TRO – Page 39 – immigrationcourtside.com

“SANCTUARY CITIES IN COURT” – ADMINISTRATION SPLITS A PAIR – 5th Cir. Hands ACLU & Hispanics A Big Loss In Texas, But Philly Prevails In Resisting Sessions!

http://time.com/5198642/texas-sanctuary-cities-ban-appeal/

Paul J. Weber reports for AP in Time:

“(AUSTIN, Texas) — A Texas immigration crackdown on “sanctuary cities” took effect Tuesday after a federal appeals court upheld a divisive law backed by the Trump administration that threatens elected officials with jail time and allows police officers to ask people during routine stops whether they’re in the U.S. illegally.

The ruling was a blow to Texas’ biggest cities —including Houston, Dallas and San Antonio — that sued last year to prevent enforcement of what opponents said is now the toughest state-level immigration measure on the books in the U.S.

But for the Trump administration, the decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans is a victory against measures seen as protecting immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally. Last week, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions sued California over its so-called sanctuary state law.

In Texas, the fight over a new law known as Senate Bill 4 has raged for more than a year, roiling the Republican-controlled Legislature and once provoking a near-fistfight between lawmakers in the state capitol. It set off racially-charged debates, backlash from big-city police chiefs and rebuke from the government in Mexico, which is Texas’ largest trading partner and shares close ties to the state.

Since 2010, the Hispanic population in Texas has grown at a pace three times that of white residents.

“Allegations of discrimination were rejected. Law is in effect,” Republican Gov. Greg Abbott tweeted after the ruling was published.”

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

Read Weber’s complete article at the link. Meanwhile, the City of Philadelphia fared better in it’s challenge to Jeff Sessions and the Administration.

Melissa Romero reports for Curbed Philly:

https://philly.curbed.com/2017/11/16/16658336/philadelphia-jeff-sessions-sanctuary-city-ruling

“Philly scored big in a lawsuit against the Trump administration over “sanctuary city” restrictions, with a federal judge ruling in favor of the city over the Department of Justice (DOJ).

On Wednesday, Judge Michael M. Baylson issued a preliminary injunction in favor of the city, ruling that Philadelphia is not a sanctuary city by the Trump administration’s terms and therefore the DOJ can’t withhold more than $1 million in federal grant money from the City of Philadelphia.

Philly doesn’t define itself as a sanctuary city, but has previously clarified that its police officers are prohibited from asking the status of immigrants. The Trump administration defines “sanctuary cities” as those that “violate a federal law requiring local and state governments to share information with federal officials about immigrants’ citizenship or legal status.”

Earlier this year, U.S. Attorney General threatened to pull funding from the Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program from sanctuary cities. The city subsequently filed a lawsuit in late August over what it called the addition of “unlawful” conditions to the JAG program.

Philadelphia receives $1.6 million in funds from the federal government for this program and on average has been provided $2.2 million over the past 11 years. A lot of this money is put toward police and courtroom upgrades and some programming.

In their lawsuit, the city claimed that DOJ could not attach three immigration-related conditions to its JAG program: 1) The city must gives ICE a heads up of the scheduled release of prisoners of interest within 48 hours; 2) allow ICE “unfettered access” to interview inmates in the prison system; and 3) the city must be in compliance with U.S. Section 1373, a federal immigration law that prohibits local governments passing laws that limit communication with the Department of Homeland Security about immigrants’s statuses.

Judge Baylson agreed with the city on conditions one and two, and also ruled that the city was not in violation U.S. Section 1373.

The ruling does not necessarily mean an end to the city’s lawsuit against DOJ. The Inquirer reports that the federal department is considering its next options. And after the injuction was issued, the DOJ sent out warning letters to 29 other sanctuary cities.

Mayor Jim Kenney said of the ruling, “Today’s ruling benefits every single Philadelphia resident. Our police officers and criminal justice partners will receive much-needed federal funding, and our city will be able to continue practices that keep our communities safe and provide victims and witnesses the security to come forward.”

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

Well, as we used to say, “you win some, you lose some, some days you don’t even suit up.” Applies to litigation, as well as baseball and a whole bunch of other things in life.

Good year for Philly though — first the Eagles win the Superbowl, then the City trounces Gonzo in court. And, with the signing of Jake Arrieta, it looks like the Phillies might be taking the “future is now” approach to rebuilding.

PWS

03-15-18

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jeff Sessions takes immigration fight to California, announces lawsuit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PWS

03-14-18

GONZO’S WORLD: APOCALYPTO BLASTS FEDERAL JUDGES WHO STAND UP TO ADMINISTRATION’S LAWLESS BEHAVIOR — Expresses Confidence That GOP’s “Bought & Paid For” Justices On Supremes Will Crush Rule Of Law & Stomp Out Judicial Independence!

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/10/jeff-sessions-federal-judges-trump-agenda-453116

Brent D. Griffiths reports for Politico:

. . . .

A former conservative stalwart in the Senate, the attorney general acknowledged that some Republicans sought similar legal battles on friendly turf, in states like Texas, during Obama’s time in office, in a process known as forum shopping. But with Trump now in the White House, it is liberals who are hoping for advantages in places like California and Hawaii. The Obama administration failed to convince the Louisiana-based Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to strike down an injunction against DACA with a similar argument.

The Supreme Court has not weighed in definitely on the topic of nationwide injunctions; instead justices have ruled on the particulars of a specific case. But Sessions is optimistic that the highest court in the land will soon issue a brush back to would-be legal resisters. A federal appeals court can overturn or limit the scope of an injunction.

“We are hopeful that the Supreme Court will soon send a clear message to the lower courts that injunctions ought to be limited to the parties of the case,” he said.

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

Read the complete article at the link.

I don’t remember Ol’ Gonzo giving impassioned speeches on the floor of the Senate against a single Federal Judge’s decision to block the Obama DAPA plan!

So, according to Gonzo, every individual who suffers from the Administration’s daily misinterpretations and intentional misapplications of the Constitution and Federal statutes should have to bring an individual suit. Sounds like a judicial nightmare and a way for the Executive to co-opt the Federal Courts, the only branch of Government that their patsies and sycophants don’t yet control (but the Administration is certainly working on “dumbing down” the Federal Judiciary with its appointees).

As I’ve pointed out before, the GOP appointees to the Supremes have a choice to make. Trump, Sessions, the Koch Bros, and other GOP bigwigs are publicly making it clear that the GOP considers them to be “bought men” (no women in this group) who can be counted on to dance to the tune of their benefactors.

The Supremes turn down of Gonzo’s outrageous scofflaw request to short-circuit the legal system on Dreamers gave the Court a little momentary credibility. But, that’s been offset by their handling of the travel ban cases and their shrug-off of the major Constitutional violations in the “New American Gulag” in Jennings v. Rodriguez.

In particular, the obtuse, tone-deaf, legally bankrupt position of Justices Thomas and Gorsuch in Jennings showed an unseemly eagerness to stomp on the individual rights of the people to please their Fat Cat political “handlers.” America deserves better from two of the life-tenured judges serving on our highest Court! Perhaps if they or their families had spent some time in “the Gulag” it would help “clarify” their fuzzy thinking and get them over some of their highly bogus jurisdictional roadblocks to doing justice . . . .

PWS

03-11-17

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PWS

03-10-18

TAL @ CNN – When It Comes To DACA, DOJ Appears To Be Rewriting History – There Was Nothing “Discretionary” About Sessions’s Advice to DHS To Terminate Program!

http://www.cnn.com/2018/03/06/politics/daca-decision-trump-win/index.html

Judge sides with Trump on DACA, but blasts White House, Congress for inaction

By: Tal Kopan, CNN

The Trump administration won a victory in court Monday on its plan to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, but not before a federal judge criticized the White House and Congress for failing to work together.

The ruling is a relatively symbolic win after two other federal courts have already halted the President’s effort to end the program nationwide.

Still, the administration is hailing the ruling as evidence that it has the authority to terminate DACA, a program that protected young undocumented immigrants who came to the US as children from deportation, as President Donald Trump decided in September.

In a 30-page opinion, Maryland District Judge Roger Titus rejected a challenge to the termination of DACA, saying the administration did in fact have a “reasonable” justification given it concluded the program was likely unlawful.

Previous judges have found the opposite — that there’s a plausible argument the government’s reasoning in this case was “arbitrary and capricious.”

The Supreme Court last week declined the administration’s request to leapfrog the appellate courts and immediately consider the other judges’ rulings, meaning until a further court rules in what will likely be several months, the administration must continue renewing two-year DACA permits.

Titus began his opinion with an unusual lamentation of the partisan nature of politics in this country, criticizing Congress and the administrations’ inaction on a permanent solution for DACA participants.

“This case is yet another example of the damaging fallout that results from excessive political partisanship,” Titus wrote.

“The highly politicized debate surrounding the DACA program has thus far produced only rancor and accusations,” he added. “During the recent debate over the rescission of DACA, the program even turned into a bargaining chip that resulted in a brief shutdown of the entire federal government earlier this year.”

He added: “The result of this case is not one that this court would choose if it were a member of a different branch of our government. This court does not like the outcome of this case, but is constrained by its constitutionally limited role to the result that it has reached. Hopefully, the Congress and the President will finally get their job done.”

In a statement, Justice Department spokesman Devin O’Malley called the decision “good news” and criticized the rebukes from previous judges.

“The Department of Justice has long maintained that DHS acted within its lawful authority in making the discretionary decision to wind down DACA in an orderly manner, and we welcome the good news today that the district court in Maryland strongly agrees,” O’Malley said. “Today’s decision also highlights a serious problem with the disturbing growth in the use of nationwide injunctions, which causes the Maryland court’s correct judgment in favor of the government to be undermined by the overbroad injunctions that have been entered by courts in other states.”

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

Contrary to the DOJ’s current claim, that the decision to terminate DACA was “discretionary,” Sessions has consistently taken the position that the DACA program was “illegal” and therefore the Administration had no choice but to terminate it. Here’s a copy of his letter to then Acting DHS Secretary Duke. No mention of “discretion” that I can find:

ag_letter_re_daca

Moreover, contrary to some of the Administration’s blabber, Judge Titus did not endorse Sessions’s view that DACA was illegal. Rather the Judge found:

Given the fate of DAPA, the legal advice provided by the Attorney General, and the threat of imminent litigation, it was reasonable for DHS to have concluded—right or wrong—that DACA was unlawful and should be wound down in an orderly manner. Therefore, its decision to rescind DACA cannot be arbitrary and capricious.

Judge Titus found that “reasonable legal minds may differ regarding [DACA’s & DAPA’s] lawfulness.” Indeed, Judge Titus clearly thought that the Administration had chosen to implement the wrong policy. He merely found that separation of powers prevented him from intervening to substitute his judgment for that of the Administration. Like virtually everyone else except Sessions, he viewed the situation of the DACA recipients as highly compelling and was critical of Congress and the Administration for failing to resolve it in favor of the DACA recipients.

Even when they supposedly “win,” Sessions and his DOJ minions seem tone-deaf to the “real messages” being sent by the Federal Judges who needlessly have been forced to rule on these cases that should never have happened had Congress taken appropriate actions to protect the Dreamers and the Administration exercised its power and judgment in a more humane manner.

PWS

03-06-18

US DISTRICT JUDGE ROGER W. TITUS IN MD REJECTS DACA CHALLENGE — Basically Finds Rescission Dumb But Legal, While Barring DHS From Using DACA Info In Removal Proceedings — Casa de Maryland v. DHS

Casa de Maryland v. DHS, D. MD., 03-05-18, Judge Roger W. Titus

While the Administration and right-leaning media are touting this as a “smashing victory” here’s what District Judge Titus really said:

The original Obama Administration DACA program was an exercise of prosecutorial discretion on which reasonable minds can differ as to its legality.
The Trump Administration had discretion either to continue the DACA program or not as an exercise of prosecutorial discretion.
The decision by the Administration to phase out DACA was subject to judicial review and the plaintiffs had standing to challenge it.
The DHS’s decision to phase out DACA upon receiving an opinion from Attorney General Sessions that it might well be held illegal in a threatened court action was reasonable.
The sometimes ill-advised and inflammatory statements by President Trump were not relevant to the basis for termination of DACA.
Although Judge Titus personally would have chosen a different policy approach from that of the Administration, under Constitutional separation of powers that policy decision was vested in the Executive and Congress, not the Courts, and the Administration had acted reasonably in this case.
The DHS is estopped from using information gathered during the DACA application process against individuals in Removal Proceedings except if “the Government needs to make use of an individual Dreamer’s information for national security or some purpose implicating public safety or public interest, the Government may petition the Court for permission to do so on a case-by-case basis with in camera review.”

Judge Titus’s decision actually more or less undermines the Administration’s frequent claims that DACA was “illegal” and that the Administration had “no choice” but to terminate it. Rather, the court held that legitimate unresolved questions had been raised about the DACA program’s legality and that in the face of those questions the Administration’s choice to proceed with a phased termination rather than trying to defend DACA in court was reasonable.

Additionally, as I had predicted, the court was unwilling to allow DHS to use DACA information against the individuals in Removal Proceedings. While this aspect of the case was :”under the radar” in most reports, it could well be another major practical/legal roadblock to the Administration’s actually removing many DACA recipients even if the injunctions against DACA termination eventually are lifted.

Here’s a “KEY QUOTE” from Judge Titus’s decision:

“The result of this case is not one that this Court would choose if it were a member of a different branch of our government. An overwhelming percentage of Americans support protections for “Dreamers,” yet it is not the province of the judiciary to provide legislative or executive actions when those entrusted with those responsibilities fail to act. As Justice Gorsuch noted during his confirmation hearing, “a judge who likes every outcome he reaches is probably a pretty bad judge, stretching for the policy results he prefers rather than those the law compels.”

This Court does not like the outcome of this case, but is constrained by its constitutionally limited role to the result that it has reached. Hopefully, the Congress and the President will finally get their job done.”

In other words, the decision to rescind DACA was “dumb but legal.” Hardly the ringing endorsement that the Trumpsters claim. What this case actually did is to vindicate their right to make bad policy decisions. Ultimately, the remedy for that type of poor governance is at the ballot box.

Here’s the full decision in Casa de Maryland v. DHS so you can judge for yourself:

JudgeTitusDACAOp

PWS

03-06-18

TED HESSON @ POLITICO: Court Rulings Might Not Keep Dreamers From Losing Work Authorization

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/05/dreamers-disruption-immigration-court-orders-385096?cid=apn

Ted Hesson writes at Politico:

“Thousands of undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children could face disruptions in their ability to work, even though the Trump administration has for months been under a federal court order to renew protections under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

The problem arises chiefly from the Department of Homeland Security’s refusal to prioritize those DACA renewals due to expire soonest. Instead, the applications are being processed in the order in which they were filed. Consequently, many so-called Dreamers who’ve applied to renew will see their DACA protections expire before DHS acts, increasing their risk of being fired from their jobs or, possibly, being arrested and deported.

“You can’t just say, ‘Don’t show up to work and we’ll kind of keep paying you,’ or ‘wink wink, nod nod,’” said Todd Schulte, president of the pro-immigration FWD.us. “I just think we should assume that a ton of these people are going to lose their jobs.”

DHS did not respond to a request to clarify its enforcement policy for people with recently expired DACA grants.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services estimates 13,090 people have grants that will expire in March. Of those, 4,470 had a renewal pending as of Jan. 31. USCIS, the division of DHS that administers DACA, makes an effort to process DACA renewals within 120 days, but it doesn’t always move that fast, according to Leon Rodriguez, director of USCIS from 2014 to 2017.

The need to process DACA renewals quickly was unforeseen last September, when President Donald Trump announced that he would sunset the Obama-era program. Trump halted DACA renewals in early October and set March 5 — Monday — as a deadline for Congress to take action to protect Dreamers. After that date, Dreamers would start losing DACA protections in large numbers.

But Congress didn’t act, at least partly because San Francisco-based U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup largely mooted the March 5 deadline in early January when he ordered DHS to resume DACA renewals. A Brooklyn-based federal judge issued a similar ruling in mid-February. The Trump administration urged the Supreme Court to intervene, but the high court declined, choosing instead to allow the matter proceed through the lower courts.

USCIS resumed DACA renewals in January, but that unplanned resumption has not proceeded smoothly. “When you have a lot of stopping and starting of activity,” said Rodriguez, “that poses some risk that something might be set up the wrong way and some group of people not be handled as expeditiously as they should,” he said.

“I think it is going to keep getting more chaotic,” Rodriguez said of the weeks ahead.

The agency’s refusal to pull out of the queue renewals that are due to expire soonest (as, for instance, airlines do at the check-in line for passengers whose planes will take off soonest) poses an enormous problem for those Dreamers who filed for renewal after Judge Alsup’s Jan. 9 order.

But another difficulty is that not many Dreamers took advantage of the court ruling, possibly because uncertainty over whether Alsup’s order would be overruled by the Supreme Court left them reluctant to pay the $495 renewal fee. The Supreme Court didn’t announce that it would let Alsup’s order stand until Feb. 26.

. . . .

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

Please go on over to Politico at the above link to read Ted’s complete analysis.

I suspect that there might be more legal challenges in the offing, from both the Dreamers and their employers. To date, the Government has pretty much “lost ’em all” when it comes to DACA, a trend that I see continuing at least in the lower Federal Courts where the litigation is likely to be confined for the foreseeable future.

In my view, the Administration’s unwise, callous, and legally questionable treatment of Dreamers to date is providing advocates for Dreamers with some “golden opportunities” to make some “good law” in the Dreamers’ behalf that hopefully can carry over into blocking some of the Administration’s other anti-immigrant initiatives. A good chance for the New Due Process Army to capture some valuable territory in the fight for truth, justice, Due Process, and the American way!

PWS

03-06-18

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

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

DACA’s March 5 ‘deadline’ marks only inaction

By Tal Kopan, CNN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Published Sunday)

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

Advocates target Trump in DACA push ahead of March 5

By: Tal Kopan, CNN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PWS

03-05-18

WHEN EVERYTHING & EVERYBODY IS A PRIORITY, THERE ARE NO PRIORITIES — WHAT “GONZO” IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT IS REALLY ABOUT!

At CNN, the “Amazing Tal” has it all for you:

Happy Friday!
Hope you’re battening down the hatches during this Nor’easter.
You may have already seen, but wanted to send you my latest story this morning, a deep dive into immigration arrests.
Have a great weekend and stay safe!
Tal

http://www.cnn.com/2018/03/02/politics/ice-immigration-deportations/index.html

How Trump changed the rules to arrest more non-criminal immigrants
By Tal Kopan, CNN
A businessman and father from Ohio. An Arizona mother. The Indiana husband of a Trump supporter. They were unassuming members of their community, parents of US citizens and undocumented. And they were deported by the Trump administration.
It’s left many wondering why the US government is arresting and deporting a number of individuals who have often lived in the country for decades, checked in regularly with immigration officials and posed no danger to their community. Many have family members who are American citizens, including school-aged children.
President Donald Trump famously said in a presidential debate that his focus is getting the “bad hombres” and the “bad, bad people” out first to secure the border, but one of his first actions after taking office was an executive order that effectively granted immigration agents the authority to arrest and detain any undocumented immigrant they wanted.
Where the Obama administration focused deportation efforts almost exclusively on criminals and national security threats, as well as immigrants who recently arrived illegally, the Trump administration has also targeted immigrants with what are called final orders of removal — an order from a judge that a person can be deported and has no more appeals left.
In Trump’s first year, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested 109,000 criminals and 46,000 people without criminal records — a 171% increase in the number of non-criminal individuals arrested over 2016.
The Trump administration regularly says its focus is criminals and safety threats, but has also repeatedly made clear that no one in the country illegally will be exempted from enforcement.
“We target criminal aliens, but we’re not going to exempt an entire class of (non)citizens,” Department of Homeland Security spokesman Tyler Houlton told reporters Wednesday.
“All of those in violation of immigration laws may be subject to immigration arrest, detention and, if found removable by final order, removal from the United States,” ICE spokeswoman Sarah Rodriguez added in a statement.
Critics say including people with decades-old final orders of removal as priorities is more about boosting numbers by targeting easily catchable individuals than about public safety threats.
“A final order of removal is absolutely not indicative of a person’s threat to public safety,” said former Obama administration ICE chief and DHS counsel John Sandweg. “You cannot equate convicted criminals with final orders of removal.”
Sandweg said that people with final orders, especially those who are checking in regularly with ICE, are easy to locate and can be immediately deported without much legal recourse. Identifying and locating criminals and gang members takes more investigative work.
There are more than 90,000 people on so-called orders of supervision who check in regularly with ICE officials, according to the agency. And there are more than 1 million who have removal proceedings pending or who have been ordered to leave the country but have not.
As a result of the change in ICE policy, headlines about heart-wrenching cases of deportation separating children from parents or caregivers have been a regular occurrence.
The story of Amer Adi, an Ohio businessman who lived in the US nearly 40 years, and has a wife and four daughters who are all American citizens, drew national media coverage last month. Through a complicated dispute about his first marriage, Adi lost his status and was ordered deported in 2009, but ICE never opted to remove him from the country. His congressman even introduced a bill to protect Adi, saying he was a “pillar” of the community, but last fall, ICE told Adi to prepare to be deported.
At a check-in on January 15, he was taken into custody and not allowed to see his family before being put on a plane back to his home country of Jordan on January 30.
“We shouldn’t spend one penny on low-hanging fruit,” said Sarah Saldana, the most recent director of ICE before Trump’s inauguration. “What we should be spending money is on getting people who are truly a threat to public safety.”

‘ICE fugitives’
The Trump administration has subtly blurred the distinction between criminals and those with final orders of removal, which is a civil, not criminal charge.
ICE has combined “ICE fugitives” — people who have been ordered to leave the country but haven’t yet — with convicted criminals who have pending criminal charges and reinstated final orders of removal, allowing the agency to say 92% of those arrested under Trump had criminal convictions or one of the other factors — when the number with criminal records is closer to 70%.
With an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the US, ICE has typically had resources to arrest and deport only roughly 150,000-250,000 individuals per year — requiring the agency to make choices about who to prioritize to proactively seek out for arrest.
ICE says its mission is carrying out the law and that it “must” deport these individuals.
“The immigration laws of the United States allow an alien to pursue relief from removal; however, once they have exhausted all due process and appeals, they remain subject to a final order of removal from an immigration judge and that order must be carried out,” said Rodriguez. “Failing to carry out final orders of removal would be inconsistent with the entire federal framework of immigration enforcement established by Congress, and undermine the integrity of the US immigration system.”
Administration officials also argue the publicizing of these cases sends a message to would-be border crossers that undocumented immigrants are never safe in the US, even when sympathetic.
“If we don’t fix these loopholes, we’re going to entice others to make that dangerous journey,” ICE Director Tom Homan told the President at a roundtable earlier last month. “So it’s just not about law enforcement, it’s about saving lives.”

Limited resources
But Saldana and other former immigration officials question the prudence of going after that population indiscriminately, saying it diverts resources from more serious security concerns.
If 20 officers are assigned to identify targets with final orders, “those are 20 officers who won’t be out focused on finding gang members or criminals,” said Bo Cooper, a career official who served as general counsel of ICE’s predecessor, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.
“When there are a finite amount of resources, choices you make come at the expense of other choices,” Cooper said. “It really is a significant policy choice.”
Sandweg said the Obama administration in 2014 changed its priorities to move away from those with old removal orders in order to give itself more resources to pick up targets from jails, which can be hours away from ICE offices, when they get word that a criminal could be detained on immigration charges.
Sandweg and Cooper noted that other law enforcement agencies also prioritize — the Drug Enforcement Administration doesn’t bother with low-level marijuana possession, but focuses on cartels, Sandweg said — and it’s a part of agency culture.
“Setting enforcement priorities is not micromanagement, that’s what every law enforcement agency does,” agreed Cooper.
As for whether ICE was handcuffed during the Obama era, Saldana said that even in Trump’s executive order, there is room for discretion.
“That’s silly,” Saldana said. “Can you imagine having 11, 12 million in the system? The cost would be extraordinary, so you have to make priorities and work that way. … You can’t sweep everybody into one category. Not everyone is a contributor to society, and not everyone is a criminal.”

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

Homan’s shtick about “saving lives” is as preposterous as it is insulting! The “dangers” of seeking to come to the US actually are well known by those making the journey. Whether they are educated or not, they are smart, brave, resourceful people — the kinds of folks we actually could use more of in America.

What Homan and others (including some of the jurists at all levels hearing these cases and getting the results wrong) fail to recognize is that the dangers of remaining in failed states controlled by gangs and corrupt politicos is much greater than the dangers of the journey and the chance of being returned. That being the case, folks have been coming and will continue to come, no matter how nasty and arbitrary we are and no matter how much we mock our Constitution, our own laws on asylum and protection, and the international standards to which we claim adherence.

Too many of those being returned were denied relief under arcane legal standards even when the judges hearing the cases acknowledged that they had established a likelihood of persecution or death upon return. But, they failed to show a “nexus to a protected ground” or “government acquiescence” as those terms are often intentionally restrictively defined by the BIA and some courts.

I know that I had such cases, and I can’t say as anyone ever understood why I was sending them back to possible severe harm or death. Homan and others like him don’t actually have to pronounce such judgments on other human beings face to face as do U.S. Immigration Judges. Neither do the Appellate Immigration Judges sitting in the “BIA Tower” in Falls Church, VA for that matter!

But, the DHS always has discretion as to whether to execute such an order. How on earth does sending productive members of our society and others who have committed no crimes back to be killed, extorted, raped, or forced to join gangs “save lives.” What total hypocrisy!

Indeed, the only “message” we’re actually sending to such folks is that they might as well join the gangs because their lives don’t matter to us. There will be a reckoning for such attitudes for Homan and others some day, even if its only that the judgement of history and the shame of future generations for their lack of empathy, intellectual honesty, common sense, and humanity!

We can diminish ourselves as a nation, but that won‘t stop human migration!

PWS

03-03-18

OUT OF SIGHT, OUT OF MIND: It Didn’t Take This GOP Controlled Congress Long To Forget About Saving The “Dreamers!”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/with-no-more-deadline-congress-has-stopped-talking-about-immigration/2018/03/01/12d66ad6-1c9d-11e8-b2d9-08e748f892c0_story.html

Paul Kane reports for the Washington Post:

“Take away a deadline, and Congress will simply lose its focus on any issue — even the heated debate around immigration.

At Tuesday morning’s House Republican briefing, just one of the five GOP leaders made a reference to the issue, and it was a passing one — a proposal meant mostly to placate conservatives, not a real solution that could get signed into law.

Across the Capitol, a few hours later, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and four senior Republicans did their weekly briefing. Topics ranged from gun background checks to the Winter Olympics. There was no immigration talk at all.

The four Senate Democrats who followed McConnell also made no mention of the looming Monday deadline to resolve the fate of 800,000 undocumented immigrants who have been shielded from the threat of deportation under an expiring executive order.

It’s understandable that most of the attention has shifted toward the fallout of the Valentine’s Day massacre of 17 students and faculty at a Florida high school, with the media intensely focused on gun laws and school violence.

Capitol Police remove a banner as members of the Catholic community and supporters of DACA recipients are arrested during a protest on Capitol Hill this week. (Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)

All but one of the 17 questions fielded by House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), at their separate press briefings, related in some way to the Parkland, Fla., shootings. The lone outlier focused on the memorial service for the Rev. Billy Graham.

This was supposed to be the week when Congress would force itself to resolve the dispute over the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) executive order, which President Trump announced in September he would revoke on March 5, giving Congress a six-month window to resolve the issue.

It was, in some ways, a masterful idea by the Trump West Wing, living up to his tough talk on immigration during the presidential campaign in 2016 but also foisting the issue into the laps of lawmakers.

But now, amid legislative and judicial gridlock, lawmakers and the media have moved on to other topics. First, the Senate failed two weeks ago to approve any compromise. Then, the Supreme Court declared it would not wade into the legal challenges to the DACA program until it plays out in lower federal court rulings — a legal process with no obvious end date in sight.

“We would be well advised to continue our work on it, but it seems to me that a lot of the air is out of the balloon here in the Capitol, and people don’t sense its urgency,” said Sen. John Cornyn (Tex.), the Republican whip who had been leading bipartisan talks.

Cornyn’s lead negotiating partner, Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), the Democratic whip, has declared helping the “dreamers,” as the undocumented immigrants who were brought here as children are known, an urgent, moral mandate. But even he understands why the issue has fallen off the radar.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) flanked by Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), left, and Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Tex.), speaks with reporters this week about school safety measures in response to the Parkland, Fla., massacre that left 17 dead. The Republicans made no mention of immigration reform. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP)

“Along comes this tragedy, in the high school in Parkland, Florida, and the response of the young people and the national response of the subject, it blows away all other conversations about DACA and the Dream Act, North Korean nuclear threats,” Durbin said.

He and Cornyn have not held any serious immigration talks in weeks, he said — and he added that the same is true for a separate bipartisan group of centrist senators. And none are on tap.

“We talk but at this point we don’t have a plan,” he said.

Just like that, in the span of a few days — Senate gridlock, a madman’s bullets killing children and a judicial ruling — and the issue that consumed Washington for most of December, January and February is no longer worth a mention at a leadership news conference.

That’s not to say the issue has subsided from the political debate. Activists are trying to keep the pressure on Trump and Congress, with a rally planned for Sunday in Washington to draw attention to Monday’s DACA deadline that is set to pass without much fanfare.

In southwestern Pennsylvania, Republicans are furiously trying to stave off an embarrassing loss in a special election to fill a vacant House seat. The district tilted toward Trump by nearly 20 percentage points in 2016, a year in which Democrats did not even field a candidate against the longtime Republican incumbent, Tim Murphy, who resigned amid a scandal late last year.

Now, to halt the momentum for Democrat Conor Lamb, a GOP super PAC called the Congressional Leadership Fund has unleashed a new adthat ties Lamb to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and her hometown San Francisco’s status as a “sanctuary city” for people in the country illegally.

“Conor Lamb wants to help Nancy Pelosi give amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants,” the narrator says. “Sanctuary cities and amnesty for illegals. Conor Lamb is a Pelosi liberal.”

Lamb, 33, a former assistant U.S. attorney, does support a path to citizenship for DACA recipients, but he has stated that he will not vote for Pelosi as speaker. That position was highlighted in a new ad he is running that calls for new leadership in both parties.

Clearly, Republicans believe the issue still has resonance with their conservative base voters, especially if it is mixed in with images of Pelosi. And Lamb seems to be aware of the threat.

But Republicans could face their own political dilemma if the federal courts rule that DACA was illegal, which would effectively reinstate Trump’s order and revoke protections from those 800,000 people. Deportations could begin quickly.

“I don’t believe that Senator McConnell and the Republicans want to see too many people deported out of Nevada and Arizona in the weeks and months ahead,” Durbin said.

He named two southwestern states with large dreamer populations where Republicans are trying to defend two Senate seats that could flip control of the Senate in the November midterm elections.

Republicans are well aware of the potential for a court ruling at any time.

“I’ve been working in and around courts long enough to know things can turn on a dime,” said Cornyn, who served as Texas attorney general, and on the state Supreme Court, before winning his Senate seat 15 years ago.

That said, Cornyn remains less than optimistic about congressional action until that court order arrives and forces action. Stating the obvious, he said: “We don’t do things around here unless there is a deadline.”

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

Given the ugliness surrounding the farcical “debate” about Dreamers in the Senate and pressure exerted by the White Nationalists/Bakuninists in the House, perhaps it’s just as well that Dreamers are “forgotten” for now.

My prediction: It will take “regime change” — however long that might take — to solve the “Dreamers’ dilemma” on a long-term basis. In the meantime, I think that their status and fate will be tied up in the courts for a long, long time — wasteful, but an unfortunate fact of life when we have “Gonzo Government” elected by a minority of voters.

PWS

03-02-18

LAUREN MARKHAM IN THE NEW REPUBLIC: Why “Trumpism” Ultimately Will Fail – Those Ignorant of Human History & Unwilling To Learn From It Will Just Keep Repeating The Same Expensive Mistakes – “One tragic lesson of the extra-continentales is that no set of governments, however callous, can solve the migration crisis by closing its doors to refugees seeking shelter. . . . The doors will not hold, and neither will the fences. You can build a wall, but it will not work. Desperate people find a way.”

https://newrepublic.com/article/146919/this-route-doesnt-exist-map

“How efforts to block refugees and asylum-seekers from Europe have only made the global migration crisis more complex and harrowing

By LAUREN MARKHAM

February 26, 2018

By 7 p.m., the sun had set and groups of young men had begun to gather inside a small, nameless restaurant on a narrow street in Tapachula, Mexico. Anywhere else in the city, a hub of transit and commerce about ten miles north of the Guatemalan border, there would be no mistaking that you were in Latin America: The open colonial plaza, with its splaying palms and marimba players, men with megaphones announcing Jesus, and women hawking woven trinkets and small bags of cut fruit suggested as much. But inside the restaurant, the atmosphere was markedly different. The patrons hailed not from Mexico or points due south but from other far-flung and unexpected corners of the globe—India, Pakistan, Eritrea, Cameroon, Sierra Leone, Congo. Men, and all of the diners were men, gathered around tables, eating not Mexican or Central American fare but steaming plates of beef curry, yellow lentils, and blistered rounds of chapati. The restaurant’s proprietor, a stern, stocky Bangladeshi man in his thirties named Sadek, circulated among the diners. He stopped at one table of South Asian men and spoke to them in Hindi about how much they owed him for the items he’d collected on their tab. The waitress, patiently taking orders and maneuvering among the crowds of men, was the only Spanish speaker in the room.

Outside, dozens of other such men, travelers from around the world, mingled on the avenue. They reclined against the walls of restaurants and smoked cigarettes on the street-side balconies of cheap hotels. They’d all recently crossed into the country from Guatemala, and most had, until recently, been held in Tapachula’s migrant detention center, Siglo XXI. Just released, they had congregated in this packed migrants’ quarter as they prepared to continue their journeys out of Mexico and into the United States. They had traveled a great distance already: a transatlantic journey by airplane or ship to Brazil; by car, bus, or on foot to Peru, Ecuador, and Colombia; through Panama, Costa Rica, and Nicaragua; on to Honduras, Guatemala, and into Mexico. Again and again, I heard their itinerary repeated in an almost metronomic cadence, each country a link in a daunting, dangerous chain. They’d crossed oceans and continents; slogged through jungles and city slums; braved detention centers and robberies; and they were now, after many months, or even longer, tantalizingly close to their final goal of the United States and refugee status.

Police in Tapachula, a Mexican city used as a waypoint for migrants known as *extra-continentales*, patrol past a Cameroonian traveler (in a striped shirt).

They are the extreme outliers of a global migration crisis of enormous scale. Today, more than 65 million people around the world have been forced from their homes—a higher number than ever recorded, as people flee war, political upheaval, extreme poverty, natural disasters, and the impacts of climate change. Since 2014, nearly 2 million migrants have crossed into Europe by sea, typically landing in Italy or Greece. They hail from dozens of countries, but most are from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Nigeria—countries struggling with war, political repression, climate change, and endemic poverty.

Their passage to supposed safety, which takes them across Libya and the Sinai, as well as the Mediterranean, has become increasingly perilous. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, nearly 150,000 people crossed the Mediterranean in 2017. More than 3,000 are believed to have drowned. Stories of detention in Libya, as well as physical and sexual abuse, are commonplace among those who manage to make it to Europe. A recent CNN report depicted a Libyan slave auction, where people were being sold for as little as $400. Even the lucky ones who wash up on Europe’s shores may end up stuck for years in transit camps and detention centers in the south of the continent, in some cases only in the end to be deported. In 2013, in an effort to curb migration and ease the burden of migrants within its borders, the European Union began ramping up deportations. In 2016, nearly 500,000 people were deported from Europe.

Globally, more than 65 million people have currently been forced from their homes—a higher number than ever recorded.

While the global drivers of migration have not subsided—devastation in Syria and Afghanistan, political repression in parts of sub-Saharan Africa—200,000 fewer migrants attempted to cross into Europe in 2017 than the year before. In response to the migrant crisis, European countries have sent strong messages that newcomers are no longer welcome; they’ve built fences to stop refugees from crossing their borders and elected far-right politicians with staunchly anti-immigrant messages. Meanwhile, most asylum cases are stalled in overburdened court systems, with slim prospects for any near-term resolution, which leaves many migrants stuck in the wicked limbo of a squalid, under-resourced refugee camp or austere detention facility. Today, European authorities have stiffened their resistance not only to new arrivals, but to the hundreds of thousands of asylum-seekers who arrived years before and remain in an eerie liminal zone: forbidden to live or work freely in Europe and unwilling, or often unable, to go home.

Because of the high risks of crossing and the low odds of being permitted to stay, more and more would-be asylum-seekers are now forgoing Europe, choosing instead to chance the journey through the Americas that brings them to Sadek’s restaurant in Tapachula. Each year, thousands of migrants from the Middle East, Africa, and Asia make their way to South America and then move northward, bound for the United States—and their numbers have been increasing steadily. It’s impossible to know how many migrants from outside the Americas begin the journey and do not make it to the United States, or how many make it to the country and slip through undetected. But the number of “irregular migrants”—they’re called extra-continentales in Tapachula—apprehended on the U.S. side of the border with Mexico has tripled since 2010.

They remain a tiny fraction of the hundreds of thousands of Mexicans and Central Americans crossing into the United States. But it is a hastening trickle that may well become a flood. “These ‘extra-continental’ migrants will probably increase,” said Roeland De Wilde, chief of mission for the International Organization for Migrationin Costa Rica, “given the increased difficulties in entering Europe, relative ease of entry in some South American countries, and smugglers’ increased organization across continents.”

A migrant from Bangladesh, Sadek (in a red shirt) is part restaurateur, part migratory middleman. He can help a traveler with a good meal—or a good travel agent or immigration attorney.

One tragic lesson of the extra-continentales is that no set of governments, however callous, can solve the migration crisis by closing its doors to refugees seeking shelter. All Europe has done is redirect the flow of vulnerable humanity, fostering the development of a global superhighway to move people over this great distance. The doors will not hold, and neither will the fences. You can build a wall, but it will not work. Desperate people find a way.

“Cette route,” a French-speaking man from Cameroon told me, one sweltering afternoon in Tapachula on the breezeless balcony of a hotel frequented by irregular migrants, “n’existe pas sur le map.” This route doesn’t exist on the map.”

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

Read Lauren’s much longer complete article at the above link. It’s one of the most incisive treatments of the worldwide migration phenomenon that I have seen recently. I highly recommend it.

Thanks to dedicated “Courtsider” Roxanne Lea Fantl of Richmond, VA for sending this item my way!

Shortly after I arrived at the Arlington Immigration Court, one of my wonderful colleagues told me “Paul, desperate people do desperate things. Don’t take it personally, and don’t blame them. We just do our jobs, as best we can under the circumstances.” Good advice, to be sure!

We can diminish ourselves as a nation, but that won’t stop human migration!

PWS

03-02-18

LEGAL AID JUSTICE CENTER OF VIRGINIA HUGE WIN – USD Judge Brinkema Certifies Class & Orders Bond Hearings For Individuals In “Withholding Only Proceedings” — Rogelio Amilcar Cabrera Diaz v. Hott — Get Links To All The Essential Court Docs Here!

https://www.justice4all.org/2018/02/26/case-establishes-right-to-bond-hearings/

Case Establishes Right to Bond Hearings

Posted February 26, 2018 by Tim Wallace

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Legal Aid Justice Center has won an important first-in-the-nation class action case in federal court in Alexandria, establishing the right to bond hearings for a class of detained immigrants whom the government is holding in long-term no-bond detention.

When immigrants are deported to countries where human rights violations are rampant, they often find themselves subject to persecution, torture, or even death threats. And since the U.S. government almost never gives a visa to someone who has already been deported, these individuals may find themselves with no option other than to try to return to the United States and cross the border illegally to seek a form of legal protection from persecution known as “withholding of removal.”

Previously, ICE and the immigration courts refused to grant bond to these individuals, holding them in prison-like conditions in immigration detention centers for months if not years while they fought out their cases. Legal Aid Justice Center filed a lawsuit last year on behalf of five immigrants held in this prolonged no-bond detention, and won release for two of them, but the government refused to apply the decision more broadly to other similarly situated immigrants held in detention.

We then filed a first-in-the-nation class action, seeking access to bond hearings for all immigrants detained in Virginia who fall into this category. On February 26, 2018, federal district judge Leonie M. Brinkema granted our motions in full, giving our clients and the class members all of the relief we asked for. We understand that there are about 50 immigrants currently detained at the Farmville detention center who meet this description, with more being arrested every week. Now, they will have the chance to pay a bond and leave detention, reunite with their families, and resume normal lives while they fight their cases for protection.

Special thanks to our pro bono co-counsel at Mayer Brown LLP, Murray Osorio LLP, Law Office of James Reyes, and Blessinger Legal PLLC – we couldn’t possibly do it without you!

The judge’s opinion can be found here: Memorandum Opinion (PDF)

The judge’s order can be found here: Order (PDF)

The opinion applies to all immigrants who are in pending withholding-only proceedings, and “as of December 7, 2017 or at any time thereafter are detained within the Commonwealth of Virginia under the authority of [ICE].” The government has been ordered to notify all class members by March 13, 2018, and to provide them with a bond hearing (or a Joseph hearing, if appropriate) by March 28, 2018.

We will be monitoring compliance with this opinion, and want to hear from Virginia attorneys who represent a class member. If you represent a class member, or if you have questions as to whether your client might be a class member, please e-mail LAJC attorney Rachel McFarland at rmcfarland@justice4all.org to let us know.

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

“Super Congrats” to Simon Y. Sandoval-Moshenberg—Director, Immigrant Advocacy Program & his team of Firms and pro bono attorneys for making this happy.

I am particularly delighted that one of my “star” former Georgetown Law RLP students, Rachel McFarland, has been involved in this case. Rachel is a “charter member” of the “New Due Process Army!”

PWS

02-28-18

TAL @ CNN: ADMINISTRATION “SPLITS A PAIR” OF USDC RULINGS IN CAL. – Blown Out Again On DACA, But A Victory On “The Wall!”

http://www.cnn.com/2018/02/27/politics/daca-revocation-ruling/index.html

Court hands DACA recipients another victory

By: Catherine E. Shoichet and Tal Kopan, CNN

Young immigrants brought illegally to the United States as children have won another legal victory.

A federal judge in California ruled Monday that the government can’t revoke DACA recipients’ work permits or other protections without giving them notice and a chance to defend themselves.

The ruling in a California district court marks the third time a lower court has ruled against the administration’s handling of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. But this case, unlike the others, is not about President Donald Trump’s September decision to end the program.

US District Judge Philip Gutierrez’s preliminary injunction Monday addressed another aspect: government decisions to revoke protections from individual DACA recipients.

The Obama-era DACA program protected young immigrants brought illegally to the United States from deportation if they met certain criteria, paid fees, passed background checks and didn’t commit serious crimes.

The Trump administration announced it was ending the program last year, arguing that it was unconstitutional. A series of recent lower court rulings have thwarted that effort, requiring the government to continue renewing permits under the program while legal challenges make their way through the courts. On Monday, the US Supreme Court said it was staying out of the dispute for now.

Meanwhile, activists across the country have increasingly criticized government decisions to end DACA protections in individual cases.

Monday’s ruling came in a class action lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union. The suit argues that the government had revoked protections from DACA recipients who hadn’t been convicted of serious crimes without giving them any opportunity to defend themselves.

An example: Officials revoked the work permit of one of the plaintiffs, Jesus Arreola, after he was arrested on suspicion of immigrant smuggling. An immigration judge later found that allegation wasn’t credible, according to the ACLU’s complaint. Arreola says he was an Uber and Lyft driver who had picked up passengers for a friend without any knowledge of their immigration status.

Attorneys representing the government argue that the plaintiffs had “misused the trust given to them with the administrative grace of DACA.”

The judge said the Department of Homeland Security must restore protections to the group of DACA recipients who had them revoked “without notice, a reasoned explanation, or any opportunity to respond.”

The ruling also temporarily blocks officials from revoking DACA protections from others without following a procedure “which includes, at a minimum, notice, a reasoned explanation, and an opportunity to be heard prior to termination.”

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment about Monday’s ruling.

According to DHS, officials had revoked or terminated 2,139 individuals’ DACA protections over the lifetime of the program as of August 2017.

The ruling came the same day the Supreme Court said it would stay out of the dispute over the termination of DACA for now, leaving renewals under the program in place for at least months.

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

http://www.cnn.com/2018/02/27/politics/border-wall-ruling-curiel/index.html

Judge Curiel, once attacked by Trump, rules border wall can proceed

By Tal Kopan, CNN

(CNN)US District Judge Gonzalo Curiel has cleared one potential obstacle to President Donald Trump’s long-promised border wall, ruling Tuesday that the administration has the authority to waive a host of environmental laws and other regulations to begin construction.

Curiel’s 100-page order does not mean construction of the wall will begin immediately. Congress has yet to authorize or provide funding for any new wall to begin the project. Thus far, the Department of Homeland Security has built several prototypes in San Diego — which was the focus of the lawsuit Curiel rejected.

Still, the ruling is a win for the administration as it seeks to get money to build its wall, a centerpiece of Trump’s campaign.

Curiel’s ruling left little doubt that the DHS has broad authority to issue waivers — authorized in a cluster of laws passed by Congress in the mid 1990s to 2000s — to expedite the construction of border barriers and infrastructure. His lengthy ruling went point-by-point through the challenges to DHS’ authority brought by environmental groups and the state of California and rejected all of them.

Judge criticized by Trump will hear case on border wall

Curiel was famously the target of Trump’s ire when he presided over a lawsuit against Trump University, which was ultimately settled after Trump won the White House.

Trump drew fierce criticism in June 2016 when he said that Curiel, who was born in Indiana, was biased against him due to his Mexican heritage.

In his ruling Tuesday, Curiel noted that the border wall is a highly contentious issue under this administration but said he did not factor that into his decision.

“The court is aware that the subject of these lawsuits, border barriers, is currently the subject of heated political debate in and between the United States and the Republic of Mexico as to the need, efficacy and the source of funding for such barriers,” Curiel wrote. “In its review of this case, the Court cannot and does not consider whether underlying decisions to construct the border barriers are politically wise or prudent.”

Not just Trump’s idea: A short history on famous walls and the environment

The groups had challenged DHS’ move to expedite construction of the prototypes and replacement fencing in San Diego on a number of grounds. The collection of lawsuits from the environmental advocacy organizations and the state of California argued that the Trump administration’s waiver wasn’t allowed by the law that created the overarching authority and that the authority itself violated the Constitution.

Curiel rejected each argument, saying the law and the nature of the border clearly give the DHS broad authority to build border barriers.

“Both Congress and the Executive share responsibilities in protecting the country from terrorists and contraband illegally entering at the borders. Border barriers, roads, and detection equipment help provide a measure of deterrence against illegal entries,” Curiel wrote. “With section 102, Congress delegated to its executive counterpart, the responsibility to construct border barriers as needed in areas of high illegal entry to detect and deter illegal entries. In an increasingly complex and changing world, this delegation avoids the need for Congress to pass a new law to authorize the construction of every border project.”

In addition to pro-immigration and civil liberties groups, environmental groups have opposed the construction of Trump’s border wall on the grounds that it would disturb sensitive wildlife and ecosystems.

One section of Trump’s proposed wall in Texas would run through a wildlife preserve.

The Justice Department, meanwhile, hailed the ruling.

“Border security is paramount to stemming the flow of illegal immigration that contributes to rising violent crime and to the drug crisis, and undermines national security,” said spokesman Devin O’Malley. “We are pleased DHS can continue this important work vital to our nation’s interests.”

One of the groups challenging the wall said it intended to appeal the decision.

“We intend to appeal this disappointing ruling, which would allow Trump to shrug off crucial environmental laws that protect people and wildlife,” said Brian Segee, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The Trump administration has completely overreached its authority in its rush to build this destructive, senseless wall.”

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement that he was considering his options.

“We remain unwavering in our belief that the Trump Administration is ignoring laws it doesn’t like in order to resuscitate a campaign talking point of building a wall on our southern border,” Becerra said. “We will evaluate all of our options and are prepared to do what is necessary to protect our people, our values, and our economy from federal overreach. A medieval wall along the US-Mexico border simply does not belong in the 21st century.”

The waiver authority to build barriers along the border has been used a number of times dating back to the George W. Bush administration, and it has been upheld by the courts every time it has been challenged.

Trump is scheduled to visit the border wall prototypes next month.

CNN’s Sara Sidner and Devan Cole contributed to this report.

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

I guess even Gonzo can’t lose ’em all. But, he certainly hasn’t taken his last beating on his counterproductive, ill-conceived, and wasteful “War on Dreamers.”

PWS

02-28-18

SPLINTERED SUPREMES PROVISIONALLY OK “NEW AMERICAN GULAG” — Trump/Sessions Successfully Fight To Preserve Obama Legacy Of Never-Ending “Civil” Immigration Detention — Case Remanded To Lower Court, But Alito & Fellow GOP Justices Show Scant Concern For Human (Non-Economic) Rights & Freedom Under Constitution!

Jennings v. Rodriguez, O2-27-18

MAJORITY: Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch

CONCURRING OPINION: Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch

DISSENTING OPINION: Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor

NOT PARTICIPATING: Justice Kagan

HERE’S A COPY OF THE COURT’S FULL DECISION:

15-1204_f29g

ANALYSIS BY ERIC LEVITZ @ NEW YORK MAGAZINE:

“For much of his presidency, Donald Trump has appeared more committed to nullifying his predecessor’s legacy than to any affirmative political principle. The president campaigned on a promise to repeal Obamacare and expand access to affordable health insurance — but when these goals came into conflict, he opted for the former. Trump argued vociferously that rogue regimes must be blocked from acquiring nuclear weapons — then “decertified” an Obama-era nuclear agreement that did just that. He claimed to believe in regulatory policies that protect “clean air and clean water,” then rolled back Obama-era rules aimed at that objective. Trump praised Janet Yellen’s economic management — but still took the precedent-defying step of refusing to grant the Obama-appointed Federal Reserve chair a second term.

Nevertheless, for all his policy nihilism, the president can still occasionally put substance over spite, and admit that on this or that specific issue, Barack Obama actually had a point. Thus, on Tuesday the Trump administration celebrated the preservation of one piece of Obama’s legacy.

In 2014, a federal district court ruled that immigrants detained while awaiting deportation proceedings were entitled to periodic bond hearings. The lead plaintiff in the case was a legal permanent resident of the United States, Alejandro Rodriguez, who was arrested as a teenager for joyriding and misdemeanor drug possession – and then jailed for three years, without ever receiving a bond hearing, as his lawyers (successfully) contested his deportation. The federal judge ruled that Rodriguez had a legal right to request to await trial outside of a detention facility. The Obama administration disagreed, arguing that the federal government has the authority to decide whether any individual immigrant should be afforded that right – or whether he or she is simply too dangerous for such due process – even if the person in question is a legal permanent resident or asylum-seeker.

Upon his election, Trump set aside his differences with Obama, and continued his predecessor’s appeal. Even when the Ninth Circuit upheld the lower court’s ruling, Jeff Sessions & Co. persisted in their defense of the Obama Justice Department’s position.

And on Tuesday, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority sided with the government in a narrow ruling: The justices did not rule that detained immigrants have no right to bond hearings under the Constitution; rather, they merely ruled that immigrants had no such rights under federal immigration law. As the New York Times explains:

The Ninth Circuit had ruled that bond hearings are required after six months to determine whether detainees who do not pose flight risks or a danger to public safety may be released while their cases proceed. The court based its ruling on an interpretation of the federal immigration laws, not the Constitution, though it said its reading was required to avoid constitutional difficulties.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the majority on Tuesday, said that this interpretive approach, called “constitutional avoidance,” was unavailable here, as the words of the immigration laws were plain. “The meaning of the relevant statutory provisions is clear — and clearly contrary to the decision of the court of appeals,” Justice Alito wrote.
This ruling will send the case back to the Ninth Circuit, which will have the opportunity to assess whether the Constitution requires bond hearings for detained immigrants.

Three of the court’s liberals opposed the decision, while Elena Kagan recused herself (due to relevant work she had performed as Obama’s solicitor general). In an impassioned dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer insisted that the court should have reached a determination on the underlying Constitutional question – and ruled that all human beings in the United States are entitled to our founding document’s basic protections.

“[W]ould the Constitution leave the Government free to starve, beat, or lash those held within our boundaries?” the Justice asked. “If not, then, whatever the [legal] fiction, how can the Constitution authorize the Government to imprison arbitrarily those who, whatever we might pretend, are in reality right here in the United States?”

“We need only recall the words of the Declaration of Independence, in particular its insistence that all men and women have ‘certain unalienable Rights,’ and that among them is the right to ‘Liberty,’” Breyer wrote.

But thanks to the bipartisan efforts of the patriots in our Justice Department, the Trump administration will remain free, for the moment, to indefinitely imprison any legal immigrants and asylum-seekers it wishes to deport.

And Trump wishes to deport quite a few — although he’ll need to get much more aggressive on that front, if he wishes to preserve the pace of deportations set by his predecessor.

But, as Tuesday’s ruling demonstrated, with enough will and bipartisan cooperation, there’s little the American government cannot do.”

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

HERE’S WHAT JUSTICE ALITO, JUSTICE THOMAS & THEIR BUDDIES REALLY ARE SAYING BEYOND THE LEGAL GOBBLEDYGOOK:

The plaintiffs are neither corporations nor guns. They are mere human beings. Therefore, they are entitled to no Constitutional protections that we care to enforce.

FROM JUSTICE BREYER’S DISSENT:

The relevant constitutional language, purposes, history, traditions, context, and case law, taken together, make it likely that, where confinement of the noncitizens before us is prolonged (presumptively longer than six months), bail proceedings are constitutionally required. Given this serious constitutional problem, I would interpret the statutory provisions before us as authorizing bail. Their language permits that reading, it furthers their basic purposes, and it is consistent with the history, tradition, and constitutional values associated with bail proceedings. I believe that those bail proceedings should take place in accordance with customary rules of procedure and burdens of proof rather than the special rules that the Ninth Cir cuit imposed.

The bail questions before us are technical but at heart they are simple. We need only recall the words of the Declaration of Independence, in particular its insistence that all men and women have “certain unalienable Rights,” and that among them is the right to “Liberty.” We need merely remember that the Constitution’s Due Process Clause protects each person’s liberty from arbi trary deprivation. And we need just keep in mind the fact that, since Blackstone’s time and long before, liberty has included the right of a confined person to seek release on bail. It is neither technical nor unusually difficult to read the words of these statutes as consistent with this basic right. I would find it far more difficult, indeed, I would find it alarming, to believe that Congress wrote these statutory words in order to put thousands of individuals at risk of lengthy confinement all within the United States but all without hope of bail. I would read the statutory words as consistent with, indeed as requiring protection of, the basic right to seek bail.
Because the majority does not do so, with respect, I dissent.

ONE POINT THAT ALL EIGHT JUSTICES AGREED ON:

The 9th Circuit was without authority to rewrite the statute to require bond hearings at 6 month intervals with the DHS bearing the burden of proof on continuing detention.

PWS

02-27-18

“GO POUND SAND” SUPREMES TELL TRUMP & SESSIONS ON DACA – HIGH COURT STIFFARMS DOJ’S FRIVOLOUS TRY TO END RUN LEGAL PROCESS!

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/26/politics/daca-supreme-court/index.html

Ariane de Vogue and Tal Kopan report for CNN”

“Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court said on Monday that it will stay out of the dispute concerning the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program for now, meaning the Trump administration may not be able to end the program March 5 as planned.

The move will also lessen pressure on Congress to act on a permanent solution for DACA and its roughly 700,000 participants — undocumented immigrants who came to the US as children.

Lawmakers had often cited the March 5 deadline as their own deadline for action. But the Senate failed to advance any bill during a debate earlier this month, and no bipartisan measure has emerged since.

Originally, the Trump administration had terminated DACA but allowed a six-month grace period for anyone with status expiring in that window to renew. After that date, March 5, any DACA recipient whose status expired would no longer be able to receive protections.

Monday’s action by the court, submitted without comment from the justices, is not a ruling on the merits of the DACA program or the Trump administration’s effort to end it.

At issue is a ruling by federal District Judge William Alsup of the US District Court for the Northern District of California, who blocked the plan to end DACA and held that the Trump administration must resume accepting renewal applications. The action means the case will continue going through the lower courts.

Alsup said a nationwide injunction was “appropriate” because “our country has a strong interest in the uniform application of immigration law and policy.”

“Plaintiffs have established injury that reaches beyond the geographical bounds of the Northern District of California. The problem affects every state and territory of the United States,” he wrote.

The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals has generally allowed nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration actions from lower court judges under this President to stand, meaning the DACA program could be spared a year or more until the Supreme Court could take up the case in next year’s term, given the likely realities of the calendar.

Justice Department spokesman Devin O’Malley said the administration’s appeal to the Supreme Court was an uphill climb, given it came before the 9th Circuit ruled.

“While we were hopeful for a different outcome, the Supreme Court very rarely grants certiorari before judgment, though in our view, it was warranted for the extraordinary injunction requiring the Department of Homeland Security to maintain DACA,” O’Malley said. “We will continue to defend DHS’s lawful authority to wind down DACA in an orderly manner.”

University of Texas professor law and CNN legal analyst Stephen Vladeck said justices normally don’t weigh in at this stage.

“The justices have not granted such a request since 2004, but the government claimed that the urgency of settling the legal status of DACA, and the potential for nationwide confusion, justified such an extraordinary measure,” Vladeck said.”

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

Good news for America on a number of fronts:

DACA immigrants get to keep their status and work authorization for now. While the Administration claimed (disingenuously) that removal of DACA recipients would not be a “priority,” loss of DACA status would mean loss of work authorization (and therefore jobs) for many and loss of in-state tuition eligibility for college for others. Thus, they would have been driven “into the underground.” Honest employers who insisted on following work authorization laws would have been penalized by loss of important, talented workers. Meanwhile, unscrupulous employers willing to overlook lack of work authorization or pay “under the table” at substandard wages would have been empowered by the Administration’s bone-headed actions to exploit Dreamers and U.S. workers alike.
Supremes rebuffed the arrogant Trump/Sessions attitude of entitlement. Whatever their disingenuous explanations might be today, in attempting to circumvent the Courts of Appeals to the Supremes, the Administration basically was touting that the GOP had “bought and paid for” five seats on the Supremes and that they expected their “wholly-owned Justices,” including of course the recently appointed Justice Gorsuch, to deliver on their demand for unprecedented special treatment. By forcing the Administration to follow the rules like everyone else, at least for now, the Supremes maintained some degree of dignity and judicial independence in the context of an Administration that publicly holds itself above the law and states that the only acceptable role of Federal Judges (particularly GOP appointees) is to “rubber stamp” Administration positions.
Litigation in the Courts of Appeals will further expose the absurdity of Session’s “legal position” on DACA. In the DACA litigation, the DOJ is incredibly asking the Federal Courts to invalidate the Executive’s own legal authority to exercise prosecutorial discretion on a consistent and disciplined basis. While courts have acknowledged that there are likely ways in which the Administration could go about terminating DACA, claiming that it is “illegal” isn’t one of them. Session’s bogus claim that an Administration doesn’t have authority to exercise prosecutorial discretion on a widespread basis is both disingenuous and absurd on its face. Obviously, this Administration has already chosen to exercise lots of prosecutorial discretion not to enforce environmental, health care, civil rights, ethics, and other “laws on the books” when it suited their purposes.
If the lower court rulings stand, Trump will have difficulty coming up with a “rational reason” to terminate DACA “on the merits.” Trump himself, as well as other Administration officials and politicos from both parties have widely and publicly praised DACA youth and their contributions to the United States. There is neither a legal nor a rational basis for terminating DACA. While Trump & Sessions might well attempt to do so, those attempts are also likely to be tied up in the Federal Courts for a long time. DACA created “settled expectations” on the part of the recipients, their employers, their schools, and even their U.S. families of continuing ability to, at a minimum, remain, work, and study in the United States, assuming continued “good behavior.” In my long experience in Government, Federal Courts have more often than not been anxious to find ways to protect such “settled expectations.”
Congress was going to “punt” on DACA anyway. I detected little if any interest on the part of GOP “leadership” in the House and Senate to fix DACA on a temporary or permanent basis for now. It’s going to take “regime change” — eventually replacing recalcitrant GOP legislators with Democrats more interested in governing in the public interest, including solving the Dreamer issue on a long-term basis (without otherwise damaging our permanent immigration system or further enabling lawless behavior by DHS). That’s going to take time, just like the litigation. In this case, time is the Dreamer’s and the bulk of America’s friend.

PWS

02-26-18

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

We can diminish ourselves as a nation, but that won‘t stop human migration!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Judge Curiel, once attacked by Trump, rules border wall can proceed

By Tal Kopan, CNN

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: