"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
There is now a broad, bipartisan consensus that ripping infants from their mothers — and then putting both in (separate) cages — is not a morally acceptable way of treating families who cross our southern border. After weeks of deliberation, our nation has concluded that Central American migrants do not deserve to have their children psychologically tortured by agents of the state.
But what they do deserve remains in dispute.
The White House contends that migrants have a right to be caged with their family members (except for those who have already been separated from their children, who aren’t necessarily entitled to ever see their kids again). But the judiciary says that child migrants have a right not to be caged, at all. And progressives seem to believe that these huddled masses are entitled to something more — though few have specified precisely what or why.
In defending its “zero tolerance” policy — which is to say, a policy of jailing asylum-seekers for the misdemeanor offense of crossing the U.S. border between official points of entry — the White House has implored its critics to consider the bigger picture: Such “illegal aliens” have already undermined the rule of law in our country, and brought drugs, violent crime, and MS-13 to our streets. Locking up their families might look cruel when viewed in isolation; but when understood in the broader context of a migrant crisis that threatens the safety and sovereignty of the American people, the policy is more than justified.
In reality, however, this narrative inverts the truth: Context does not excuse the cruelty of our government’s “zero tolerance” policy, it indicts that policy even further. The United States is not suffering a crisis that justifies radical measures; the Central American families gathered at our border are. And those families aren’t bringing crime and lawlessness to our country — if anything, we brought such conditions to theirs.
After all, it was the CIA that overthrew the democratically elected government of Guatemala in 1954, and thereby subjected its people to decades of dictatorship and civil war. It was the streets and prisons of California that gave birth to MS-13, and American immigration authorities that deported that gang back to El Salvador. And it is America’s taste for narcotics that sustains the drug trade in Honduras — and our war on drugs that ensures such trade is conducted by immensely profitable and violent cartels.
There is no easy answer to the Central American migrant crisis. But any remotely moral policy response will need to proceed from the recognition that we are not the victims of this crisis — and asylum-seekers are not its creators.
Central American families are not a threat to the United States.
It is very hard to make a reasoned case for why our nation’s current levels of undocumented immigration — or, of low-skilled immigration more broadly — represent major threats to the safety and material well-being of the American people.
We have long known that native-born Americans commit violent crimes at far higher rates than either legal or undocumented immigrants. And newer research into immigration and criminality has proven even more devastating to the nativists’ case: States with higher concentrations of undocumented immigrants tend to have lower rates of violent crime — and this correlation persists even when controlling for a given state’s median age, level of urbanization, and rate of unemployment or incarceration.
Meanwhile, the American economy is in great need of young, unskilled workers. On the Labor Department’s list of the 15 occupations that will experience the fastest growth over the next six years, eight require no advanced education. Further, with the baby-boomers retiring — and birth rates plummeting — the future of American economic growth, and the survival of Social Security, depends on an infusion of foreign workers. It is true that there is some basis for believing that mass, low-skill immigration depresses the wages of native-born high-school dropouts (although that claim is contentious). But there is no basis for believing that restricting immigration will do more to boost such workers’ take-home pay than encouraging unionization through labor-law reform, or expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Thus, given the positive material benefits of mass low-skill immigration, it is hard to see how more of it would constitute an economic crisis, even if we stipulate that it puts downward pressure on the wages of some native-born workers.
By contrast, the crisis facing the migrants themselves is wrenching and undeniable.
Asylum-seekers are fleeing violence and disorder, not exporting it.
To seek asylum in the United States, Central American families must travel many hundreds of miles through the desert, along a route teeming with rapists, thieves, and homicidal gangs. The hazards inherent to this journey aren’t unknown to most who take it — such migrants simply find the hazards of remaining in place more intolerable.
And that calculation isn’t hard to understand. El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras endure some of the highest rates of violent crime — and levels of official corruption — of any nations in the world. As recently as 2015, El Salvador was the single-most violent country (that wasn’t at war) on planet Earth, with a homicide rate of 103 per 100,000. And the vast majority of those homicides went unpunished — according to a 2017 report from the Georgetown Security Studies Review, roughly 90 percent of murders throughout the Northern Triangle go unprosecuted. This lawlessness is both a cause and effect of widespread public distrust in state police forces, which are largely non-professionalized, frequently penetrated by criminal gangs, and historically associated with atrocities carried out in times of political unrest and civil war.
Public trust in the region’s other governing institutions is similarly, justifiably, low. Due to corruption and bureaucratic inefficacy, nations in the Northern Triangle collect less in tax revenues than most other Latin American countries (relative to the size of each nation’s gross domestic product). This fact, combined with high levels of spending on (grossly underperforming) security forces leaves the region’s governments with little funding for social services and public investment. And corruption eats into what meager funding is allocated to such purposes — in Honduras, the ruling National Party has been accused of embezzling social security funds; Guatemala’s former president and nine of his ex-ministers were arrested in February for graft connected to a public transit project.
While the region’s governments have struggled to collect taxes, its drug cartels have proven quite effective at collecting tribute. In 2015, the Honduran newspaper La Prensa revealed that citizens of El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala were collectively making more than $651 million in extortion payments to criminal organizations annually. Those who fail to pay up are routinely murdered; many of the migrants seeking asylum in the U.S. claim (quite credibly) to be fleeing such homicidal extortion rackets.
So, these migrants are fleeing a genuine crisis. But that does not necessarily mean that our country has any special obligation to address their plight. The U.S. government is not forcing the Northern Triangle’s political and economic elites to engage in graft, or avoid taxes. It does not pay the region’s police to let murders go unsolved, or (directly) sell weapons to the region’s cartels. In fact, Congress has spent more than $3 billion on security aid for Central America over the past decade.
And yet, the United States still bears profound responsibility for the region’s troubles; because the Northern Triangle’s failures of governance — and wrenching security challenges — are inextricably-linked to our nation’s policy choices and consumption habits.
On the former point: The CIA subjected Guatemala to decades of authoritarian rule and civil war, for the sake of aiding a fruit company that its director was invested in.
In 1945, a revolutionary movement built a representative democracy in Guatemala. Nine years later, the United States tore it down. Officially, the Eisenhower administration orchestrated the overthrow of Jacobo Árbenz’s government to save the Guatemalan people from Communist tyranny. In reality, it did so to deny them popular sovereignty.
Árbenz had been democratically elected, and enjoyed widespread public support. He had legalized the Communist Party, but was no card-carrying member. His crime was not the suppression of dissent or the suspension of constitutional rule — but rather, an attempt to address his nation’s wrenching inequality by redistributing the United Fruit Company’s (UFC) unused land to impoverished peasants.
This was not an act of pure expropriation — the UFC had robbed the Guatemalan government of tax revenue, by vastly understating the value of its holdings. By seizing the company’s unused lands, Árbenz secured a measure of compensation for his state; and, more importantly, provided 100,000 Guatemalan families with land, and access to credit. Agricultural production increased, poverty fell. Árbenz’s constituents were pleased.
But the United Fruit Company was not. And both Secretary of State John Dulles and his brother, CIA director Allen Dulles had close ties to the UFC. So, our government took out Árbenz, and replaced him with a reactionary, former military officer — who promptly assumed dictatorial powers. Nearly four decades of civil war between authoritarian governments and left-wing guerrillas ensued — throughout which the United States provided support to the former. By the time the fighting ended in 1996, 200,000 people were dead.
It is impossible to know what life in Guatemala would be like today absent the CIA’s intervention. One can imagine Árbenz’s democracy thriving through the second half of the 20th century, and serving as a model for its neighbors in the Northern Triangle. One can also imagine less rosy counterfactuals. What we know for certain is that the United States deliberately undermined the national sovereignty of Guatemala and inadvertently triggered decades of civil war. And we know that said civil war left in its wake large groups of demobilized men with experience in killing, and access to (often, U.S.-made) military-grade weapons — and that many of those men ended up forming violent, criminal organizations that plague the Northern Triangle today.
And American drug users and policymakers sustain those criminal organizations.
Demand for narcotics is overwhelmingly concentrated in prosperous, developed countries; which means, in the Western Hemisphere, it is overwhelmingly concentrated in the United States. And the U.S. government’s Draconian (and profoundly ineffective) approach to reducing that demand has only inflated the profits that Central American criminal organizations can reap by satisfying our illicit appetites. As German Lopez reported for Vox in 2014:
These drugs cost pennies by the dose to produce, but their value is increased through the supply chain to reflect the risk of losing a harvest to drug-busting government officials or rival criminal organizations.
The inflated cost creates a huge financial incentive for criminal organizations to get into the business of drugs, no matter the risks. They might lose some of their product along the way, but any product that makes it through is immensely profitable.
Criminal groups would likely take up other activities — human trafficking, kidnapping, gun smuggling, extortion — if the drug market didn’t exist. But experts argue drugs are uniquely profitable and empower criminal organizations in a way no other market can.
One could argue that the downside risks of legalizing hard drugs justify the harms inherent to their prohibition. The fact that the United States refuses to remove marijuana from the black market — and thus, deny cartels a major profit source — is harder to justify. But either way, it remains the case that the costs of our nation’s consumption — and prohibition — of drugs fall heaviest on our neighbors to the south. In fact, some have even argued that America’s drug habit is responsible for nearly all of the violence in the Northern Triangle — among them, White House chief of staff John Kelly.
“There are some in officialdom who argue that not 100 percent of the violence [in Central America] today is due to the drug flow to the U.S.,” Kelly wrote in 2014, when he was serving as Southcom commander. “I agree, but I would say that perhaps 80 percent of it is.”
MS-13 was born in the U.S.A.
Donald Trump has accused Central American governments of “sending” their most violent and criminal residents to the United States — including the homicidal gangsters of MS-13. In truth, of course, the vast majority of migrants from Central America are self-selected and nonviolent.
But Trump’s mistake is almost understandable: After all, the U.S. government actually has sent some of its most violent and criminal residents to Central America: MS-13 was formed on the streets of Los Angeles, hardened in American prisons, and then deported back to the Northern Triangle.
True, the gang’s original members were (mostly unauthorized) Salvadoran immigrants who’d fled their nation’s civil war. But those immigrants arrived in California as troubled teenagers, not sadistic killers. Dara Lind offers a concise sketch of the competing theories for how some of them became the latter:
[The Salvadoran teens] faced hostility from other ethnic groups for being new, and from other young people for being long-haired mosher types, so they banded together and called themselves the Stoners — later Mara Salvatrucha, and eventually, once the gang had metastasized under the network of Southern California Latino gangs known as Sureños, MS-13.
When and why the “Stoners” became a hardened violent gang is up for debate. Avalos attributes it to repeated confrontations with other LA gangs, while journalist Ioan Grillo thinks it has more to do with the arrival of newer Salvadoran immigrants who were “hardened by the horrors” of civil war. Salvadoran journalists Carlos Martinez and Jose Luis Sanz, meanwhile, say that the gang’s story paralleled that of a lot of young men during the “tough on crime” era: They were minor delinquents stuffed into jails and prisons, where they had the time, opportunity, and incentive to become hardened criminals.
Whichever version of this story one accepts, our nation’s institutions remain implicated in the formation of MS-13. Salvadoran immigrants did not introduce the culture of street gangs to Los Angeles; L.A. introduced it to them. And, given the rates of recidivism in our criminal justice system, it is reasonable to assume that the failure of American prisons to rehabilitate these teenage immigrants (once they turned to violent crime) was not solely due to their inadequacies.
Regardless, the U.S. government bears unambiguous responsibility for MS-13’s evolution into an international menace. Despite the fact that El Salvador was ill-equipped to handle a massive influx of gang members, the U.S. deported roughly 20,000 convicts (including many MS-13 members) to that country between 2000 and 2004 — without telling the Salvadoran government which of the deportees being returned to them had criminal histories, and which did not.
Our debt to Central American migrants cannot be paid simply by reuniting them with their traumatized children.
Donald Trump does not deny that the migrants at our southern border hail from nations wracked by violence and instability (the brutality of Central American gangs is one of our president’s favorite topics of conversation). But Trump sees the Northern Triangle’s troubles as cause for turning away its refugees, not taking them in: In his understanding (or at least, in the one he projects to the public), Honduras is not violent and poor for complicated reasons of history, politics, and economics; it is violent and poor because Honduran people live there. Therefore, these migrants are not looking to escape their nations’ pathologies, but to export them; they’re not huddled masses yearning to breathe free, but virus-bearing insects yearning to “infest.”
These sentiments reek of racism. But like so many other prejudices that the powerful harbor against the powerless, they also betray a will to evade responsibility.
If the pathologies of impoverished black communities can be attributed to the cultural (and/or biological) flaws of black people, then the American government owes them little. If we acknowledge that their troubles are inextricable from centuries of discriminatory policy, by contrast, our collective obligation to improve their well-being becomes immense. And the same is true of migrant families. If we can call these people “animals,” then we need not ask what caused the barbarities they’re fleeing. But rejecting Trump’s racism requires us to ask that question — and answering it honestly requires grappling with our collective responsibility for the traumas that migrant children suffered before they ever crossed our border.
What we owe them can be debated (accepting a much greater number of them into our country, and increasing aid to their region would seem like two possibilities). But there is no doubt that we owe them much more than this.
***************************************
ESSAY:
SOLVING THE SOUTHERN BORDER: It’s Not Our Asylum Laws That Need Changing — It’s The Actions Of Our Leaders Who Administer Them That Must Change!
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
U.S. Immigration Judge (Ret.)
Contrary to what White Nationalist liars like Trump & Sessions say, our U.S. asylum laws are not the problem. The politicos who misinterpret and misapply the law and then mal-administer the asylum adjudication system are the problem.
The current asylum laws are more than flexible enough to deal efficiently, effectively, and humanely with today’s bogus, self-created “Southern Border Crisis.” It’s actually nothing more than the normal ebb and flow, largely of refugees, from the Northern Triangle.
That has more do with conditions in those countries and seasonal factors than it does with U.S. asylum law. Forced migration is an unfortunate fact of life. Always has been, and probably always will be. That is, unless and until leaders of developed nations devote more time and resources to addressing the causation factors, not just flailing ineffectively and too often inhumanely with the inevitable results.
And the reasonable solutions are readily available under today’s U.S. legal system:
Instead of sending more law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and judges to the Southern Border, send more CBP Inspectors and USCIS Asylum Officers to insure that those seeking asylum are processed promptly, courteously, respectfully, and fairly.
Take those who turn themselves in to the Border Patrol to the nearest port of entry instead of sending them to criminal court (unless, of course, they are repeat offenders or real criminals).
Release those asylum seekers who pass “credible fear” on low bonds or “alternatives to detention” (primarily ankle bracelet monitoring) which have been phenomenally successful in achieving high rates of appearance at Immigration Court hearings. They are also much more humane and cheaper than long-term immigration detention.
Work with the pro bono legal community and NGOs to insure that each asylum applicant gets a competent lawyer. Legal representation also has a demonstrated correlation to near-universal rates of appearance at Immigration Court hearings. Lawyers also insure that cases will be well-presented and fairly heard, indispensable ingredients to the efficient delivery of Due Process.
Insure that address information is complete and accurate at the time of release from custody. Also, insure that asylum applicants fully understand how the process works and their reporting obligations to the Immigration Courts and to DHS, as well as their obligation to stay in touch with their attorneys.
Allow U.S. Immigration Judges in each Immigration Court to work with ICE Counsel, NGOs, and the local legal community to develop scheduling patterns that insure applications for asylum can be filed at the “First Master” and that cases are completed on the first scheduled “Individual Merits Hearing” date.
If there is a consensus that these cases merit “priority treatment,” then the ICE prosecutor should agree to remove a “lower priority case” from the current 720,000 case backlog by exercising “prosecutorial discretion.” This will end “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and insure that the prioritization of new cases does not add to the already insurmountable backlog.
Establish a robust “in-country refugee processing program” in the Northern Triangle; fund international efforts to improve conditions in the Northern Triangle; and work cooperatively with the UNHCR and other countries in the Americas to establish and fund protection programs that distribute refugees fleeing the Northern Triangle among a number of countries. That will help reduce the flow of refugees at the source, rather than at our Southern Border. And, more important, it will do so through legal humanitarian actions, not by encouraging law enforcement officials in other countries (like Mexico) to abuse refugees and deny them humane treatment (so that we don’t have to).
My proposed system would require no legislative fixes; comply with the U.S Constitution, our statutory laws, and international laws; be consistent with existing court orders and resolve some pending legal challenges; and could be carried out with less additional personnel and expenditure of taxpayer funds than the Administration’s current “cruel, inhuman, and guaranteed to fail” “deterrence only” policy.
ADDITIONAL BENEFIT: We could also all sleep better at night, while reducing the “National Stress Level.” (And, for those interested in such things, it also would be more consistent with Matthew 25:44, the rest of Christ’s teachings, and Christian social justice theology).
As Eric Levitz says in New York Magazine, the folks arriving at our border are the ones in crisis, not us! “And those families aren’t bringing crime and lawlessness to our country — if anything, we brought such conditions to theirs.”
That warrants a much more measured, empathetic, humane, respectful, and both legally and morally justifiable approach than we have seen from our Government to date.The mechanisms for achieving that are already in our law. We just need leaders with the wisdom and moral courage to use them.
NAACP v. Trump, U.S.D.C., D.D.C., 04-24-18 (Judge John D. Bates)
Read Judge Bates’s 60 page decision invalidating the Trump Administration’s decision to “rescind” DACA and ordering the restart of the program, but delaying the order for 90 days to give the Administration a chance to come up with a legal rationale for recision:
Executive Branch officials possess relatively unconstrained authority to enforce the law against certain violators but not others. Ordinarily, the exercise of that authority is subject to review not in a court of law, but rather in the court of public opinion: members of the public know how their elected officials have used their enforcement powers, and they can hold those officials accountable by speaking out, by petitioning their representatives, or ultimately at the ballot box. When an official claims that the law requires her to exercise her enforcement authority in a certain way, however, she excuses herself from this accountability. Moreover, if her view of the law is incorrect, she may needlessly forego the opportunity to implement appropriate enforcement priorities and also to demonstrate those priorities to the public.
Fortunately, neither Supreme Court nor D.C. Circuit precedent compels such a result. Rather, the cases are clear that courts have the authority to review an agency’s interpretation of the law if it is relied on to justify an enforcement policy, even when that interpretation concerns the lawful scope of the agency’s enforcement discretion. See Chaney, 470 U.S. at 832–33; OSG, 132 F.3d at 812; Crowley, 37 F.3d at 676–77. Under this rule, an official cannot claim that the law ties her hands while at the same time denying the courts’ power to unbind her. She may escape political accountability or judicial review, but not both.
Here, the Department’s decision to rescind DACA was predicated primarily on its legal judgment that the program was unlawful. That legal judgment was virtually unexplained, however, and so it cannot support the agency’s decision. And although the government suggests that DACA’s rescission was also predicated on the Department’s assessment of litigation risk, this consideration is insufficiently distinct from the agency’s legal judgment to alter the reviewability analysis. It was also arbitrary and capricious in its own right, and thus likewise cannot support the agency’s action. For these reasons, DACA’s rescission was unlawful and must be set aside.
For the reasons given above, then, the Court will vacate the Department’s September 5, 2017 decision to rescind the DACA program. The Court will stay its order of vacatur for 90 days, however, to afford DHS an opportunity to better explain its view that DACA is unlawful. The Court will also deny the government’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, its motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ APA claims on reviewability grounds, and its motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ substantive APA claim; grant the government’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ procedural APA claim, the NAACP plaintiffs’ RFA claim, and plaintiffs’ information-sharing claim; and defer ruling on the government’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ remaining constitutional claims.
*************************************************
So, who “won” under Judge Bate’s order? The plaintiffs won a smashing victory on all the significant legal issues. And, Judge Bates appears prepared to not only halt the termination of DACA for those already approved under the program, as other courts have done, but also to order the DHS to resume accepting new applications for those who meet the DACA criteria.
On the flip side, nothing happens for the next 90 days while the DHS searches for a rationale for terminating DACA. I think that’s going to be hard to develop. But, you never know.
This case follows a disturbingly familiar pattern. Trump, Sessions, & Co. institute actions against immigrants based on bias, racism, xenophobia, and campaign promises. They are promptly rejected by the courts as illegal.
Then, the Administration goes “to the drawing board” (they never seriously considered the law in the first place) in an attempt to come up with a legal rationale (usually a fairly obvious pretext) for their original actions.
That’s why it’s so infuriating to hear an intellectually dishonest scofflaw like Jeff Sessions constantly pontificating about a “rule of law” that actually represents only his own distorted and biased view of the law — likely drawn up for him by one of the restrictionist or White Nationalist groups he likes to hang around with.
Of course, even if Judge Bates eventually rules against the Administration, there no doubt will be an appeal to the DC Circuit. But, without a further stay pending appeal (which seems unlikely given the Supreme Court’s declination to give one in other DACA litigation) DACA would be restarted while the case is working its way through the lower courts, perhaps to the Supremes.
The Administration could easily have avoided this mess by agreeing to a “clean” DACA bill. They likely could even have gotten some “Wall” funding and other enforcement enhancements (short of more unneeded agents or more inhumane and unnecessary detention) thrown in with the deal. But, Trump blew the chance.
So now the fate of DACA is likely to be tied up in the Federal Courts for the indefinite future.
The Supreme Court’s final oral argument of the term will be one of its most important and potentially far-reaching, an examination of the president’s authority to protect the country by banning some foreigners who seek entry.
But, similar to a debate that has consumed Washington for the past 15 months, a major issue for the court is separating “the president” from “this president.”
The justices on Wednesday will consider President Trump’s third iteration of a travel ban that bars most nationals from a small group of mostly Muslim nations. It is the first time the court has considered the merits of a policy that has consumed the administration since its start, and raises deep questions about the judiciary’s role in national security issues usually left to the political branches.
The first version of the ban was issued just a week after Trump took office, and lower courts have found that it and each reformulated version since exceeded the authority granted by Congress and was motivated by Trump’s prejudice — animus, as courts like to say — toward Muslims.
The state of Hawaii, which is leading the challenge of the ban, told the Supreme Court:
“For over a year, the president campaigned on the pledge, never retracted, that he would ban Muslims from entering the United States.
“And upon taking office, the president issued and reissued, and reissued again, a sweeping and unilateral order that purports to bar over 150 million aliens — the vast majority of them Muslim — from entering the United States.”
Hawaii’s brief, by Washington lawyer Neal K. Katyal, cites not only Trump’s campaign comments, but also his actions as president, including the time he retweeted “three anti-Muslim propaganda videos” from a widely condemned far-right British organization.
This led to a response by the solicitor general of the United States to the justices of the Supreme Court that could have been written only in this era, about this chief executive:
“The president’s retweets do not address the meaning of the proclamation at all.”
Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco urged the court not to get distracted by the president’s bluster — he has said nice things about Muslims, too, the brief states — and to keep its examination on the law.
*************************
Read Barnes’s full article at the link.
Trump has never shown any actual justification for the “bogus ban.” But, the standard of “facially bona fide and legitimate” is very permissive. As usual, from a legal standpoint, Trump would have done better to have kept his big mouth shut!
“I answered them that it was not Roman practice to hand over an accused person before he has faced his accusers and had the opportunity to defend himself against their charge.”
Starting in the summer of 2014, the United States began experiencing an unprecedented influx of Central American families who were fleeing violence and seeking humanitarian assistance and safety. Most of these families were from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. In response, the Obama Administration ordered immigration judges to rapidly adjudicate these cases, often at the cost of
due process. Large numbers of families, unable to obtain legal representation and navigate a complex immigration system, were deported by the federal government, often back to the violence they had fled. Essential to the government’s efforts was the use of in absentia removal orders issued to families upon their missing an immigration court hearing.
In response to the unmet legal needs of this population, the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project
(ASAP) at the Urban Justice Center and the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC) began representing families ordered removed in absentia. In almost every case, ASAP and CLINIC successfully challenged the underlying in absentia order and reopened the case. Concurrently, through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, these organizations obtained previously unreleased immigration court data that reveal key metrics regarding legal representation rates and the use of in absentia removals. Client interviews and data from the FOIA together reveal a startling trend—the government ordered the removal of high numbers of unrepresented families through in absentia orders despite many of those families having passed a credible fear interview with an asylum officer.
This report highlights the high rate of unrepresented families, discusses the obstacles families face in attending their hearings, explains how the immigration system fails families seeking asylum, and provides policy recommendations for how the Administration and Congress can address these shortcomings.
The findings in this report are based on an analysis of the FOIA results regarding representation and removal of 29,808 families from July 2014 to November 2016, as well as the results of the 46 cases in which ASAP and CLINIC provided representation. These findings include the following:
• 22,270 asylum applicants, or 75 percent of the 29,808 families who entered the United States between July 2014 and November 2016, did not have legal representation.
• In 24,862 cases, or 83 percent of the 29,808 families, an immigration judge ordered a family removed. Of those ordered removed, in 21,041 cases, or 85 percent, the order was issued in absentia, i.e. the judge entered the order without the presence of a parent in the court room. Thus, immigration judges ordered the families removed without their having presented their claims for asylum or other defenses to removal.
ASAP and CLINIC successfully challenged the in absentia orders of 44 of their 46 clients (96 percent), with either an immigration judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) agreeing to rescind the in absentia order and reopen the case.
Contrary to the narrative that families purposely abscond from immigration court, ASAP and CLINIC’s clients all had legitimate reasons for being unable to attend their hearings, including lack of notice, incorrect government information, serious medical problems, language barriers,
and severe trauma or disabilities. Importantly, ASAP and CLINIC’s clients represented nationals from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras who had received removal orders from 15 different immigration courts. Most of these families were alerted to their removal orders by prior pro bono counsel who represented them while they were in detention, and who then connected them with ASAP and CLINIC’s services. The other families sought general information about asylum from ASAP and CLINIC, leading them to realize they had missed a hearing. Once families became aware of their in absentia removal orders, they overwhelmingly sought to reopen their cases to seek asylum.
ASAP and CLINIC’s high success rate suggests the federal government is deporting large numbers of families without providing them a fair opportunity to plead their cases in immigration court.While ASAP and CLINIC’s data runs through the end of the Obama Administration, in absentia removal orders continue to be issued in immigration courts throughout the country.In order to limit the deportation of families with strong asylum claims and other avenues for immigration relief, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and Congress should implement a variety of legislative and administrative changes that would remedy many of the problems identified in this report. These much-needed changes include improving communication between agencies, providing clearer guidance to families, and updating existing immigration court and enforcement practices.
*****************************************
This report’s findings certainly match my experience in the Arlington Immigration Court that:
The “no-show” rate for represented asylum seekers was pretty close to 0%.
More than 95% of “in absentia” orders for juveniles eventually were reopened, usually because of defective notice by DHS and/or EOIR.
Almost no unrepresented individuals understood the difference between the “DHS Check-In on Prosperity Avenue” and appearance at the Arlington Immigration Court in Crystal City. Clearly, it had never been explained to them in understandable fashion upon release from custody.
I also have no doubt that the very achievable recommendations for improvements in this report could be accomplished at a fraction of the cost of today’s cruel, ineffective, policies of militarizing the border, building the “New American Gulag,” prosecuting asylum seekers as criminals, and attempting to curtail important legal and Constitutional rights.
A panel of three judges, each appointed by a Republican president to the federal appeals court in Chicago, ruled unanimously on Thursday against President Trump’s effort to withhold money from “sanctuary cities.”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit upheld a nationwide injunction that blocks the Justice Department from using “the sword of federal funding to conscript state and local authorities to aid in federal civil immigration enforcement.”
Trump’s latest courtroom defeat offers yet another civics lesson about checks and balances for the first president in American history who lacks any prior governing or military experience. Unlike congressional Republicans who have by and large kowtowed and capitulated to Trumpism, despite private uneasiness and grumbling in many cases, Republican-appointed judges are free not to care about the wrath of the president or blowback from his loyalists. This gives them the breathing room to worry more about the rule of law than partisanship. That was the point of an independent judiciary and giving lifetime appointments. It’s how the Constitution is supposed to work.
Judge Ilana Rovner, who was appointed to a district judgeship by Ronald Reagan and elevated to the circuit by George H.W. Bush, offers a remarkable rebuke of the Trump administration in a 35-page opinion that can be read as a tutorial on the separation of powers. She even throws around words like “tyranny” that you don’t often see in opinions of this nature:
“Our role in this case is not to assess the optimal immigration policies for our country,” she writes. “Rather, the issue before us strikes at one of the bedrock principles of our nation, the protection of which transcends political party affiliation and rests at the heart of our system of government …
“The founders of our country well understood that the concentration of power threatens individual liberty and established a bulwark against such tyranny by creating a separation of powers among the branches of government. If the Executive Branch can determine policy, and then use the power of the purse to mandate compliance with that policy by the state and local governments, all without the authorization or even acquiescence of elected legislators, that check against tyranny is forsaken …
“Congress repeatedly refused to approve of measures that would tie funding to state and local immigration policies. Nor … did Congress authorize the Attorney General to impose such conditions. It falls to us, the judiciary, as the remaining branch of the government, to act as a check on such usurpation of power. We are a country that jealously guards the separation of powers, and we must be ever‐vigilant in that endeavor.”
Rovner, 79, and her parents fled Latvia, and the Nazis, when she was an infant. She lost family members in the Holocaust. She often says that she decided to become a lawyer to stop anything like that genocide from happening again. Displayed in her chambers are the green card she was issued when she arrived in America in 1939 and her mother’s passport. “These are the things that saved my life,” she told the Chicago Tribune for a 2011 profile.
Her scathing opinion was joined by Judge William Bauer, who was appointed by Gerald Ford. Judge Daniel Manion, who Reagan put on the bench, wrote a concurrence saying he would have narrowed the injunction to protect only Chicago, rather than keeping it national.
The injunction was ordered last September by District Judge Harry Leinenweber, who was also appointed by Reagan.
2:02
Sessions in 2017: ‘Sanctuary’ cities lead to crime
Attorney General Jeff Sessions criticized Chicago’s sanctuary city policy while speaking in Miami on Aug. 16, 2017.(Reuters)
Attorney General Jeff Sessions has tried to require that cities give federal immigration agents access to undocumented immigrants who are in their jails in order to get certain public safety grants. This effort has already been blocked in separate lawsuits by federal judges in California and Pennsylvania. The judge who blocked the administration from holding back money from Philadelphia, Michael Baylson, was appointed by George W. Bush and wrote an unusually long 128-page ruling against the administration in November.
The 7th Circuit opinion yesterday complains that the term sanctuary cities “is commonly misunderstood” and “a red herring.” Contrary to popular understanding, the judges explain, “the federal government can and does freely operate in ‘sanctuary’ localities.”
— The Justice Department quickly criticized the ruling, saying the administration continues to believe it has the power to attach strings to money appropriated by Congress and complaining that courts keep issuing broad injunctions that thwart Trump. “Many in the legal community have expressed concern that the use of nationwide injunctions is inconsistent with the separation of powers, and that their increased use creates a dangerous precedent,” DOJ spokesman Devin O’Malley said in a statement. “We will continue to fight to carry out the department’s commitment to the rule of law, protecting public safety, and keeping criminal aliens off the streets to further perpetrate crimes.”
— Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel held an afternoon news conference to blast Trump as petty for refusing to hand over the grant money while the case continues to play out in the courts. “The Trump Justice Department could actually say ‘OK, we’re going to go forward with these grants, and let’s fight the case out in court,’” said the Democrat, who was Barack Obama’s first White House chief of staff. “But they refuse to give municipalities like Chicago and other cities around the country the resources to fight crime and gun violence, because they think fighting us on the principle of being a sanctuary, welcoming city, is more important than helping the police departments get the technology they need to do a better job in public safety.”
1:00
Supreme Court restricts deportations of immigrant felons
The Supreme Court ruled on April 17 that an immigration statute requiring the deportation of noncitizens who commit felonies is unlawfully vague.(Reuters)
— This is just the latest legal setback for Trump when it comes to his far-reaching immigration agenda.
On Tuesday, Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the Supreme Court’s four liberal members to strike down part of a federal law used to deport noncitizens who commit felonies on the grounds that it was unconstitutionally vague. The 5-to-4 decision could limit the government’s ability to deport people with criminal records, a Trump priority.
“Vague laws invite arbitrary power,” Gorsuch wrote in a concurring opinion. “Today’s vague laws … can invite the exercise of arbitrary power all the same — by leaving the people in the dark about what the law demands and allowing prosecutors and courts to make it up.”
“For the conservative Gorsuch to align with the liberals might seem a surprise, but his vote was in keeping with questions he asked during oral argument in October. And he was in part following in the footsteps of the justice he replaced, the late Antonin Scalia,” explains Supreme Court beat reporter Robert Barnes. “In 2015, Scalia wrote the court’s decision in Johnson v. United States, which struck down a similarly vague description of violent felony in the Armed Career Criminal Act.”
— Trump is incensed about Gorsuch’s vote. Administration officials say the president has been complaining to them that the justice “had proved too liberal in recent cases,” Robert Costa, Josh Dawsey and Rosalind S. Helderman report. “Associates … said it renewed his doubts that Gorsuch would be a reliable conservative. One top Trump adviser played down the comments as unhappiness with Gorsuch’s decision rather than with Gorsuch broadly.”
— In February, the Supreme Court rejected Trump’s request to immediately review the lower court decisions that prevent him from ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA). Getting cert. would have only taken four votes, which means at least one GOP appointee opposed the administration’s request. The litigation over the fate of the “dreamers” will now follow the normal process, winding through the circuit courts.
1:35
President-elect Donald Trump pledged to end “sanctuary cities” while campaigning for the White House. Washington, D.C., is one such city.(Claritza Jimenez/The Washington Post)
— The courts have proved vexing for Trump since his first days in office. District Judge James Robart in Washington state, who was nominated by George W. Bush in 2004, halted the president’s first travel ban, which blocked citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the United States.
“The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!” Trump tweeted angrily.
But it wasn’t. A three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit, which included another Bush 43 nominee, unanimously agreed. The administration withdrew the ban and issued another watered-down version.
— Barack Obama also lost cases in the courts, including on immigration. But he typically failed before conservative judges who had been appointed by Republicans more than judges appointed by his Democratic predecessors. The Harvard-educated former constitutional law professor had a much better record. To be sure, most judges appointed by Republicans are still siding with the administration most of the time. And Trump is remaking the judicial branch by appointing nominees who share his worldview.
*********************************
We should remember that it actually was GOP appointees like Judge Richard Posner of the 7th Circuit and Chief Judge John Walker of the 2nd Circuit (a cousin of President George W. Bush) who led the “Charge of Judicial Outrage” that eventually shut down the “assembly line removal system” set up by Ashcroft following his infamous “BIA Purge.”
Trump and Sessions lose another sanctuary cities case
By: Tal Kopan, CNN
A federal appeals court struck another blow Thursday to the Trump administration’s efforts to pressure sanctuary cities, upholding a court order preventing the Justice Department from imposing conditions on grants to cities.
The three-judge panel from the 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s decision blocking the Justice Department from adding new conditions on policing grants that had required some cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
The ruling makes it the latest federal court, along with courts in California and Philadelphia, to restrict what the administration can try to do to pressure jurisdictions that restrict some cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
It comes as President Donald Trump has been targeting his fury on Twitter at sanctuary cities, which administration officials accuse of jeopardizing public safety.
The judges sided with the city of Chicago in the case, which had challenged Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ July effort to condition the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program on two new requirements: allowing federal immigration authorities access to local detention facilities and providing the Department of Homeland Security with at least 48 hours’ notice before local officials release an undocumented immigrant wanted by federal authorities.
The administration has been aggressive in asking cities to comply with those requests, but a number of cities and police chiefs around the country argue that cooperating in that way could jeopardize the trust police need to have with local communities, and in some cases could place departments in legal gray areas.
Like the district judge, the appellate judges found that Chicago was likely to succeed in its case that such conditions would be a violation of the Constitution and law, as Congress did not authorize those conditions when it created the grants.
The judge who wrote the opinion called the attorney general’s move a “usurpation of power.”
President Trump issued a memorandum on Friday directing his administration to move quickly to bring an end to “catch and release,” the practice by which immigrants presenting themselves at the border without authorization are released from detention while waiting for their cases to be processed.
The directive does not, on its own, toughen immigration policy or take concrete steps to do so; it merely directs officials to report to the president about steps they are taking to “expeditiously end ‘catch and release’ practices.” But it is a symbolic move by Mr. Trump to use his executive action to solve a problem that he has bitterly complained Congress will not.
It also caps a week that began with the president offering tough talk on immigration and ended with his ordering the National Guard to patrol the southwestern border, a move formalized on Friday night when Defense Secretary Jim Mattis signed orders to deploy up to 4,000 troops.
“The safety and security of the American people is the president’s highest priority, and he will keep his promise to protect our country and to ensure that our laws are respected,” Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, said in a statement announcing the memorandum.
“At the same time, the president continues to call on congressional Democrats to cease their staunch opposition to border security and to stop blocking measures that are vital to the safety and security of the United States,” she added.
The memo appears intended to prod the administration to move more rapidly in cracking down on unauthorized immigrants at the border, a goal laid out in an executive order Mr. Trump issued last year during his first week in office.
The latest directive instructs the Departments of Homeland Security, Defense, Justice and Health and Human Services to report to the president within 45 days on their efforts to ensure that those immigrants are detained, including steps taken to allocate money to build detention facilities near the borders. The agencies must also detail efforts to ensure unauthorized entrants do not “exploit” parole and asylum laws to stay in the United States, including evaluating how they determine whether migrants have “credible fear” of returning to their country of origin — the legal bar that people claiming asylum must meet to avoid prompt removal.
The memo also orders a list of existing facilities, including military sites, that could be used to detain those violating immigration law, and detailed statistics on credible claims of fear and how they have been processed since 2009.
The directive gives officials 75 days to report to Mr. Trump on additional resources or authorities they need to end catch-and-release practices. And within 60 days, it asks the secretaries of state and homeland security to submit a report on actions they are taking against countries that “refuse to expeditiously accept the repatriation of their nationals,” including whether the United States has punished them by refusing to grant visas to their citizens — and if not, why not.
****************************************
The Trump Administration already stands credibly accused in at least one pending court case of violating its legal duty to consider asylum claims by individuals who apply at ports of entry on the Southern Border. Obviously, such legal violations by our Government promote illegal entry as the only way to vindicate statutory rights. Trump’s outrageous creation of a “false crisis” at the Southern Border should prompt the Article III Federal Courts to enjoin the Administration to comply with the asylum law.
Moreover, further attempts to manipulate the “credible fear” criteria against asylum seekers should also lead to Federal Court review and action against the Administration if, as appears likely, it uses biased criteria to deny the legal right of individuals in the U.S. or at the border to apply for asylum.
Moreover, asylum applicants who are “in the United States” whether legally or illegally and are in Removal Proceedings are entitled to an individualized bond consideration (unless they are serious criminals or security risks — the overwhelming number of asylum applicants are neither). Attempts to manipulate bond criteria (which have been undertaken to some extent by the last three Administrations) have almost uniformly been rejected by the Article III Federal Courts.
Therefore, the Administration’s legal options might be limited. However, the Administration arguably might have authority under current law to detain asylum applicants who arrive at ports of entry without providing any rational reasons for doing so. That’s likely to be a hotly contested issue in litigation.
Meanwhile, it’s critically important for those of us who support American values and see through the charade being put on by the Trump Administration to elect only U.S. Senators and Representatives who will “Just Say No” to the Administration’s bogus requests for: 1) more unneeded DHS enforcement personnel; and 2) more unneeded detention space in the “New American Gulag” being created by Trump and his White Nationalist reactionaries.
Harm to the most vulnerable is harm to all of us! Join the New Due Process Army and resist the Trump Administration’s contrived assault on America! Due Process Forever! Trump & Sessions Never!
Philip Rucker and David Weigel report for the Washington Post:
PALM BEACH, Fla. — President Trump spent his Easter morning here on an anti-immigrant tirade, declaring Sunday that there would be no deal to legalize the status of undocumented immigrants known as “dreamers” and threatening to exit the North American Free Trade Agreement unless Mexico increases border security.
Trump thrust the future of millions of undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children into peril by promising “NO MORE DACA DEAL,” and he directed congressional Republicans to pass tough anti-immigration legislation.
An hour after he wished Americans a “HAPPY EASTER,” Trump fired off three tweets in which he vented, sometimes in all caps, about immigration laws he derided as “ridiculous” and “dumb” and about border enforcement he deemed dangerously lax.
In his first of the immigration-related tweets, Trump wrote, “Border Patrol Agents are not allowed to properly do their job at the Border because of ridiculous liberal (Democrat) laws like Catch & Release. Getting more dangerous. ‘Caravans’ coming. Republicans must go to Nuclear Option to pass tough laws NOW. NO MORE DACA DEAL!”
It was Trump who last fall canceled the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which was begun in the Obama administration to provide temporary protection to dreamers.
“A lot of people are coming in because they want to take advantage of DACA,” Trump told the traveling press pool. “They had a great chance. The Democrats blew it.”
The president added, “Mexico has got to help us at the border. . . . They flow right through Mexico; they send them into the United States. It can’t happen that way anymore.”
President Trump’s position on DACA has taken several twists and turns over the years.(Meg Kelly, Claritza Jimenez/The Washington Post)
Trump in the past has promised to show “great heart” in dealing with DACA. In his comments Sunday, he appeared to be confused about the rules of the program. To qualify, immigrants must have lived in the United States since 2007, have arrived in the country before age 16 and have been younger than 31 on June 15, 2012. No one arriving in the country after that date is eligible.
After canceling DACA, Trump said he would like to reach a deal with Congress to protect dreamers from deportation in exchange for funding to build his long-promised wall at the U.S.-Mexico border. The president, however, went on to reject immigration proposals from congressional Democrats in recent months.
“Catch and release” is not a law, but shorthand for immigration officials freeing up detention center space by allowing immigrants to remain at large if they are not seen as security risks. The Trump administration has frequently claimed that the policy ended when the new president took office.
But detention centers have continued releasing low-risk immigrants, as the backlog of immigration court cases reaches the hundreds of thousands. On March 5, Attorney General Jeff Sessions informed immigration court judges that they could rule against asylum seekers without full hearings, which conservatives see as a way, in the long term, to open more space in detention centers.
Trump — who has spent his time in Palm Beach hanging out with family, playing golf with friends and watching television — may have tweeted in response to commentary on Fox News Channel, which he is known to view regularly.
“Fox & Friends” aired a segment earlier on Sunday morning about Central American migrants traveling through Mexico en route to the United States. It carried the headline: “CARAVAN OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS HEADED TO U.S.”
Trump’s Sunday comments may have been mere musings by an impassioned “Fox & Friends” viewer and may not signal a substantive shift in administration policies. Still, White House officials have long said Trump’s tweets are official presidential statements, and he has been known to use Twitter to preview formal policy pronouncements.
Trump sent his tweets on the fourth and final day of his vacation in Palm Beach, Fla., where he has been staying at his private Mar-a-Lago Club with a small coterie of aides. White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly did not travel with him, but senior policy adviser Stephen Miller, a proponent of hard-line immigration policies, has been with Trump.
The president also has been spotted spending time — both over dinner Friday at Mar-a-Lago and on Saturday at the nearby Trump International Golf Club — with Fox host Sean Hannity. An outspoken immigration hard-liner, Hannity is a Trump booster and informal presidential adviser, in addition to hosting a radio show and prime-time Fox show.
Trump’s tweets baffled some Democrats, who had seen the president distinguish between DACA recipients and other immigrants who are in the country illegally.
“Time and time again, the president has walked away from bipartisan proposals that are exactly what he asked for,” said Drew Hammill, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). “When an agreement to protect the Dreamers is reached, it will be despite this president rather than with his leadership.”
Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) said on Twitter that Trump had once again revealed a racial animus behind his immigration policy. “The mask of deceptions and lies with which Trump has tried to gaslight the country for months just fell away: ‘no more DACA deal.’ ” Beyer tweeted. “His true position was always anti-immigrant.”
Rep. Luis V. Gutiérrez (D-Ill.), a leading advocate for a DACA deal in the House, tweeted that Trump had “demonstrated his complete ignorance” on immigration policy.
“Everyone who qualifies for DACA must show they lived in US almost 11 years ago,” he wrote. “Apparently every day is April Fool’s Day at White House.”
Conservative reaction to the tweets was relatively muted, and no Republican member of Congress had a comment or statement Sunday afternoon. At Breitbart, the tweets were reported as Trump refusing to “negotiate a deal between the GOP establishment and Democrats,” in “a return to his ‘America First’ immigration agenda.”
On Facebook, the conservative author Ann Coulter, who had condemned Trump for not securing border wall funding so far this year, urged the president to show and not tell.
“Try to get a message to the commander in chief for that wall,” she wrote.
But some Republicans joined the chorus of criticism. Ohio Gov. John Kasich, a GOP primary opponent of Trump in 2016 and possibly again in 2020, tweeted in response: “A true leader preserves & offers hope, doesn’t take hope from innocent children who call America home. Remember, today is Easter Sunday. #DACA #Hope”
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), a supporter of immigration reform who represents Miami and is retiring this year, took a sarcastic approach: “Such a strong message of love and new beginnings from @realDonaldTrump on Easter Sunday.”
By calling for Republicans to use the “Nuclear Option” to pass tough immigration measures, Trump seemed to urge a parliamentary procedure by which Senate Republicans could pass legislation with a simple majority of 51 votes as opposed to the 60-vote majority required to end debate and bring a vote to the floor.
But in mid-February, just 36 of the Senate’s 51 Republicans backed an immigration bill that mirrored White House demands. Congressional negotiations on DACA stalled just weeks later, when the Supreme Court upheld a decision that prevented the Trump administration from denying new program renewals.
The court’s move effectively nixed a March 6 deadline that the administration had set for ending DACA. Before leaving for Easter recess, Congress passed an omnibus spending bill with no DACA fix, even though advocates saw that as the best must-pass vehicle for one.
Trump lashed out at Mexico in his second of the three tweets Sunday. He threatened to “stop” NAFTA unless Mexican authorities do more to secure the border with the United States.
Trump wrote: “Mexico is doing very little, if not NOTHING, at stopping people from flowing into Mexico through their Southern Border, and then into the U.S. They laugh at our dumb immigration laws. They must stop the big drug and people flows, or I will stop their cash cow, NAFTA. NEED WALL!”
And in the third tweet, the president wrote, “These big flows of people are all trying to take advantage of DACA. They want in on the act!”
Trump’s tweets come amid tense negotiations over NAFTA between his administration and that of Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto. A call between the two men in February became testy after Trump refused to publicly affirm Peña Nieto’s position that Mexico will not pay for the wall’s construction, leading the Mexican leader to cancel a planned visit to Washington.
Philip Rucker is the White House bureau chief for The Washington Post. He previously has covered Congress, the Obama White House, and the 2012 and 2016 presidential campaigns. He joined The Post in 2005 as a local news reporter.
David Weigel is a national political correspondent covering Congress and grass-roots political movements. He is the author of “The Show That Never Ends,” a history of progressive rock music.
DACA obviously has nothing to do with any “exodus” now on the way. Rather, those arriving appear to be mostly refugees from the Northern Triangle — primarily scared women and children. And, they are being driven north not by DACA, but by unrelenting persecution and violence by gangs fueled by the Trump Administration’s own wrongheaded and tone-deaf policies. Sometimes, folks reap what they sow!
Most of the new arrivals probably can establish a legal right to refuge under the law. That’s why Sessions is so anxious to manipulate and “game” the existing asylum system against them. But, that move is likely to be tied up in the Federal Courts, perhaps for decades and with a good chance of grinding the entire immigration enforcement system to a halt.
The “Con-Man-In -Chief” seems to have forgotten that his “enforcement overload legislative proposal” failed miserably in the Senate — garnering only 40 votes. Even if the Senate were to change the “60 vote rule” — something which neither party seems inclined to do — it’s virtually impossible that Trump would be able to round up the necessary 11 additional votes for his “mega enforcement only” program. His problem is that his proposals have offended enough members of the GOP that they are basically DOA in the Senate.
While “The Wall” likely would have little impact on either immigration or drugs, fact is that Trump could have gotten “His Wall” in exchange for relief for the Dreamers. He just was too biased or inept (or both) to close the deal.
Trump has already claimed to have eliminated the inaptly named “catch and release” program. If there is a problem now, it’s with his own policies. Moreover, to the extent that releasing aliens on bond is a function of their being determined to be neither dangers to the community nor flight risks, that appears to be constitutionally required. Trump and the GOP can fume all they want, but they can’t eliminate the US Constitution.
Trump now appears to be backing away of his premature claim that his “get tough rhetoric and policies on immigration enforcement” had single-handedly closed down exgtra-legal migration. Human migration is driven by forces far more powerful than Donald Trump.
Mexico has been known to use some methods that violate human rights to enforce migration restrictions. Encouraging them to do that puts Trump and his buddies squarely on the side of human rights violators. On a more practical note, even assuming that there were legal measures that Mexico could take to stem the flow of northward bound migrants, Trump’s disparaging and inflammatory rhetoric has done little to encourage such action on the part of the Mexican Government. And using NAFTA to threaten Mexico is hardly likely to increase Mexico’s inclination to help.
As a country that imports more than it exports, we need NAFTA more than Mexico does. If the US wants to “dis” one of its primary trading partners, I have little doubt that countries like China, the EU, Canada, and even India will be happy to step in and fill the void. I imagine that the Chinese would love to stick some factories just south of the Mexico-US border, for all sorts of reasons.
Trump’s mean-spirited and idiotic approach to immigration, as well as his inappropriate and unhinged tweets, are a continuing embarrassment to our country and create real questions as to both his intelligence and his mental stability.
A federal judge issued a nationwide order temporarily preventing the government from blocking access to abortion services and counseling for teens detained in immigration custody, saying current administration policy and practices probably are unconstitutional.
The order came in a case brought last fall on behalf of a Central American girl in a government-funded shelter that set off a national debate over the constitutional rights of such undocumented teens to terminate their pregnancies.
The late Friday ruling, by U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan of Washington, allowed the case to proceed as a class action on behalf of any other teens who have crossed the border illegally and while in federal custody may want to seek abortion services. In filings, the U.S. government acknowledged there were at least 420 pregnant unaccompanied minors in custody in 2017, including 18 who requested abortions.
The Trump administration has refused to “facilitate” such procedures for pregnant teenagers traveling alone on the grounds that they had the option to voluntarily return to their home countries or to find private sponsors in the United States to assist them in obtaining procedures.
The policy position marked a departure from that of the Obama administration, whose Office of Refugee Resettlement did not block immigrants in U.S. custody from having abortions at their own expense, and paid for services for teens in cases of rape, incest or a threat to the woman’s life.
In her 28-page opinion, Chutkan, a 2014 Obama appointee, said the change in policy posed irreparable harm to pregnant teens, writing that “ORR’s absolute veto nullifies a UC’s right to make her own reproductive choices,” referring to unaccompanied children.
“The court concludes that ORR’s policies and practices infringe on female UC’s constitutional rights by effectively prohibiting them from ‘making the ultimate decision’ on whether or not to continue their pregnancy prior to viability — a quintessential undue burden,” the judge wrote.
A Justice Department spokesman did not immediately comment on the ruling.
The American Civil Liberties Union, representing the teens, expressed relief at the court action.
“The Trump administration’s cruel policy of blocking young immigrant women in federal custody from accessing abortion is a blatant abuse of power,” Brigitte Amiri, deputy director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, said in a statement. “With today’s rulings, we are one step closer to ending this extreme policy once and for all and securing justice for all of these young women.”
In all, four pregnant teens in custody have asked Chutkan to force the administration to stop blocking access to abortion services. The initial case involving the teen in Texas is still pending in the Supreme Court after the Justice Department took the unusual step of asking the justices to consider disciplining the teen’s lawyers.
Abortion rights advocates and some Democrats in Congress have called for the firing of E. Scott Lloyd, the head of the refugee resettlement office within the Department of Health and Human Services. Court records show that Lloyd has personally intervened to try to block abortion services.
*****************************************
Read the full article at the above link.
Hard to figure out why guys like E. Scott Lloyd and Jeff Sessions shouldn’t be both 1) fired, and 2) held personally liable under Bivens for knowing and intentional violations of constitutional rights.
Joshua Matz is a constitutional lawyer based in the District. He is also the publisher of the legal analysis blog Take Care.
President Trump is hard at work making animus the law of the land. Justice Department lawyers revealed his latest effort Friday night, announcing a revised plan to exclude nearly all transgender soldiers from the armed forces.
As many commentators haveobserved, the reasoning offered to support Trump’s policy is riddled with empirical errors and anti-trans stereotypes. It comes nowhere close to disproving the comprehensive study in 2016 that recommended allowing transgender people to serve openly. Like so many other missives from this White House, it makes only a token effort to conceal the disdain and disgust that underlie it.
Trump’s original “transgender ban” was blocked byfourfederal courts. After two of those rulings were affirmed on appeal, the administration decided against seeking Supreme Court review. It’s therefore safe to assume that Trump’s latest order will not go into effect unless it survives constitutional challenges.
And in thinking about that litigation, it’s hard to escape a feeling of deja vu. A little more than 14 months into Trump’s presidency, a pattern has emerged in cases challenging some of his most despicable decisions.
. . . .
It remains to be seen when and where these arguments will succeed. As a logical matter, there must be some limits. Evidence that Trump originally acted with impermissible motives cannot (and should not) permanently preclude him from making policy.
But that isn’t the situation we confront. Trump has made no effort whatsoever to dispel or deny the aura of animus that envelops so many of his orders. To the contrary, he and his advisers have leaned into the hate. With each passing day, it spreads like a poison.
We thus live in a strange new world, where bigots serve openly and soldiers are forced into closets.
********************************************
Go on over to the WashPost at the link for the complete article.
The problem, as noted by Matz, is that our system isn’t designed to deal with unremitting hate and bias from it’s most active, and supposedly most responsible, litigant, the U.S. Government. Usually, after a few “warning shots across the bow,” the Executive gets the picture and changes strategies.
But, led by White Nationalists like Trump and Sessions, this Administration simply “doubles down” on thinly disguised hate and bias motivated policies. At some point, the Article III courts are likely to become both frustrated and exhausted. By continuing to “knock down” bias-based policies and actions, the Article IIIs become part of the political fray, which makes them uncomfortable. Perhaps at that point, they will just start giving Trump & Co. “free passes.” Indeed, some Federal Courts, including perhaps the Supremes, already appear prepared to “punt” on the daily dose of legally questionable and indecent legal positions spewed forth by this Administration.
“Washington (CNN)Gold Star father Khizr Khan wrote a personal appeal to the Supreme Court on Friday to strike down President Donald Trump’s travel ban, using his family’s story to argue the ban is unconstitutional and “desecrates” his son’s sacrifice.
Known for his impassioned speech at the 2016 Democratic National Convention, Khan is a lawyer and the father of Capt. Humayun Khan, an Army captain who was killed when he moved to stop a car containing suicide bombers headed toward his base in Iraq, for which he was posthumously awarded the Bronze Star.
Originally from Pakistan and a Muslim, Khan filed the legal brief on Friday because, in his view, Trump’s travel ban “not only desecrates Humayun Khan’s service and sacrifice as a Muslim- American officer in the United States Army, but also violates Khizr Khan’s own constitutional rights,” his attorney wrote in the brief.
The brief also notes Trump’s comments on the campaign trail that he wanted to institute a “Muslim ban,” a key component of critics’ arguments that the administration’s travel ban is a thinly veiled attempt to target Muslims.
“The taint of discrimination has not been washed away,” the brief argues, saying the latest travel ban and its predecessors all flow from that original idea.
“The message is that Muslims are unwelcome outsiders,” it continues. “And that message has been received loud and clear — not only by Muslims like Mr. Khan, but by those who have been denigrating and attacking Muslims with increasing frequency and vehemence since President Trump called for, and then began trying to implement, his unconstitutional Muslim Ban.”
“The message is that Muslims are outsiders, regardless of the depth of their devotion to the Constitution, and despite paying the ultimate price to defend it. That message is painfully clear to Mr. Khan,” the brief states.
Khan’s attorney, Dan Jackson, said the Gold Star father felt compelled to weigh in because of the impact of the travel ban on his son’s legacy, and added Khan has a “fierce devotion” to the Constitution.”
*********************************
Go on over to CNN at the link to read Tal’s complete article.
The rich irony here is that the individuals who “designed” the “travel ban” — Trump, Sessions, Miller — have shown a total disdain for our Constitution. Time and time again, they have failed in their duty to protect the rights of everyone in America, regardless of race, religion, gender, or status. What kind of country disrespects the memory of those who have died in its defense while allowing itself to be governed by biased, morally bankrupt, intellectually dishonest individuals who reject the very notion of a Constitutional republic?
LAST FRIDAY night, a 7-year-old Congolese girl was reunited with her mother in Chicago, four months after immigration agents of the Department of Homeland Security separated them for no defensible reason. When the little girl, known in court filings as S.S., was delivered by a case worker to her mom, the two collapsed to the floor, clutching each other and sobbing. According to the mother’s lawyer, who was in the room, S.S., overwhelmed, cried for the longest time.
That sounds like a happy ending to a horrific story. In fact, according to immigrant advocates, such separations are happening with increasingly frequency — with no credible justification.
In the case of S.S. and her mother, known in court filings as Ms. L., the trauma visited on a little girl — wrenched from her mother, who was detained in San Diego, and flown nearly 2,000 miles to Chicago — was gratuitous. A U.S. official who interviewed Ms. L. after she crossed the border into California determined she had a reasonable asylum claim based on fear for her life in her native Congo. Despite that, mother and daughter were torn apart on the say-so of an immigration agent, and without explanation.
Read These Comments newsletter
The best conversations on The Washington Post
A DHS spokesman, Tyler Houlton , says separating children from their parents is justified when paternity or maternity is in doubt, or when it is in a child’s best interest. However, in court filings, officials present no cause for doubt about Ms. L.’s maternity, nor evidence that it was in S.S.’s “best interest” to be taken from her mother last November, when she was 6 years old.
Rather, in court filings, an official from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a DHS agency, lists some documentary discrepancies on Ms. L.’s part, in which officials in Angola, Panama and Colombia recorded different versions of her name. Never mind the translation problems she may have encountered in Latin America as a speaker of Lingala, a language spoken only in central Africa.
Even if Ms. L. fudged her identity, how would that justify taking away her child? And if there were doubts about Ms. L.’s maternity, why didn’t ICE request a DNA test at the outset, before sundering mother and child? When a DNA test was finally done — four months later — it immediately established Ms. L.’s maternity.
Immigrant advocates say DHS has separated children from immigrant parents scores of times in recent months, perhaps to deter other asylum seekers by trying to convince them the United States is even more cruel than their native countries. Officials at DHS have floated that idea publicly in the past year. They insist it is not their policy. However, they also have declined to provide statistics showing the frequency of separations.
Responding to a class-action lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of parents separated from their children, ICE insists it has done nothing so outrageous that it “shocks the conscience” — a Supreme Court standard for measuring the denial of due-process rights.
Here’s a question for Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen: If it does not “shock the conscience” to traumatize a little girl by removing her from her mother for four months in a land where she knows no one and speaks no English, what does “shock the conscience”?
****************************************
Stop the Trump Administration’s program of turning America into a reviled human rights abuser! What about “Gonzo Apocalyto’s” policies of turning our Immigration Courts into “enforcement deterrents” rather than protectors of fairness and Due Process?
Join the New Due Process Army now! Resist in the “real’ courts. Vote Trump, his abusers, and his enablers out of office!
Harm to the most vulnerable among us is harm to all of us. Due Process Forever!
On Wednesday, March 14, 2018, Pangea client, Floricel Liborio Ramos, was freed from immigration detention after substantial litigation, multiple appeals, and requests for her release. Today, on her first day free after 11 months, Floricel came out to speak in gratitude for the massive community love and support she received throughout her detention. We hope that her case can set a positive example for judges and courts across the United States. Read the Federal District Court’s order here.
Community members from Faith in Action, RISE, California Immigrant Youth Justice Alliance, the Immigrant Liberation Movement, and others out in support of Floricel’s hearing at the Federal District Court in Northern California (San Francisco, March 13, 2017)
Federal District Court’s Order Freeing Floricel Liborio Should Serve as a Lesson to All Immigration Judges Across the U.S.
IMMIGRANT RIGHTS ACTIVISTS CELEBRATE THE MOMENTOUS REUNITING OF FLORICEL LIBORIO RAMOS WITH HER FAMILY AFTER ORDER BY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE JON S. TIGAR REQUIRING HER RELEASE. THE ORDER SHOULD SERVE AS A LESSON TO IMMIGRATION JUDGES THAT THEY CANNOT DENY BOND TO IMMIGRANTS SIMPLY BECAUSE OF A DUI.
WHAT: Press conference in celebration of Floricel’s returning home to her children after over 11 months in immigration custody
WHERE: Phillip Burton Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, CA 94111
WHEN: 11:30am on Thursday, March 15, 2018
WHO: Floricel, immigrant rights activists, faith leaders and other supporters
San Francisco, CA- Immigrant rights activists hold press conference at SF Federal District Court Building welcoming Floricel Liborio Ramos after she was released on Wednesday following a District Court order granting her immediate release from the West County Detention Facility. Ms. Liborio Ramos detention comes to a celebrated closure after District Court Judge Jon S. Tigar ruled that the Government failed to meet its burden to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Liborio Ramos poses a threat to the community.
Judge Tigar found Immigration Judge Burch had erred when she unfairly ruled that Floricel was a danger to the community given her previous DUIs, “The IJ’s decision not to release Liborio Ramos rests firmly on Liborio Ramos’s two DUI convictions.[…] while an immigrant’s criminal history is relevant, ‘criminal history alone will not always be sufficient to justify denial of bond on the basis of dangerousness.’”
“[T]wo non-violent [DUI] misdemeanors in which no one was injured, in light of the other facts in this record, simply do not justify indefinite detention,” Judge Tigar’s ruling continued. In a few days, Ms. Liborio Ramos would have been detained for nearly a year, more than the longest sentence she could have served under California law for a misdemeanor DUI.
“We’re seeing undocumented immigrants punished twice by the immigration courts,” claimed Jehan Laner Romero, Ms. Liborio Ramos’ attorney at Pangea Legal Services. “This was the case with Floricel, who was complying with the criminal court order for her prior DUI conviction.”
Community supporters of Ms. Liborio have much to celebrate after 8 months of arduous efforts to support her case by packing the courtroom during her hearings, holding rallies and uplifting their support for Floricel. Immigration Judge Valerie A. Burch had denied her bond on two different occasions, even though the Government failed to sustain its burden to prove Ms. Liborio Ramos was a danger to the community. To many, this only highlights the unjust practices of some immigration courts — and the importance of higher courts and community members to hold immigration judges accountable. “An immigration court should not serve to merely justify an immigrant’s deportation, but rather it should be there to serve justice,” said Blanca Vazquez, one of the organizers supporting Ms. Liborio Ramos’ case with the Immigrant Liberation Movement. “We hope Floricel’s case serves as a lesson for all immigration judges across the United States.”
Floricel speaks at press conference before the court that ordered her release (San Francisco, March 15, 2018)
WHO KNOWS why Homeland Security agents in Southern California forcibly separated a 7-year-old Congolese girl from her mother last fall, flew her 2,000 miles to Chicago, where she was placed at a facility for unaccompanied minors, and kept her there for more than four months? Who knows why the girl, who is credibly reported to have been traumatized, has been permitted to speak with her mother, only recently released from a detention center near San Diego, just a handful of times in the intervening four months? And in the absence of any evidence of wrongdoing by the mother, who presented herself to U.S. officials when she crossed the border from Mexico, who knows why the government has continued to keep parent and child apart?
The Department of Homeland Security has declined to comment on the case of the two asylum seekers, known in court filings as Ms. L and S.S. But a spokesman said in a statement that agents may separate children and adults if they suspect the child may be a human-trafficking victim. “If we are unable to confirm this relationship [between adult and child],” said the spokesman, Tyler Houlton, “we must take steps to protect the child,” including placing her in a facility for unaccompanied children.
In this case, DHS’s effort to establish Ms. L’s guilt by insinuation failed, and its stated concern for the child’s protection and well-being has been exposed as phony. For four months, no testing was performed to establish the woman’s maternity. And when, following a lawsuit filed on their behalf, the two were finally subjected to DNA testing this month, the result was unequivocal: Ms. L is the mother of S.S.
Federal Insider newsletter
Federal news and policy updates, in your inbox daily.
That finding has been met with silence by DHS. The department, having originally expressed indignation at the idea that it would separate children from their parents for any reason other than the child’s welfare, has been rendered speechless.
U.S. officials who interviewed Ms. L when she crossed the border made a preliminary finding that she had a plausible claim for asylum, based on her account of having fled what the lawsuit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, said was “near certain death” in Congo. Despite that, she was detained until the lawsuit and ensuing publicity prompted her sudden release last week.
In a class-action suit, the ACLU asserts that the Trump administration has separated children from their parents in more than 100 cases, even though the department says it does not “currently” have a policy on the matter. If it seems unthinkable that the administration and Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen would carry out a practice so cruel, one likely to inflict long-term harm on children, think again: DHS officials, including Ms. Nielsen’s predecessor, John F. Kelly, now the White House chief of staff, have said they believe it would be an effective means of deterring asylum seekers.
If DHS has subjected this small girl to trauma as a warning to other asylum seekers, it is an unconscionable means to an end. If that is not the reason, then what is?
Here’s the always highly informative and very readable Post immigration reporter Maria Sacchetti with a summary of what the ACLU suit is all about:
“A lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Washington on Thursday alleges the Trump administration is illegally jailing asylum seekers with credible cases for months on end in an attempt to deter them and others from seeking refuge in the United States.
The American Civil Liberties Union and other groups filed the class-action lawsuit on behalf of nine detained asylum seekers from Haiti, Venezuela and other countries. They are asking a judge to order the administration to follow a 2009 policy that allows officials to release foreigners while they await their immigration court hearings, a process that can take years.
Among the plaintiffs are Ansly Damus, a 41-year-old ethics teacher who said he was attacked by a gang in Haiti that beat him, set his motorcycle ablaze and threatened to kill him for criticizing a politician. He won his asylum case — twice — but has spent 16 months in detention, most recently in Ohio, while the government appeals.
Other plaintiffs are Alexi Montes, an 18-year-old gay man harassed and beaten in Honduras and who has a relative in Virginia; Abelardo Asensio Callol, a 30-year-old software engineer from Cuba who refused to join the Communist Party or rally for the now-deceased Cuban leader Fidel Castro; and, an unnamed father of two from Mexico who said a drug cartel kidnapped his two brothers and threatened to kill him and his family.
All were initially deemed to have had credible stories and are entitled to a hearing before an immigration judge, lawyers said. While awaiting those hearings, they have been jailed for months.
“The fact that we are doing this to people . . . is really outrageous,” said Michael Tan, a New York-based staff attorney for the ACLU. “What they’re doing here is using detention to send a message that asylum seekers need not apply and they’re not welcome here in the United States.”
The legal challenge comes as the Trump administration engineers a wide-ranging review of the nation’s immigration policies and asylum fraud, which it blames in part for a backlog in the immigration courts of more than 600,000 cases, triple the number in 2009.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions said last year that the asylum system is being “gamed” by foreigners and “dirty immigration lawyers.” Instead of a lifeline to people in peril, he said, it had become an “easy ticket to illegal entry into the United States.”
The Justice Department has also said it wants to slash the immigration court docket of 600,000 cases in half by 2020.”
********************************************
Read the rest of Maria’s article at the link.
Pretty predictable that there is a tie to Sessions’s bogus attack on vulnerable asylum seekers. He’s concealing how his mismanagement of the U.S. Immigration Courts, promotion of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” and biased legal views are in fact fueling the docket backlog.
Those actively engaged in oppression and covering up their own misdeeds always look for “scapegoats.” And asylum seekers, many of them scared women and children trying to save their lives, who already are treated with disrespect and lack of due process by our Immigration Court system and DHS are an easy target. Targeting the most vulnerable — that’s exactly what bullies and cowards do!
Pretty disgraceful! But, if we all unite behind the efforts of the New Due Process Army and fight for full Due Process for everyone in the United States in our Article III Courts, we can eventually force a stop to this Administration’s human rights abuses, end the “New American Gulag,” and derail the Sessions/DHS White Nationalist restrictionist program!
“A federal judge said Wednesday that he is considering ordering the Trump administration to restart the “dreamers” program and accept new applications for protection from deportation by undocumented immigrants brought here as children.
Such a ruling by U.S. District Judge John D. Bates in Washington would go further than federal district judges in California and New York have when they issued nationwide injunctions blocking the government’s plan to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, this month.
Bates spoke near the end of a two-hour-long hearing Wednesday on two lawsuits seeking to overturn the administration’s ending of DACA in cases brought by the NAACP, Microsoft, Princeton University and a student.
The judge’s remarks came as White House officials told key Republican leaders that President Trump is open to cutting a deal in an upcoming spending bill to protect the dreamers in exchange for border-wall funding.
No appellate court has reviewed the earlier court decisions, and the Supreme Court last month declined to enter the national controversy for now when it turned down a Trump administration request to immediately consider the decisions.
In Washington on Wednesday, Bates appeared skeptical of Justice Department arguments that he dismiss the lawsuits because immigration authorities have discretion and do not need a court review when it comes to deciding to halt a “non-enforcement” policy.
Bates said, “You have been unsuccessful in three other courts with this argument, correct?”
“Yes, your honor,” Justice Department trial attorney Brinton Lucas replied.
A federal judge in San Francisco ruled in January that challengers to the administration probably were correct in their contention that ending DACA violated the Administrative Procedure Act, because it is arbitrary and capricious. A federal judge in Brooklyn reached a similar finding in February. Both judges issued injunctions.
Justice Department trial attorney Kathryn Davis told Bates that the administration ended the program because of the threat of legal challenges from a coalition of states led by Texas and a belief that the program created in the Obama administration could not be successfully defended in court.
Noting that explanation, Bates then asked why the change was presented to the government as a policy shift and not a legal conclusion by the Homeland Security and Justice departments. Bates questioned that legal conclusion given a 2014 Justice Department decision.
Noting the Washington court’s expertise in federal regulatory law, Bates sounded skeptical about whether issuing another nationwide injunction would be appropriate.
Local Crime & Safety Email Alerts
Breaking news about public safety in and around D.C.
Rather, Bates said it might be better to strike down or vacate DHS’s attempt to end the program — which would oblige the government to continue to accept new DACA applications while the administration decides whether to try again to cancel DACA but with a fuller justification for the change in position.
Davis, the Justice attorney in court, opposed taking that course of action, saying it would create “undue chaos.”
Lindsay C. Harrison and Joseph M. Sellers, the plaintiff’s attorneys, said allowing new applications would not be disruptive because it would simply restore the status quo.”
*******************************************
The Administration’s legal problems here start, not surprisingly, with AG Jeff Sessions.
Sessions told then Acting DHS Secretary Elaine Duke that the Obama Administration’s DACA program “an open-ended circumvention of immigration laws was an unconstitutional exercise of authority by the Executive Branch.” Without any meaningful legal analysis, he summarily concluded that the program inevitably would be successfully challenged in Federal Court by some of his White Nationalist cronies serving as state Attorneys General.
The problem is that the DACA program had never been invalidated on legal grounds. The Fifth Circuit’s order invalidating the different although somewhat related “DAPA Program” was affirmed without opinion by an “equally divided Supreme Court” (a decision having no precedential effect).
There certainly was a strong legal basis for defending DACA that was totally ignored by Sessions. This includes a lengthy DOJ Office of Legal Counsel memorandum prepared during the Obama Administration that certainly was more thoughtful and thorough than the “Sessions letter.” Indeed, even the single U.S. District Judge who upheld the Administration’s DACA termination found that the legal issue was one upon which reasonable minds could differ.
So, basically, Sessions was arguing that the Federal Courts should hold that the Executive Branch is legally without authority to exercise so-called “prosecutorial discretion” in immigration cases. That’s facially absurd as a legal proposition, and a stunningly dumb argument for an Executive Branch official to make. This Administration, like all others, exercises large-scale “prosecutorial discretion” daily. How many actions is Scottie “Make Me AG If You Don’t Fire Me First” Pruitt at EPA taking to enforce existing environmental laws and regulations? How’s Ol’ Gonzo himself doing on enforcing those Civil Rights laws to protect minorities? How about the enforcement of those ethics laws applicable to Cabinet members and other Trump politicos?
Realizing the problem, it appears that in defending the Administration’s actions the DOJ lawyers “subtly switched” their argument to say that the Administration had “discretion” to terminate the DACA program. That’s actually a better argument than the one Sessions made to Duke. After all, if the Obama Administration had essentially unreviewable prosecutorial discretion to institute DACA, why can’t the Trump Administration exercise the same prosecutorial discretion negatively to terminate the program?
But, that position also raises some big problems.
First, it requires the Administration to admit, at least inferentially, that DACA was a proper exercise of prosecutorial discretion by the Obama Administration. That’s hard for them to do, since Sessions’s position was based on a bogus White Nationalist political argument and Trump campaign rhetoric that DACA was “unconstitutional” rather than on any careful objective analysis of the law (something that as far as I can tell, Jeff Sessions has never engaged in during his public career).
Second, it ignores the facts of the case. The “Sessions letter” to Duke did not purport to be based on a different “policy determination” regarding DACA. Rather it contained typical unsupported disingenuous Sessions’ pontificating about the law and his duty to uphold it. This is a joke on its face from probably the most “lawless” Attorney General since John Mitchell.
Third, no Federal Court to date has found that this exercise of prosecutorial discretion is totally unreviewable. And, given that almost everybody in America except Jeff Sessions has acknowledged the merit of the “Dreamers” as a group, it’s doubtful that the Administration could come up with even a “minimally rational” reason for terminating the program.
Several weeks ago, Judge Roger Titus of the US District Court in Maryland basically “tossed the Administration a lifeline.” He effectively “re-jiggered” the facts to find that the Sessions letter combined with Duke’s reaction constituted a “reasonable discretionary determination” to terminate DACA in light of the possible legal difficulties it might face in court.
The only problem with Judge Titus’s ruling is that’s not what Sessions and Duke actually did. We should also remember that even in upholding the Administration, Judge Titus basically found that the Administration had probably chosen the least palatable of the policy choices available to it. Hardly a “ringing endorsement,” despite the “favorable spin” put on the ruling by the DOJ.
So, stay tuned! But, don’t be shocked if Judge Bates hands the Administration another DACA defeat — this time one with potentially larger impact since it would require the Administration to allow new DACA registrations, not just adjudicate renewals of existing ones.
Translate
