage litigation” being pushed by White House politicos. But, not today’s DOJ and today’s Solicitor General who see themselves as Trump’s sycophantic lawyers rather than upholding their oaths of office and serving the American people (who, after all, pay their salaries, not Trump — who apparently doesn’t even pay taxes). (Sessions’s downfall was that he saw himself more as an instrument of hate, racism, and xenophobia than as a personal protector of the Trumps.)

The Trump Kakistocracy has destroyed the remaining integrity of the DOJ and forced many of its best lawyers to leave, “go underground,” or become “hall walkers” to survive. That’s going to be bad for America long after Trump finally leaves office.

PWS

04-19-19

INSIDE THE KAKISTOCRACY: Stephen Miller “repeatedly demanded implementation of policies that were legally questionable, impractical, unethical or unreasonable.” — Only Some Courageous Private Lawyers & Federal Judges Stand Between Us & A Racist Debacle! — Law Proving An Obstacle To Scofflaw White Nationalists!

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/14/us/politics/trump-immigration-stephen-miller.html

Eileen Sullivan and Michael D. Shear report for the NY Times

WASHINGTON — Stephen Miller was furious — again.

The architect of President Trump’s immigration agenda, Mr. Miller was presiding last month over a meeting in the White House Situation Room when he demanded to know why the administration officials gathered there were taking so long to carry out his plans.

A regulation to deny welfare benefits to legal immigrants — a change Mr. Miller repeatedly predicted would be “transformative” — was still plodding through the approval process after more than two years, he complained. So were the new rules that would overturn court-ordered protections for migrant children. They were still not finished, he added, berating Ronald D. Vitiello, the acting head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

“You ought to be working on this regulation all day every day,” he shouted, as recounted by two participants at the meeting. “It should be the first thought you have when you wake up. And it should be the last thought you have before you go to bed. And sometimes you shouldn’t go to bed.”

A few weeks after that meeting, the consequences of Mr. Miller’s frustration and the president he was channeling have played out in striking fashion.

Mr. Trump has withdrawn Mr. Vitiello’s nomination to permanently lead ICE and pushed out Kirstjen Nielsen, his homeland security secretary. The department’s acting deputy secretary, Claire Grady, and the Secret Service director, Randolph D. Alles, are departing as well. And the White House has made it clear that others, including L. Francis Cissna, the head of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, and John Mitnick, the department’s general counsel, are likely to go soon.

Mr. Trump insisted in a tweet on Saturday that he was “not frustrated” by the situation at the border, where for months he has said there is a crisis that threatens the nation’s security. But unable to deliver on his central promise of the 2016 campaign, he has targeted his administration’s highest-ranking immigration officials.

You have 2 free articles remaining.

Subscribe to The Times

And behind that purge is Mr. Miller, the 33-year-old White House senior adviser. While immigration is the issue that has dominated Mr. Trump’s time in office, the president has little interest or understanding about how to turn his gut instincts into reality. So it is Mr. Miller, a fierce ideologue who was a congressional spokesman before joining the Trump campaign, who has shaped policy, infuriated civil liberties groups and provoked a bitter struggle within the administration.

White House officials insisted to reporters last week that they had no choice but to move against administration officials unwilling or unable to make their agencies produce results. One senior administration official at the White House, who requested anonymity to discuss what he called a sensitive topic, said many of the administration’s core priorities have been “either moving too slowly or moving in the wrong direction.”

But current and former officials from those agencies, who also requested anonymity to discuss contentious relations with the White House, describe a different reality.

The purge, they said, was the culmination of months of clashes with Mr. Miller and others around the president who have repeatedly demanded implementation of policies that were legally questionable, impractical, unethical or unreasonable. And when officials explained why, it further infuriated a White House set on making quick, sweeping changes to decades-old laws.

In a twist, many of the officials who have clashed with the White House were the president’s own political appointees, who share his broad goal of limiting immigration into the United States. To that end, they have already succeeded in lowering the number of refugees allowed into the United States, imposing a travel ban on entry from mostly Muslim nations, speeding up denaturalization proceedings, slowing asylum processing at ports of entry and developing proposals to limit work permits for spouses of high-tech workers.

“I don’t think the president’s really cleaning house,” said Thomas D. Homan, a former acting ICE director and strong supporter of the president’s immigration agenda. “I think he’s setting the reset button.”

A White House spokesman declined a request for comment. But even several of the most right-wing, anti-immigration groups have had a mixed reaction to the treatment of the immigration officials Mr. Trump and Mr. Miller have targeted.

The Center for Immigration Studies tweeted that “Nielsen got tough at the end of her tenure, but it was largely too little, too late.” The Federation for American Immigration Reform wrote: “Under Francis Cissna’s leadership, USCIS has issued a steady stream of policy changes and regulations that are firmly in line with President Trump’s immigration agenda. Removing him would be a huge mistake.”

But it has not been enough for Mr. Miller and his allies in the White House feeling the constant pressure from Mr. Trump.

Perhaps the greatest point of contention within the administration has been the asylum laws that are the root cause of the most vivid manifestation of the immigration issue: the hundreds of thousands of migrant families from Central America who have surged toward the southwestern border, fleeing violence and poverty.

In a Tuesday afternoon “deputies” conference call last year with about 50 or 60 officials from across government, Mr. Miller demanded to know why nearly all of the families seeking asylum were passing the first hurdle — a screening interview to determine whether they have a “credible fear” of persecution if they were returned to their home countries.

Mr. Miller and others in the White House were outraged that 90 percent or more of the applicants passed the first screening, a concern during the Bush administration, as well. Immigration judges ultimately deny all but about 20 percent of the asylum requests, but because of a backlog of hundreds of thousands of cases, many asylum seekers wait years for their case to be heard for the second time, giving them the chance to gain work permits, build roots and disappear in the United States.

To Mr. Miller, the asylum process was a giant loophole that needed to be plugged. And he faulted the asylum officers at Citizenship and Immigration Services who were conducting the screenings for having a cultural bias that made them overly sympathetic to the asylum seekers. “You need to tighten up,” Miller insisted.

Immigration officials on the conference call did not disagree that too many migrants were granted asylum in the initial “credible fear” screening. But the rules for conducting the screenings were written into law by Congress and designed to be generous so that persecuted people had a real opportunity to seek asylum. It was unclear, the officials said, what else the agency could do.

A Border Patrol vehicle near the border fence in Sunland Park, N.M. White House officials recently pushed to have Border Patrol agents, instead of asylum officers, conduct initial screenings of asylum seekers.CreditJose Luis Gonzalez/Reuters

Image
A Border Patrol vehicle near the border fence in Sunland Park, N.M. White House officials recently pushed to have Border Patrol agents, instead of asylum officers, conduct initial screenings of asylum seekers.CreditJose Luis Gonzalez/Reuters

Listening to Mr. Miller continue to hammer the issue, two people on the call recalled, it was almost as if Mr. Miller wanted asylum officers to ignore the law. At one point during the call, Mr. Cissna erupted in frustration.

“Enough. Enough. Stand down!” he said.

But such pressure from the White House was hardly unique, according to officials from multiple agencies.

For instance, a federal judge last week ruled that the White House early in the administration had improperly pressured officials at Citizenship and Immigration Services to terminate an immigration program for Haiti called Temporary Protected Status.

The judge said the decision in 2017 to end the program was contrary to the statute and indicated that the White House had strongly influenced the department.

More recently, White House officials pushed during one of the Tuesday afternoon conference calls to have Border Patrol agents, instead of asylum officers, conduct “credible fear” interviews. The notion, they said, was that the Border Patrol agents could process interviews quickly and cut out the several-day wait to schedule a meeting with an asylum officer.

Many of the immigration officials recoiled at the idea. Assigning agents to interview duty would pull them from their primary roles at the ports and along the border. Even worse, asylum laws require interviewers to undergo up to two months of training that would strain the already understaffed Border Patrol stations.

But even if they could be trained, officials told the White House, the logistics would be a nightmare. Cramped Border Patrol stations — many of which look like small, rural police stations — were not set up to conduct scores of two-hour interviews with hundreds of migrants flooding into border communities each day.

When the idea leaked out in early April, immigrant rights advocates accused the Trump administration of trying to prevent migrants from having a real chance at asylum.

“Border Patrol officers are simply not qualified to do this,” said Eleanor Acer, the director of the refugee program at Human Rights First. “This will put unfit, untrained and unqualified agents in charge of determining who warrants potentially lifesaving protection in the United States.”

To Mr. Miller and other White House officials, it was another instance in which the law and machinations of government were getting in the way of needed changes. And they think there are many others.

In November, as Mr. Trump railed publicly about the dangers of migrant caravans from Central America, a top White House domestic policy adviser floated the idea of taking migrants who had been apprehended to so-called sanctuary cities represented by Democrats. Homeland security officials, who saw the idea as political retribution, resisted.

In an email, Matthew Albence, the acting deputy director of ICE, said that it would create “an unnecessary operational burden” and that transporting the migrants to a different location was not “a justified expenditure.” Lawyers at the Department of Homeland Security, including Mr. Mitnick, also questioned the idea’s legality.

The idea was dropped until last week, when news stories about the rejected proposal prompted Mr. Trump to say his administration was still considering the option.

Mr. Trump has also not given up on the idea of shutting down the southern border, a move economists have said would be catastrophic and halt nearly $1.7 billion of goods and services that flow across the border each day.

Even as Mr. Trump retreated publicly and said he would give Mexico a year to do more to prevent migrants from reaching the southern border of the United States, he has made it clear to his advisers privately that the closing was still on the table.

His insistence increased the friction with his top immigration officials, especially Ms. Nielsen, who tried to talk him out of closing the ports of entry and refusing to grant asylum. Ms. Nielsen explained why she could not do that, citing economic and legal issues — banning migrants from seeking asylum would be against the law.

When Ms. Nielsen did not give the president the answer he sought, he turned to Kevin McAleenan, the commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, and asked him to stop migrants from entering the country. Mr. Trump told Mr. McAleenan that he would pardon him if he ran into any legal problems, according to officials familiar with the conversation — though he denied it in a tweet Saturday night.

Ms. Nielsen’s refusal to shut down the southern border appeared to be the final straw for Mr. Trump. After forcing her resignation, he named Mr. McAleenan the acting secretary of the department.

But Mr. Miller remains unsatisfied. Lately, he has made clear to immigration officials and others in the White House that he remains frustrated with the still-pending regulation on welfare benefits for immigrants. After nearly two years of painstaking work and more than 200,000 public comments, the 447-page rule is on track to eventually be published.

And it is not clear that the political bloodletting is over. Mr. Cissna and Mr. Mitnick remain in bureaucratic limbo, having received neither their walking papers nor an explicit stay of execution. While Mr. McAleenan is now the acting secretary of homeland security, rumors persist that Mr. Trump may want someone else to be the permanent head of the department.

Inside the immigration agencies, there is a persistent rumor that Mr. Trump may yet name an immigration czar to better coordinate — or, some believe, control — the sprawling immigration bureaucracy.

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

Good thing we have the New Due Process Army to fight against Miller and his forces of evil out to destroy American democracy.

PWS

04-15-19

9TH CIR. TEMPORARILY STAYS ORDER BARRING “REMAIN IN MEXICO”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/12/us/trump-asylum-seekers-mexico.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

Mihir Zaveri reports for the NY Times:

A federal appeals court said Friday that the Trump administration could temporarily continue to force migrants seeking asylum in the United States to wait in Mexico while their cases are decided.

A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a stay of a lower-court ruling four days earlier that blocked the administration’s protocol. The appeals court will consider next week whether to extend that stay — and allow the Trump administration policy to remain in effect for longer.

The administration in December announced its new policy, called the migration protection protocols, arguing that it would help stop people from using the asylum process to enter the country and remain there illegally. President Trump has long been angered by so-called catch and release policies, under which asylum seekers are temporarily allowed in the United States while they wait for their court hearings.

On Monday, Judge Richard Seeborg of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an injunction against Mr. Trump’s new protocols, saying that the president did not have the power to enforce them and that they violated immigration laws.

Judge Seeborg said in his ruling that the protocols did not include “sufficient safeguards” to comply with the Department of Homeland Security’s obligation against returning migrants to places where their “life or freedom would be threatened.”

On Friday, as Judge Seeborg’s injunction was set to go into effect, a three-judge panel for the Ninth Circuit issued the temporary stay.

In a tweet late Friday night, President Trump wrote: “Finally, great news at the Border!” He has previously criticized the Ninth Circuit, which is based in San Francisco, saying that the court always ruled against him. While that is not always true, the administration’s track record in the circuit has been poor.

The Justice Department, which appealed Judge Seeborg’s decision, argued that the injunction would “impose immediate, substantial harm on the United States, including by diminishing the executive branch’s ability to work effectively with Mexico to manage the crisis on our shared border.”

The Ninth Circuit will consider next week whether to keep the stay — and Mr. Trump’s protocols — in place during the appeal.

Judy Rabinovitz, the deputy director of the Immigrants’ Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, who argued the case, said she expected that decision to come next week.

“The question will be, can the government continue to implement the policy while it appeals it to the Ninth Circuit,” she said. “Obviously, we don’t think it should be able to.”

She called the policy unlawful and cruel.

“We think it should be stopped,” she said.

Lawyers for the Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The appeals court’s decision comes as the nation’s immigration system may have reached a breaking pointas migrants increasingly arrive at the country’s southwestern border with Mexico.

The flow of migrant families has reached record levels, with February totals 560 percent above those for the same period last year. Many are seeking asylum, in which they have the burden to show evidence of past persecution or testimony that establishes the “well-founded” fear that they would face danger if they return home.

The Trump administration’s migration protection protocols were an attempt to deter migrants. Mexico’s government reluctantly agreed to house the migrants in December.

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

No dull moments. Stay tuned.

PWS

04-13-19

TRUMP SCOFFLAWS OUTED AGAIN: Even As Lawless Prez & His Band Of Brigands Considers More Illegal Retaliatory Political Action, U.S. District Judge Slams Termination Of Haitian TPS: “Trump administration . . . being motivated by politics and not facts!” – So, What Else Is New In World Of White Nationalism & Fabricated “Facts?”

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/haiti/article229151574.html

Jacqueline Charles reports for the Miami Herald:

Accusing the Trump administration of being motivated by politics and not facts, a second U.S. federal judge is blocking the U.S. Department of Homeland Security from forcing tens of thousands of Haitians to return to Haiti by ending their temporary legal protection.

In a 145-page federal ruling, U.S. District Judge William F. Kuntz of the Eastern District of New York issued a nationwide temporary injunction preventing DHS from terminating Temporary Protected Status, TPS, for Haitians. Kuntz said 50,000 to 60,000 Haitians and their U.S.-born children would suffer “irreparable harm” if the legal protection ended and they were forced to return to a country that is not safe.

Kuntz’s detailed ruling came out of a lawsuit filed by Haitians in Florida and New York, challenging the Trump administration’s decision to end TPS granted to Haiti by the Obama administration after its 2010 devastating earthquake. The administration has rescinded the protection for Central America and some African nations as well, sparking several lawsuits around the country.

“It’s a sweeping indictment of the political manner in which the Trump administration at the very highest levels of the government illegally terminated Protected Status for Haitians,” said Miami immigration attorney Ira Kurzban, one of several lawyers who filed the lawsuit.

In October, a federal judge in California granted a temporary injunction blocking the administration from deporting Haitian TPS holders and others as their termination deadlines approach. U.S. District Judge Edward Chen granted the temporary injunction as part of a California lawsuit filed by lawyers on behalf of TPS recipients from Haiti, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Sudan who have U.S.-born children. The decision is being appealed by the government.

Kurzban noted that unlike the California case, which had not yet gone to trial when Chen issued his decision, Kuntz’s decision is the result of a full-blown trial. The New York lawsuit was the first of the five to go to trial.

“It’s far more detailed in its reasoning in respect to why what the government did was completely illegal,” Kurzban said of Kuntz’s decision. “It found findings on discrimination. … It found very clearly that the government’s decision was not only an arbitrary decision, but they violated their own procedures in reaching the conclusion that they reached.

“This is a direct and very detailed account of how the government acted in a completely arbitrary way,” he added.

During the trial, lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that then-Acting DHS Secretary Elaine Duke violated procedures and TPS holders’ due process when she ended the program for Haiti. They also cited emails and other internal government documents, including Duke’s handwritten November 2017 notes, to bolster the plaintiffs’ argument: that the White House was not interested in the facts about conditions in Haiti as DHS officials mulled over whether to continue to shield up to 60,000 Haitians from deportations, and Duke was under repeated pressure to terminate the program.

The decision, the suit alleged, was also rooted in the president’s “racially discriminatory attitude toward all brown and black people.”

“Clearly political motivations influenced Secretary Duke’s decision to terminate TPS for Haiti,” Kuntz said in his findings. “A TPS termination should not be a political decision made to carry out political motivations. Ultimately, the potential political ramifications should not have factored into the decision to terminate Haiti’s TPS.”

Kuntz said he could not issue a final injunction, only a temporary one, because Haiti’s TPS designation, which was supposed to end on July 22 but was recently extended by DHS until January 2020 due to the legal challenges, has not yet expired.

Steve Forester, an immigration advocate who has been championing the rights of Haitians enrolled in the TPS program, said it was “a victory demonstrating the government’s unlawful and unconstitutional behavior in reaching its decision to terminate Haiti TPS.”

“It’s a resounding condemnation of unlawful government behavior,” added Forester, who works as policy coordinator for the Boston-based Institute for Justice & Democracy in Haiti.

The government is expected to appeal.

Read more here: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/haiti/article229151574.html#storylink=cpy

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

The Trump Administration plans to tie up the Federal Courts with more frivolous litigation based on their knowingly and intentionally unlawful actions. That’s even as today, Trump refuted reports that he had discarded the idea of unlawfully “dumping” asylum applicants on so-called “sanctuary cities” as punishment to Democrats who have opposed his lawless regime. The Administration’s own lawyers say what Trump wants to do is illegal.

The lies come so fast and furious from Trump and his cronies that the White House “flacks” can’t even keep their fictional “cover stories” straight.

Fraud, waste, and abuse right in plain sight.

PWS

04-12-19

THE GIBSON REPORT — 04-09-19 — Compiled By Elizabeth Gibson, Esquire, NY Legal Assistance Project — Why Acting DHS Secretary Kevin McAleenan Should End Up In Jail If He Follows Trump’s Unlawful & Unconstitutional Plans!

TOP UPDATES

Trump: Congress needs to ‘get rid of the whole asylum system’

WaPo: The Trump administration has already implemented ways to make it more challenging for immigrants to seek asylum in the United States. But suggesting that the entire asylum system be scrapped is a step further than he has gone in the past. See also President Trump in California pushes border security, says ‘our country is full’andTrump backs off threat to close border, says he’ll give Mexico ‘one-year warning’ on drugs, migrants.

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen resigns

Vox: Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen submitted her resignation to President Donald Trump Sunday night, in an unexpected move that appears related to the president’s ongoing rage over the number of Central American families and asylum seekers coming into the United States. Kevin McAleenan, the head of Customs and Border Protection, will serve as acting DHS secretary. It’s not yet clear whether Trump will formally nominate a successor to Nielsen in the near future.

Trump suddenly pulls ICE nominee to go with someone ‘tougher’

CNN: President Donald Trump is pulling the nomination of Ron Vitiello to lead US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, saying he wants to go in a “tougher direction” — a move that came at the urging of White House senior adviser Stephen Miller.

Border Patrol agents to double as asylum officers for ‘credible fear’ cases

WaTimes: Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council, said the pilot program will begin in two weeks, with agents deputized to begin hearing “credible fear” claims lodged by migrants who say they need protection in the U.S.

U.S. Says It Could Take 2 Years to Identify Up to Thousands of Separated Immigrant Families

NYT: It may take federal officials two years to identify what could be thousands of immigrant children who were separated from their families at the southern United States border, the government said in court documents filed on Friday.

ICE Raids Texas Technology Company, Arrests 280 Over Immigration Violations

NPR: Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested 280 employees at a technology repair company in Collin County, Texas, on charges of working in the United States illegally. It’s the largest work site raid in the country in more than a decade, according to a Homeland Security Investigations official.

Waiting for Asylum in the United States, Migrants Live in Fear in Mexico

NYT: About 633 Central American asylum seekers have been turned away since January, unable to prove sufficient fear of being tortured and persecuted in Mexico.

Whose Court Is This Anyway? Immigration judges accuse executive branch of politicizing their courts

ABA: Immigration courts have always been susceptible to politics; presidents have, for example, rearranged dockets to suit their political needs. But the NAIJ and others are concerned that the Trump administration has moved from reprioritizing cases to deliberately trying to affect case outcomes.

Lawyers slam ‘Wild West’ atmosphere in Texas immigration court

CNN: Judges at an immigration court in El Paso, Texas, are undermining due process, making inappropriate comments and fostering a “culture of hostility” toward immigrants, according to a new complaint.

Trump administration nearly doubles H-2B guest visa program, which brings many Mexican workers

WaPo: As President Trump threatened to shut down the U.S.-Mexico border in recent days, his Department of Homeland Security nearly doubled the number of temporary guest worker visas available this summer.

Immigrants Denied Citizenship for Working in the Legal Marijuana Industry

AIC: USCIS is denying some immigrants U.S. citizenship over their work in the legal marijuana industry, exposing a conflict between state and federal laws.

ACLU warns ‘immigrants and people of color,’ against travel in Florida

WashEx: The American Civil Liberties Union has issued a travel advisory for “immigrants and people of color to use extreme caution” in Florida because of a pending immigration bill the state legislature is considering that would ban so-called sanctuary cities.

Lee: Voucher Plan to Be Provided Only to ‘Legal Residents’

US News: Republican Gov. Bill Lee said Tuesday he’s working to ensure his proposed $125 million school voucher program will be provided only to “legal residents” of Tennessee — a plan that some critics say could be illegal.

Yellow Light For Immigrant Driver’s Licenses As State Bill Revs Up

TheCity: Fresh off passage of a state budget that included the DREAM Act to fund higher education for undocumented immigrants, some Democrats in the Legislature are looking for a bigger win: New York state-issued driver’s licenses.

LITIGATION/CASELAW/RULES/MEMOS

DHS Sends Letter to Congress Requesting Changes to TVPRA and the Flores Settlement

On 3/28/19, DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen sent a letter to Congress to request legislative changes to the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) and the Flores settlement agreement to address “root causes of the emergency” along the U.S./Mexico border. AILA Doc. No. 19040801

Motel 6 will pay $12 million to settle lawsuit after sharing guest info with ICE

ABC: The budget motel operator illegally shared the personal information of about 80,000 customers for more than two years, resulting in a “targeted” ICE investigation into guests with Latino-sounding names, the Washington state attorney general’s office announced Thursday.

NYC Immigration Attys Not Off The Hook In RICO Suit

Law360: New York federal court has ruled two local immigration attorneys can’t shake a suit alleging they misled clients about services they could provide and filed asylum petitions without their clients’ knowledge, which then allegedly plunged the noncitizens into removal proceedings.

Democrats file suit against border wall spending

WaPo: House Democrats have filed a lawsuit aimed at preventing President Donald Trump from spending more money than Congress has approved to erect barriers along the southwestern border. See also Twenty states file motion to block Trump border wall funding – N.Y. attorney general.

Trump Administration’s Census Citizenship Question Plans Halted By 3rd Judge

NPR: U.S. District Judge George Hazel of Maryland in a 119-page opinion released Friday. Hazel concluded that the decision by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who oversees the census, to add the question violated administrative law. See also Commission divided on funding needs for census outreach.

CA5 Upholds Denial of Motion to Reopen Where Petitioner Did Not Provide U.S. Mailing Address

Posted 4/5/2019

The court held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that the information that the petitioner had provided to immigration officials—the names of his town and county in El Salvador—did not satisfy the notice requirement of INA §242b(a)(1)(F)(i). (Ramos-Portillo v. Barr, 4/1/19)

AILA Doc. No. 19040530

CA5 Finds Petitioner Failed to Rebut Presumption of Receipt of Notice of Hearing Sent by Regular Mail

Posted 4/5/2019

The court found the BIA did not abuse its discretion when, in applying the Matter of M-R-A- factors and looking to the totality of the circumstances, it determined that petitioner had failed to overcome the weaker presumption of effective service. (Navarrete-Lopez v. Barr, 4/1/19)

AILA Doc. No. 19040503

CA5 Upholds Denial of Asylum to Member of Minority Clan in Somalia

Posted 4/1/2019

The court denied the petition for review, holding that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s determination that the petitioner had failed to show that he would suffer persecution in Somalia because he belonged to the Ashraf minority clan. (Qorane v. Barr, 3/26/19)

AILA Doc. No. 19040134

CA8 Remands for BIA to Explain Why It Did Not Apply Sanchez-SosaFactors to Remand Request

Posted 4/5/2019

The court remanded for BIA to explain why it found it made no difference that petitioner had included a U visa filing receipt in his remand request, when Matter of Sanchez-Sosasuggests that a completed application should pause the removal process. (Caballero-Martinez v. Barr, 4/3/19)

AILA Doc. No. 19040531

CA9 Says Petitioner’s Conviction for Third-Degree Robbery in Oregon Is Not a CIMT

Posted 4/1/2019

The court granted in part the petition for review, holding that petitioner’s conviction for third-degree robbery in Oregon was not categorically a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) that would render the petitioner ineligible for cancellation of removal. (Aguirre Barbosa v. Barr, 3/28/19)

AILA Doc. No. 19040137

CA9 Declines to Rehear Sanchez v. Barr En Banc

Posted 4/5/2019

The court issued an order denying the rehearing en banc of Sanchez v. Barr, in which the court held that the petitioner may be entitled to termination of removal proceedings after he made a prima facie showing of an egregious violation of 8 CFR §287.8(b)(2). (Sanchez v. Barr, 4/1/19)

AILA Doc. No. 19040533

DOJ Settles Immigration-Related Discrimination Claim Against Housing Authority in Texas

Posted 4/1/2019

The Justice Department announced that it has reached a settlement agreement with the Housing Authority of Victoria, Texas, after finding that it discriminated against a LPR when it rejected his valid employment documents and fired him. AILA member Paul Parsons represented the employee.

AILA Doc. No. 19040132

Secretary Nielsen Orders Additional CBP Personnel to Southern Border and Expansion of Migrant Protection Protocols

DHS Secretary Nielsen ordered CBP increase its temporary reassignment of personnel and resources to address the influx of migrants at the southern border. She also directed CBP to expand the Migrant Protection Protocols and return hundreds of additional migrants per day to Mexico. AILA Doc. No. 19040174

EOIR Issues Memo on “No Dark Courtrooms”

EOIR issued PM 19-11, No Dark Courtrooms, to ensure that all available courtrooms are used for hearing cases every day during normal court operating hours, including maximizing the use of video teleconferencing and immigration adjudication centers. The memo is effective 5/1/19. AILA Doc. No. 19040130

Complaint Highlights Due Process Violations in El Paso Immigration Court and Calls for Immediate Oversight

A complaint filed with DOJ’s EOIR, OIG, and OPR by the American Immigration Council and AILA highlights systemic due process violations that are undermining justice for detained immigrants called before judges at the El Paso Service Processing Center immigration court. AILA Doc. No. 19040260

RESOURCES

Symposium before the oral argument in Department of Commerce v. New York

Withdrawal of Representation in Immigration Practice

An Attorney’s Ethical and Legal Obligations to Pereira-Affected Clients

Avoiding Disciplinary Action for Requesting Multiple Continuances in Immigration Court

Tax Prep Sites that Can Help with ITIN: Urban Upbound in LIC and Ariva (the site at Mexican Consulate)

Immigration Psych Eval Directory

EVENTS

4/9/19 The Unequal Path of United States Immigration Laws: Navigating Systemic Barriers Faced by Women, Children, and the LGBTQ Community

4/11/19 2019 National Day of Action

4/11/19Heating up History: An Exploration of Spice, Hot Sauce, and Immigrant Foods

4/16/19Planning with Unpredictable Priority Dates and Winning Cases

4/18/19 Green Card Renewals, Corrections, and the Phasing Out of InfoPass

4/18/19 Appealing your Naturalization Case: Administrative Hearings and District Court Appeals

4/20/19Options for Clients with a Prior Removal Order Picked Up by ICE

4/23/19Hot Topics in U and VAWA cases

5/2/19 NYCBA: The Assault on Due Process and the Need for an Independent Immigration Court

5/3/19Asylum Under Attack – Restrictions on Asylum at the Border and Beyond

5/30/19Understanding Denaturalization and its Impact on Your Clients

6/17/192019 AILA/GMS Annual Global Immigration Forum

8/4/19 Legal, Cultural, & Historical Approach to Understanding the Complex and Controversial Issue Dominating Our National Dialogue

ImmProf

Monday, April 8, 2019

From the Bookshelves: Defending Latina/o Immigrant Communities: The Xenophobic Era of Trump and Beyond by Alvaro Huerta

Nixon and Reagan tried closing the border to pressure Mexico – here’s what happened

More on DHS Secretary’s Departure

Sunday, April 7, 2019

DHS Secretary Kirstjen “Not Cages” Nielsen Resigns

Third state denounces Trump’s Census question

LAST CALL: Submit your WIP or Incubator idea for the Emerging Immprof Conf at BYU June 7 & 8

Sen. Mitt Romney: Asylum is “Magic Word”

Asylum for Sale? NBC News Series

Saturday, April 6, 2019

Nonimmigrant of the Day: Efe Obada, Defensive End for the Carolina Panthers

Congresswomen Denied Access to Homestead Detention Facility

Study of High Speed Chases by the Border Patrol

President Visits US/Mexico Border, Declares “Our Country is Full”

Friday, April 5, 2019

Immigration Article of the Day: Precarious Citizenship: Asian Immigrant Naturalization 1918 to 1925 by Angela M. Banks

From the Bookshelves: Refuge beyond Reach: How Rich Democracies Repel Asylum Seekers by David Scott Fitzgerald

I Can’t Believe I’m Watching TWITCH

President Pulls Nominee to Head Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Trump backs off threat to close the U.S.-Mexico border

A Video from Freedom University

Immigration Article of the Day: Critiquing Matter of A-B-: An Uncertain Future in Asylum Proceedings for Women Fleeing Intimate Partner Violence by Theresa A. Vogel

Thursday, April 4, 2019

Migrants Held Under El Paso’s Bridge of the Americas

Fox Apologizes for Graphic: “Trump Cuts U.S. Aid to 3 Mexican Countries”

A New Type of Immigration Court is Needed

Volunteering to Assist Asylum Seekers in Tijuana

We Fled the Gangs in Honduras. Then the U.S. Government Took My Baby.

ICE arrests more than 280 at Texas business, biggest workplace immigration raid in a decade

Humanitarian Assistance to Migrants in Mexico: Migrants using WhatsApp can get advice on how to stay safe and avoid illness, sickness

Wednesday, April 3, 2019

El Paso Detained Docket: “The Bye-Bye Place”

SCOTUSBlog Special Feature: Symposium before the oral argument in Department of Commerce v. New York

University of Arizona will charge 2 students over protest of Border Patrol

Former DHS Secretary: Central American Migration Must be Addressed at the Source

Tuesday, April 2, 2019

Ola: British Comic Strip Tackles Complex Migration Issues

Trump’s ignorant policies inflict immense suffering on immigrant families and children

A Statute of Limitations for Deportation

May 1 Driving Without Fear Campaign

United States Losing Credibility on Refugee Matters

GCIR Job Openings

Migration Information Source: Remain in Mexico Plan Echoes Earlier U.S. Policy to Deter Haitian Migration

Campaign 2020: Julian Castro: People First Immigration Policy

President Trump to Appoint Immigration “Czar”?

Monday, April 1, 2019

“It’s a big, fat con job”: Trump on Asylum Seekers

Immigration Restriction by Remote Control: Visa Denials on the Rise

The Latest Immigration Crackdown May Be Fake Social Security Numbers

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

Elizabeth’s items #1 and #3 (in addition to being totally outrageous and illegal) could spell either a short career for Acting DHS Secretary Kevin McAleenan or some time in Federal Prison.

- Trump has no authority to get rid of the Asylum System and Immigration Judges, nor will Congress do so. Moreover, any attempt by Congress to eliminate asylum or a fair hearing process for individuals who entered the U.S. regardless of status would be likely to violate both the Due Process Clause of the Constitution and our international treaty obligations. To the extent that Trump tries to do this through “back door” methods (as other reports have indicated), they clearly will be both illegal and unconstitutional. Any officer carrying them out will be “at risk.”
- The “Program,” described in Item #3 of substituting Border Patrol Officers for trained Asylum Officers is clearly illegal. Under the 8 U.S.C. 1325(b)(1)(E), an Asylum Officer must have extensive training in “country conditions, asylum law, and interview techniques comparable to that given full-time adjudicators of asylum applications.” Border Patrol Officers would not normally meet those criteria;
- Indeed, this provision is a reflection of Congress’s specific intent that someone other than a law enforcement official make asylum and credible fear determinations;
- The statute further requires supervision by an Officer who “has had substantial experience adjudicating asylum applications;” any supervisor who signed off on this bogus program would be acting illegally;
- The Government is already under an injunction in Grace v. Whitaker from Judge Sullivan preventing an illegal attempt by former Attorney General Sessions and Kristjen Nielsen to rig the credible fear process against asylum applicants;
- The bogus “pilot program” intended to result in illegal rejections of those claiming credible fear by agents patently unqualified to make such determinations under the statute would violate that injunction;
- Judge Sullivan has a reputation for not taking much guff from anyone, including the Government;
- Implementation of this illegal program should result in the Border Patrol Agents who carry it out as well as McAleenan and hopefully scofflaw Stephen Miller being held in contempt by Judge Sullivan and doing some jail time.

PWS

04-11-19

GET READY NEW DUE PROCESS ARMY — Trump & Miller Planning All-Out White Nationalist Assault On Constitution, Rule Of Law, Asylum, Immigrants, & People Of Color!

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/08/trump-immigration-agency-head-1332660

Trump White House plots amped-up immigration crackdown

The purge of Homeland Security leaders will allow the president to shift direction on policy.

By TED HESSON, ANITA KUMAR and NANCY COOK

04/08/2019 03:04 PM EDT

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

President Donald Trump’s dramatic purge of Homeland Security leaders is about more than personnel: It helps clear the way for him to take controversial new steps to curb illegal immigration, including an updated version of his furiously criticized family separation policy.

Leading the new charge is Trump’s top White House immigration aide Stephen Miller, who wants tent cities to house migrants on the border and is pressing to extend the amount of time U.S. immigration officials can detain migrant children beyond the current 20-day limit imposed by a federal judge. Miller wants to force migrant parents arrested at the border to choose between splitting apart from their children or remaining together indefinitely in detention while awaiting court proceedings, according to five people familiar with the plans.

Those hard-line policies could get new traction after a major staffing shakeup at the Homeland Security Department over the past several days. Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen resigned Sunday and Secret Service Director Randolph Alles was ousted Monday. Those moves came after the White House on Friday unexpectedly withdrew its nominee for director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Ronald Vitiello. Other officials could be on the chopping block in coming days, according to three other people familiar with the White House’s considerations.

The dramatic proposals and leadership purge are politically risky — family separation has sparked more political anger than almost any other issue in Trump’s presidency — and come as Trump has alarmed his fellow Republicans with abrupt threats to kill Obamacare and to shut down the border. But Trump is determined to make immigration central to his reelection push, betting that he can once again energize his core conservative voters on a promise to secure America’s borders.

Trump and Miller have become increasingly frustrated as the number of Central American migrants massing at the southwest border surges to levels not seen in a decade. Now Miller — who’s even started calling mid-level federal officials to demand they do more to stem the influx — will have a new opportunity to pursue his tougher approach amid the leadership vacuum at DHS.

Trump said Sunday that Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Kevin McAleenan would become acting DHS secretary. Other top DHS positions currently filled by acting officials will be the deputy secretary, ICE director, inspector general and administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Three of those jobs lack a nominee from the White House.

Miller did not respond to a request for comment.

So far, the Trump administration’s immigration policies haven’t deterred Central American families from trekking north — and they’ve faced trouble in U.S. courts.

A federal judge on Monday temporarily blocked a plan to send certain non-Mexican asylum seekers back to Mexico while they await a resolution to their case. The order will not be effective until Friday evening, which allows the administration a chance for a quick appeal.

Still, Miller has a set of new policies he wants to try, according to the five people familiar with the plans, including a “binary choice” between separation or joint detention for families, an idea that first surfaced in the run-up to the midterm elections. Miller also wants to fast-track the regulation that would allow migrant children to be detained for longer than the 20-day limit. He’s eager to finalize the so-called public charge rule, which could block immigrants from obtaining a green card if they’ve received public benefits in the past or are deemed likely to do so in the future.

In addition, Miller has pressed for the federal government to set up tent cities along the border, so that cases can be swiftly resolved — and migrants with non-meritorious claims can be deported.

He’s also pushing for the purge at DHS to continue.

Miller has agitated in recent days to remove Francis Cissna, director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, according to multiple people familiar with the move. Also in danger, according to current and former DHS officials, are Undersecretary for Management Claire Grady, who was passed over for the acting secretary job, and DHS General Counsel John Mitnick.

Within the agency, there’s a sense that the White House is “on a warpath,” said a senior DHS official.

“If you lose Claire, and John, and Francis, I don’t know where that leaves us. But it’s not in a good place,” this person said.

At least some of the personnel moves are getting pushback from immigration restrictionist groups, who like Cissna’s approach.

Roy Beck, president of NumbersUSA, a grassroots organization that seeks lower levels of immigration, said he’s confounded by reports that Cissna may be removed from his post at USCIS.

“He’s great. He’s worked in this issue for years, he’s extremely knowledgeable,” Beck said. “He’s exactly the type of person who needs to be in DHS in leadership.”

But Miller has pressed Cissna, unsuccessfully, to launch more experimentally and legally questionable policies, according to three people familiar with the situation.

Cissna’s defenders contend that he tried to adhere to the law while Miller pressed to overstep legal boundaries.

“If they push out the uber-competent guy that the left hates because he’s getting things done within the law and the right loves because he’s actually being faithful to the president’s campaign promises, they’re even bigger idiots than we already know,” one former DHS official said.

Eliana Johnson, Gabby Orr, Josh Gerstein and Daniel Lippman contributed to this report.

SCOFFLAWS STUFFED AGAIN: U.S. Judge Finds Trump’s “Remain In Mexico” Program Illegal – Orders Halt! – Malicious Incompetence, Illegal Gimmicks Thwarted – We Need A Government That Follows The Laws!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/federal-judge-blocks-trump-administration-program-forcing-asylum-seekers-to-remain-in-mexico-while-awaiting-court-hearings/2019/04/08/68e96048-5a42-11e9-a00e-050dc7b82693_story.html?utm_term=.137c9c2e12a3

By Maria Sacchetti

April 8 at 5:46 PM

A federal judge on Monday blocked an experimental Trump administration policy that requires asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their cases make their way through the immigration court system, a major blow to President Trump as border crossings have surged to their highest point in more than a decade.

U.S. District Court Judge Richard Seeborg in San Francisco enjoined the Migrant Protection Protocols policy days after outgoing Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen pledged to expand the program. The policy began in January.

[Read the Migrant Protection Protocols ruling]

Trump has justified blocking asylum seekers from entering the United States by claiming that many asylum seekers are trying to carry out a scam — that they are coached to file false asylum claims knowing that they will be released into the country because of a lack of detention bed space. The administration had hoped to keep more asylum seekers in Mexico — and off U.S. soil — while they await court hearings on their claims.

Migrants who reach U.S. soil — including areas that are outside U.S. border barriers but inside U.S. territory — have the legal right to seek asylum. They generally are either held in detention facilities to await rulings in their cases or are released into the United States.

The policy had been one idea to stem the flow of migrants into the country, but Seeborg said his order ending the policy will take effect at 5 p.m. on April 12. Within two days, he said, the 11 migrants named in the lawsuit must be allowed to enter the United States, and the administration may not implement or expand the program.

The American Civil Liberties Union, one of the groups that filed the lawsuit, hailed the ruling as a “very important decision” on an “unpredecented” attempt to block asylum seekers from setting foot on U.S. soil.

“What it will mean is that nobody else can be sent to Mexico,” said Judy Rabinovitz, an ACLU lawyer. “They can’t enforce this policy.”

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

As I had predicted!

PWS

04-08-19

TRUMP’S MALICIOUS INCOMPETENCE IS THE REAL “SOUTHERN BORDER CRISIS” — AND, A GENUINE HUMAN TRAGEDY — The Legal Tools To Address The Crisis In The Northern Triangle Causing A Refugee Flow Exist; This Administration Stubbornly Refuses To Use Them!

TRUMP’S MALICIOUS INCOMPETENCE IS THE REAL “SOUTHERN BORDER CRISIS” — AND, A GENUINE HUMAN TRAGEDY — The Legal Tools To Address The Crisis In The Northern Triangle Causing A Refugee Flow Exist; This Administration Stubbornly Refuses To Use Them!

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

United States Immigration Judges (Retired)

In short, families are coming to ports of entry and crossing the border to turn themselves in to be screened for credible fear and apply for asylum under our existing laws. That’s not a “border crisis;” it’s a humanitarian tragedy. It won’t be solved by more law enforcement or harsher measures; we’re actually quite fortunate that folks still believe in the system enough to voluntarily subject themselves to it.

Most don’t present any particular “danger” to the U.S. They are just trying to apply for legal protection under our laws. That’s something that has been denied them abroad because we don’t have a refugee program for the Northern Triangle. This Administration actually eliminated the already inadequate one we had under Obama.

Certainly, we have enough intelligence to know that these flows were coming. They aren’t secret. There was plenty of time to plan.

What could and should have been done is to increase the number of Asylum Officers and POE Inspectors by hiring retired Asylum Officers, Inspectors, adjudicators, and temps from the NGO sector who worked in the refugee field, but no longer have anything to do overseas since this Administration has basically dismantled the overseas refugee program.

A more competent DOJ could also have developed a corps of retired Immigration Judges (and perhaps other types of retired judges who could do bond setting and other functions common to many judicial systems) who already “know the ropes” and could have volunteered to go to the border and other places with overloads.

Also, working closely with and coordinating with the NGOs and the pro bono bar would have helped the credible fear process to go faster, be fairer, the Immigration Courts to function more fairly and efficiently, and would have screened out some of the “non viable” cases.

For some, staying in Mexico is probably a better and safer option, but folks don’t understand. Pro bono counsel can, and do, explain that.

By treating it as a humanitarian tragedy, which it is, rather than a “fake law enforcement crisis,” the Administration could have united the private sector, border states, communities, and Congress in supporting the effort; instead they sowed division, opposition, and unnecessary litigation. I’m actually sure that most of the teams of brilliant “Big Law” lawyers helping “Our Gang of Retired Judges” and other to file amicus briefs pro bono would just as soon be working on helping individuals through the system.

A timely, orderly, and fair system for screening, adjudicating, and recognizing refugee rights under our existing laws would have allowed the Administration to channel arrivals to various ports of entry.

I think that the result of such a system would have been that most families would have passed credible fear and the majority of those would have been granted asylum, withholding, or CAT.

Certainly, others think the result would have been mostly rejections (But, I note even in the “Trump Era” merits approval rates for Northern Triangle countries are in the 18-23% range — by no means an insignificant success rate). But, assuming “the rejectionists” are right, then they have the “timely rejection deterrent” that they so desire without stomping on anyone’s rights. (Although my experience over decades has been that rejections, detention, prosecutions, and harsh rhetoric are ineffective as deterrents).

No matter who is right about the ultimate results of fair asylum adjudication, under my system the Border Patrol could go back to their job of tracking down smugglers, drug traffickers, criminals, and the few suspected terrorists who seek to cross the border. While this might not satisfy anyone’s political agenda, it would be an effective and efficient use of law enforcement resources and sound administration of migrant protection and immigration laws. That’s certainly not what’s happening now.

PWS

04-06-19

Related posts:

Related posts:

NEW REPORT EXAMINES WEAPONIZATION OF IMMIGRATION COURT SYSTEM

Advocates Launch Immigration Court Watch App to Ensure Greater Accountability, Transparency.

Related posts:

ANALYSIS: Trump Lays Another Egg On Immigration — Everybody Loses, But It Could Have Been Much, Much Worse

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: