White Nationalism – Page 6 – immigrationcourtside.com

☠️🤮 PICKING ON KIDS & IMMIGRANTS — AMERICA’S FUTURE — IS LATEST “SPORT” FOR MORALLY CORRUPT GOP POLITICOS — “In the 18 months since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, Republican officials have had ample opportunity to prove they’re not merely antiabortion but also pro-child. They keep failing,” Says Catherine Rampell @ WashPost!

Catherine Rampell
Opinion Columnist
Washington Post
PHOTO: Linkedin

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/01/11/republican-child-food-aid/

Catherine writes:

In the 18 months since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, Republican officials have had ample opportunity to prove they’re not merely antiabortion but also pro-child. They keep failing.

GOP politicians across the country have found new and creative ways to deny resources to struggling parents and children. Take, for instance, the summer lunch program.

Under a new federal program, children who are eligible for free or reduced-price school lunches can also receive food assistance during the summer. The policy, created as part of the bipartisan budget deal in 2022, gives eligible families $40 per month per child, or $120 total over the summer. It often works essentially as a top-up for food stamps, since these families must buy more groceries when their children lose access to nutritious school meals when classes go out of session. (It’s similar to a temporary program offered during the pandemic, though it’s much less generous.)

The federal government pays the entire cost of the benefits associated with this new food program and half the administrative costs. The program isn’t automatic, though; states had to opt in by Jan. 1.

Republican governors across 15 states chose not to, as my Post colleague Annie Gowen reported. Up to 10 million kids will be denied access to this grocery aid as a result.

Why have these governors rejected food assistance, even amid soaring grocery prices and pledges to help families strained by inflation?

Some states, such as Texas and Vermont, cited operational or budgetary difficulties with getting a new system running in time for this summer. These obstacles could presumably be surmounted in future years. In other states, GOP politicians expressed outright disdain for the program.

Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen, for instance, said of the new program, “I don’t believe in welfare.” A spokeswoman for Florida’s Department of Children and Families cited vague unspecified fears about “federal strings attached.”

Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds suggested there was no point in giving this grocery assistance to food-insecure children “when childhood obesity has become an epidemic.”

Reynolds is apparently unaware that obesity is linked to a lack of reliable access to nutritious food and that children in food-insecure homes face a higher risk of developmental problems. This suggests withholding this nutritional assistance hurts not only the state’s children today but also its workforce tomorrow.

This is hardly the only time GOP politicians have worked to swipe food from the mouths of hungry children — and their moms.

. . . .

Indeed, if a version of a child tax credit expansion ultimately materializes — and it might in the next few days — that will happen only because Democratic lawmakers explicitly held those corporate tax breaks hostage in exchange for aid to poor kids.

Republicans keep assuring the American public that they really, truly care about helping women forced into bearing children even when they’re not financially or emotionally ready to do so. They claim they want to protect youngsters and invest in their financial future.

Time for the GOP to put its money where its mouth is.

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

Read Catherine’s complete article at the link.

I have previously blogged about the GOP’s cowardly war on the poor and America’s future generations. See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2024/01/03/☠%EF%B8%8F-⚰%EF%B8%8F-first-it-was-immigrants-then-women-lgbtq-election-officials-teachers-librarians-gops-latest-target-of-toxic-lies-cruelty-stupidity-hung/.

⚖️ EXPERT TO CONGRESS: FIX YOUR BORDER MESS, STOP PICKING ON ASYLUM APPLICANTS! — Ruth Ellen Wasem @ The Messenger: “Do they really think that raising the bar will deter people who are running for their lives?”

Nor is this the first time that Catherine has forcefully and articulately spoken out against the GOP’s cowardly war on America’s most vulnerable. See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2019/09/06/catherine-rampell-washpost-trump-his-gops-cowardly-war-on-children-should-outrage-every-american-join-the-new-due-process-army-fight-to-s/.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-13-24

⚖️ EXPERT TO CONGRESS: FIX YOUR BORDER MESS, STOP PICKING ON ASYLUM APPLICANTS! — Ruth Ellen Wasem @ The Messenger: “Do they really think that raising the bar will deter people who are running for their lives?”

Ruth writes in The Messenger:

https://themessenger.com/opinion/congress-border-crisis-immigration-reform-migrants-asylum

The outcry of those claiming the United States has an “open border” reminds me of the “everything must go” or “for a limited time only” advertisements. People come only to discover it’s a bait and switch. Let me be clear: Migrants are not risking their lives solely because they believe false claims that the border is open. The overwhelming majority are fleeing desperate situations in their home countries; however, the drumbeat of “open borders ending soon” lends an urgency to their plight. Apprehensions of migrants entering illegally in December 2023 are projected to be a record high of 302,000.

The irony is that many conservative members of Congress try to blame the Biden administration for the surge in migrants, even though the U.S. Supreme Court has long interpreted the Constitution as giving Congress plenary power over immigration. Since the 19th century, this authority of Congress to control our national borders and determine whether a foreign national may enter or remain has been preeminent.

The executive branch is able to work only along the margins of immigration law through regulations and executive orders. When the Obama, Trump and Biden administrations tried to push these tools, the federal courts typically stopped them. Recent research by the Bipartisan Policy Center analyzing the border policies of the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations alongside apprehension data did not find clear-cut evidence that any particular executive branch action was more effective than another.

. . . .

As others and I have stated, the migration pressures at the U.S. southern border are not due to lack of enforcement of U.S. law; instead, these pressures result in part from laws written to address migration flows that differed sharply from the numbers of people we are dealing with today. Current law is based on the assumption that most migrants apprehended along the southern border are solo adults who can be turned back easily because they are motivated by economic reasons. Yet migrants today include many more families and children, people fleeing violence, people displaced by climate change, people leaving failed states, and people who are being persecuted — people who are afforded protections under U.S. law.

Regrettably, the House-passed border security legislation, as well as several of the other alternatives Congress is discussing, naively offers to tighten up the enforcement and narrow the categories of people who might be eligible to enter. Do they really think that raising the bar will deter people who are running for their lives? Such reforms portend an increase in the urgency of desperate people and ensuing chaos.

Immigration has always been a phenomenon that drives America’s success story, that undergirds our greatness. Time is overdue for us to reform our immigration laws — to create new pathways and update the old ones — to better reflect the national interest and our values. It will not be easy, as few critical issues are, but it is imperative that Congress gets to work.

Ruth E. Wasem is senior fellow at College of Public Affairs and Education, Cleveland State University. She has more than 30 years of experience in U.S. domestic policy, including immigration, employment, and social welfare policies.

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

Read Ruth’s full article at the link! Also, congrats, Ruth, on your new appointment as Senior Fellow at the College of Public Affairs and Education, Cleveland State University!

As Ruth points out, the reason why all reputable studies show little if any relationship of forced migration to changing precedents and policies in “receiving nations,” is in the nature of forced migration. Forced migration is forced by combinations of conditions at or near the “sending” countries that operate largely without regard to unilateral actions in the U.S. or any other major receiving nation or group of nations.

At best, such futile unilateral actions have marginal, transitory effects, usually by forcing strategy adjustments and pricing changes within the world of human smuggling. But, like most markets, the human trafficking market eventually adjusts and the next, largely self-inflicted, “border crisis” ensues.

And thus, the cycle continues, with receiving nations investing more and more and doubling down on “proven to fail” cruelty and deterrence. Rather than acting rationally and responsibly — by listening to experts and those with experience managing refugee migrations — politicos falsely claim that the reason for their failed policies were that they weren’t draconian or expensive enough. But, throwing more money and personnel exclusively at enforcement and deterrence never works in a practical sense.

What it does do, however, is give certain moneyed groups a huge interest in uncontrolled border militarization. It also causes cynical politicos, largely but not exclusively on the right, to invest in sure to fail policies that will be a rallying point for White Nationalists without actual disrupting the supply of exploitable, disenfranchised, largely disposable “cheap labor” popular with many U.S. businesses and political contributors.

Ruth’s article states important truths about the border and migration echoed by expert after expert that are consistently, shamefully, and improperly being ignored by legislators and other politicos. For example, another leading “practical scholar,” Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr of Cornell Law recently “warned that detaining and quickly expelling migrants before asylum screenings would not solve the influx problem for cities like New York, which is grappling with a surge of migrants.” Read more: https://loom.ly/CLCoxqA.

Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr
Cornell Law

So cowardly and misguided is the GOP’s approach that they waste public funds on a disingenuous “show trip” to the Texas border, but lack the guts and human decency to meet with and listen to the folks actually affected by their toxic policies and proposals.

As reported by Melissa del Bosque in The Border Chronicle (in her overall discouraging and depressing forecast of the deadly political shenanigans that will be rolled out by GOP nativists during the 2024 campaign):

MAGA extremists in the House of Representatives, holding emergency funding hostage for Ukraine, cut out early from Congress for Christmas vacation, but they were willing to shorten their holiday break to make an appearance in Eagle Pass, Texas, on January 3, setting the tone for the coming months leading up to the general election. House Republicans will begin holding hearings on border security in February and are planning to impeach DHS secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

In Eagle Pass, House Speaker Mike Johnson, along with 60 other Republicans, held a press conference in front of coils of razor wire placed along the Rio Grande by Texas governor Greg Abbott’s Operation Lone Star. During the visit, Republicans declined to meet with local community leaders who had erected a public memorial in Eagle Pass for more than 700 people who had died trying to cross the border in 2023.

https://www.theborderchronicle.com/p/the-border-chronicle-forecast-for?r=1se78m&utm_medium=email.

Border Death — This is a monument for those who have died attempting to cross the US-Mexican border. Each coffin represents a year and the number of dead. It is a protest against the effects of Operation Guardian. Taken at the Tijuana-San Diego border by Tomas Castelazo. To comply with the use and licensing terms of this image, the following text must must be included with the image when published in any medium, failure to do so constitutes a violation of the licensing terms and copyright infringement: © Tomas Castelazo, www.tomascastelazo.com / Wikimedia Commons / CC BY-SA 3.0. Grandstanding GOP Representatives, led by Speaker Johnson, who staged a recent “border stunt” were too cowardly and morally compromised to meet with those who track the unnecessary human carnage caused by the expensive, cruel, and ineffective “deterrence only” policies they wish to expand!

Expert organizations, like the Center for Migration Studies (“CMS”) with decades of experience studying what works and what doesn’t at the border have offered straightforward plans for “Managing the Border Without Sacrificing Human Rights,” only to have them arrogantly and insultingly ignored by Congress and the Biden Administration. See https://cmsny.org/statement-manage-border-without-sacrificing-human-rights/.

Michael Posner, Professor & Director, Center for Business and Human Rights at NYU Stern School of Business
PHOTO: Linkedin

Long-time refugee expert/scholar Professor Michael Posner, writing in Forbes, also offers a far more nuanced and realistic approach to the b order that both parties are ignoring:

Rather than enacting the draconian measures Republicans are now proposing that will, in effect, deny everyone their right to seek asylum, the goal should be to strengthen the system so that the cases of genuine refugees are heard quickly, while those who don’t qualify are placed in deportation proceedings. The way forward is not to curtail everyone’s right to seek asylum, but to make the system both fairer and more efficient.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelposner/2024/01/09/why-wealthy-nations-need-to-preserve-the-rights-of-refugees/?sh=7d29141c3ead

The idea that the constitutional right to due process and fundamental fairness and the right of refuge guaranteed by international agreements that we signed and long-standing domestic implementing laws are “negotiable” is simply outrageous and fundamentally un-American!

Meanwhile, Dems cower and run away from the border issue, apparently irrationally believing that ignoring it and ceding ground to the GOP will “make it go away” in 2024. News Flash: It won’t!

Sadly, while experts and advocates who actually understand the border and migration fruitlessly rally, demonstrate, write op-ed’s, and file research-backed reports in favor of protecting asylum rights, Senate Dems by most accounts are busy negotiating them away in response to GOP demands. See, e.g., https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/10/senate-border-ukraine-negotiations/.

Ironically, one of the GOP’s main targets is the parole program — a part of the Biden border strategy that has actually worked in regularizing migration and reducing border pressure. Rather than doing the rational thing and building upon and expanding this success, the GOP is out to squash it, and wobbly Dems are likely to go along to some extent. See, generally, https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/4074720-bidens-parole-program-is-the-immigration-success-story-weve-been-waiting-for/.

Ignoring the advice of experts and acting out of fear, myths, and bias seems to be the “order of the day” for both parties!🤯 That’s a national problem that won’t be solved by ever more extreme and wasteful doses of cruelty, repression, and bogus “deterrence,” no matter how politically and financially profitable continued failure might be to some within our nation’s power structure.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-11-24

🏭 YES, WE CAN MANUFACTURE THINGS IN THE USA — THEY ARE DOING IT IN MAINE — Asylum Seekers & Other Migrants🗽 Are A Key Part Of It — But, Bad Government Policies Promoted By GOP Restrictionists & Wobbly Dems Undermine Our Nation’s Future As a Manufacturing Powerhouse!🤯

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/05/opinion/american-manufacturing-apparel-clothing.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

Rachel Slade writes in the NYT:

. . . .

That summer, I met Ben and Whitney Waxman, husband-and-wife co-founders of American Roots, who had been making all-U.S.-sourced clothing like hoodies and quarter-zips in Westbrook, just outside of Portland, Maine, since 2015. When the country hit pause, the Waxmans worried that demand for their wares would dry up. Without revenue to pay the rent on their factory space and their workers’ salaries, they knew that they’d lose their company in a few months.

To avoid that fate, they could make things the country desperately needed: masks and face shields. So the Waxmans asked their workers if they would be willing to return if they did all they could to make the factory safe. It was a big ask — vaccines were still a year away and information about how the virus spread was limited. In spite of the risks, every single employee said yes, energized by the idea that they could make a real difference at a moment of crisis.

The Waxmans shut down their factory to retool it for safe mask production. By that summer, they nearly quintupled their staff from 30 to 140-plus workers who were cranking out tens of thousands of American Roots’ custom-designed face masks for emergency workers and employees across the country.

Ben and Whitney had founded their company with a mission: to prove that capitalism and labor can work together to create community, good jobs and great products. They chose apparel making because it was fairly easy to get into and all components could be sourced domestically. All they needed was a few sewing machines and an army of workers willing to show up day after day. For these reasons, apparel manufacturing was one of the first industries to get offshored when tariffs were dropped following the signing of NAFTA in 1992. As a Maine native, Ben believed he was bringing back that lost industry — the state had once been a textile powerhouse — and through his mother, who had founded a locally sourced blanket and cape business, he had connections to get them started.

. . . .

I spent time on the shop floor and in the homes of their dedicated workers, many of whom are new Americans, who, with their families, had fled untenable, dangerous situations in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, Angola and other countries, and had found themselves in Maine, eager to build new lives there.

While I was learning about the ups and downs of the textile and apparel industry, I was also introduced to labor history. Ben Waxman had spent a decade at the A.F.L.-C.I.O., the largest federation of unions in the country, representing 12.5 million workers, working closely with President Richard Trumka. During that time, he witnessed the impact of offshoring with his own eyes, standing shoulder to shoulder with factory men and women as their livelihoods were shipped abroad and their pensions dwindled.

Haunted by what Ben had seen, he and Whitney made sure their employees were unionized from the get-go, that their workers earned a living wage, and received health insurance, vacation time, and sick leave to care for themselves and their families. “Our company’s economic philosophy is ‘Profit over greed,’ ” he told me. “We have to make a profit, but it will never be at the expense of our workers, our values or our products.” In that way, the Waxmans were well positioned to attract and retain a work force in a tight labor market.

. . . .

But what do manufacturers really need to build a resilient domestic supply chain? Topping their wish list is universal health care, which would unburden small manufacturers of approximately $17,000 per worker with a family per year, allowing American companies to compete with foreign producers, especially the technologically advanced European factories which are attracting high-end brands looking to make quality products closer to home.

But we also need to talk about formulating a new industrial policy, just as Alexander Hamilton and George Washington did at the moment of the country’s founding. A manufacturing-first agenda, one not just focused on green energy production and chip manufacturing, would funnel government resources toward policies that manufacturers need to remain robust. That includes job-training programs, transportation infrastructure, research and development funding, sectorwide coordination and financing support in every industry. The policy would also take a hard look at tariffs and intellectual property laws to protect American innovation, and encompass broad, clear guidelines for collective bargaining and environmental standards.

Shifting this country back to making things requires cleareyed policy that would stimulate all kinds of production that would, in turn, lift up those abandoned by the new tech and service economy. But there are so many additional benefits. Manufacturing jobs pay better than average and require less education for entry than many other industries. Apprentices learn their craft by doing. Manufacturing also offers diverse opportunities for people who aren’t so inclined to sit in front of a computer eight hours a day. We’ll need programmers, machinists, inspectors, thinkers, inventors, tinkerers: people who enjoy building things and working closely with machines that move and learn.

. . . .

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

Read Rachel’s full article at the link.

These are the things that “smart government” should be investing in for our future. Instead, politicos, including some so-called “fiscal conservatives,” are proposing outrageously expensive, cruel, counterproductive immigration enforcement gimmicks supposedly designed to discourage the very workers, innovators, entrepreneurs, and investors that American manufacturing needs, not to mention reducing the potential pool of eventual U.S. consumers.

Repealing or undermining “Obamacare” — as many in the GOP advocate — is pure idiocy! Exactly the WRONG direction for America!

Sound like disconnects? That’s because they are! Ones that responsible voters should no longer put up with!

The GOP’s racist rants about asylum seekers, and the failure of some Dem politicos to push back hard, is bad for America. They fly in the face of two truths: 1) American benefits from immigration, and 2) many of the immigrants we need are already here or at our borders. Instead of thinking of ways to screen and welcome them, we are wasting money and resources trying to deport them, deny or delay their legal work authorization, and discourage them from coming.

A recent report by Don Lee in the LA Times put it very succinctly:

And that resurgence of immigration has not only given the U.S. a modest gain in total population but also done something far more vital for the economy: It has fueled the nation’s workforce in the last year.

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2024-01-09/california-immigration-driving-population-labor-force-growth?utm_id=123161&sfmc_id=2413253&skey_id=eb7798068820f2944081a20180a0d3a94e025b4a93ea9ae77c7bbe00367c46ef

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-10-24

⚠️ STRONG ECONOMY, LOW UNEMPLOYMENT, RISING WAGES, FALLING INFLATION — WITH NO REAL ISSUES & NO POSITIVE ACHIEVEMENTS, GOP’S 2024 MAGA CAMPAIGN FOCUSES ON LIES & HATE DIRECTED @ MIGRANTS! — Here’s The Truth About The Border & Immigration We Need To Keep Emphasizing!

This guy’s ugly presence and vile racist views hang over the 2024 election campaign and Congressional negotiations. Why? Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com

From Popular Information/Substack:

Chicago in January with flip flops

JUDD LEGUM, TESNIM ZEKERIA, AND REBECCA CROSBY

JAN 4

Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R) says he has transported 95,000 migrants from the Texas border to New York, Washington, DC, and other cities. On New Year’s Eve, Abbott flew hundreds of migrants — including many children — to the Rockford airport in Illinois, 30 miles outside of Chicago. It was snowing upon their arrival, and some of the migrants had no coats or shoes. Others were wearing flip-flops. The migrants were then loaded onto buses chartered by Abbott and dropped off in various suburbs.

Abbott says that he is transporting migrants to “sanctuary cities” as punishment for the cities’ permissive policies. A “sanctuary city” is a derisive term used by the right to describe a city that chooses not to volunteer local law enforcement resources to assist federal immigration agents. But in this case, the issue is largely irrelevant. The overwhelming majority of people being used as pawns by Abbott are in the United States legally.

One approach to deterring migrants is ignoring human rights and making the ordeal as traumatic as possible. That appears to be Abbott’s strategy. But it is not the law.

The Refugee Act of 1980, which passed Congress unanimously, gives migrants inside the United States the right to claim asylum based on “a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” It was enacted “in part to make amends for the country’s shameful refusal to accept Jewish refugees during the Holocaust.”

Previously, most people seeking to cross the southern border of the United States came from Mexico. They were generally seeking seasonal work inside the United States and, therefore, sought to evade detection by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). But beginning in 2010, there was an influx of migrants from Central America fleeing gang violence, racial discrimination, and extreme poverty. More recently, political and economic disruption has prompted an increase in migrants from Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Haiti. These new migrants are seeking legal asylum and want to present themselves to border agents — not evade them.

Migrants are being transported by Abbott to places where housing is expensive and in short supply. Most asylum-seekers would like to work to support their families, but the law does not allow them to receive a work permit for 180 days. Because of bureaucratic delays, asylum-seekers often wait a year or more before they are able to work legally.

Abbott also says his efforts are in protest of President Joe Biden’s “open border policies.” Biden has not opened the border. He did recently repeal Title 42, the Trump-era program that denied migrants the right to seek asylum, citing the public health emergency created by the COVID pandemic. Title 42 was legally questionable from the outset, but its continued use after other pandemic-related restrictions were lifted was indefensible. Title 42 also encouraged repeated border crossings. After Title 42 was imposed, “migrant encounters reported by CBP increased every month for 15 straight months.” Under Title 42, many migrants were deported immediately, and no record was created. This meant there was an incentive for migrants to attempt to cross the border again and again until they were successful.

Despite the rhetoric of Abbott and other prominent Republican officials, Biden has taken a hard line against migrants. Some advocates believe that Biden’s efforts to deter migrants from crossing the southern border have exceeded his legal authority.

The truth about Biden’s immigration policy

During his campaign for president in 2020, Biden vowed to undo Trump-era immigration policies. His promises included not building “another foot of wall” on the border and a pledge to stop using private prisons as immigration detention centers. On day one of his presidency, Biden proposed legislation “to restore humanity and American values to our immigration system.” His plan, known as the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021, would have created pathways to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, increased assistance to Central America, and strengthened oversight and accountability of border operations.

The bill, however, died in Congress. Since then, Biden has only managed to make modest changes to immigration — like overruling Trump’s Muslim Ban and creating a task force to reunify separated migrant families. For the most part, experts say, Biden has continued many of Trump’s policy decisions.

Earlier this year, for example, Biden imposed new restrictive rules for asylum seekers who are not from Mexico. Dubbed by critics as the “Asylum Ban,” the rule assumes most migrants are ineligible for asylum and were similar to ones previously proposed (but never implemented) by Trump. In most cases, migrants will only be considered for asylum if they make an appointment in advance through a smart phone app, CBP One. There are far more people seeking asylum each day than appointments available through the app. In October 2023, the Biden administration announced that it was waiving 26 federal laws to construct up to 20 miles of the border wall in Texas.

A Washington Post analysis found that “nearly 18,000” family members were deported in fiscal year 2023 – about 3,000 more than were deported under Trump in fiscal year 2020. Since Biden took office, the number of migrants detained by ICE has also more than doubled. The majority of these people, the ACLU says, are held in private detention facilities. According to the group, the share of migrants detained in facilities “owned or operated by private prison corporations” has increased under Biden. In some instances, the administration has even kept open detention facilities “that its own oversight agencies have recommended for closure in light of abusive conditions and safety risks.”

Last month, immigration advocacy groups alleged in a federal complaint that officials have “forced asylum seekers to remain in CBP custody in open-air detention sites along the U.S.-Mexico border in California.” The group accuses CBP agents of forcing migrants to wait in “dangerous, exposed conditions” and “failing to provide the adequate food, water, sanitation, shelter, and medical care required under the law.” So far, at least one migrant has died while waiting outside.

Texas passes its own immigration law

On December 18, Abbott signed a law, Senate Bill 4 (SB 4), that will allow state law enforcement to arrest migrants in Texas. The new state law would make it illegal to cross into Texas from Mexico without using an official port of entry. This practice is already illegal under federal law. But now state law enforcement officers will be permitted to arrest individuals based on their suspected immigration status.

Migrants who violate SB 4 could be “charged with a Class B misdemeanor, which carries a punishment of up to six months in jail.” Repeat offenders could face a second-degree felony charge, which carries a prison sentence of up to 20 years. Charges may be dropped by a judge if the individual agrees to return to Mexico. The law is scheduled to take effect on March 5.

SB 4 includes exceptions for migrants in “public or private schools; churches and other places of worship; health care facilities; and facilities that provide forensic medical examinations to sexual assault survivors,” but does not protect those on college or university campuses. The law does not require that law enforcement officers complete any additional training on immigration law, “despite the fact it would authorize them to quickly make decisions about a person’s immigration status.”

Opponents argue that SB 4 is unconstitutional because the federal government, not Texas, is responsible for enforcing immigration laws. On December 28, the Justice Department sent a letter to Abbott stating that SB 4 “violates the United States Constitution.” Yesterday, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit against Texas and Abbott. The lawsuit states that “Texas cannot run its own immigration system” and that SB 4 “intrude[s] on the federal government’s exclusive authority to regulate the entry and removal of noncitizens, frustrate[s] the United States’ immigration operations and proceedings, and interfere[s] with U.S. foreign relations.”

The lawsuit cites Arizona v. United States, a 2012 Supreme Court case in which the Court struck down aspects of a similar Arizona law that aimed to establish immigration enforcement at the state level. In the case, the Court “declared most of [the law] unconstitutional under the federal government’s preemptive power over immigration.”

In response to the December letter, Abbott posted on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. “The Biden Admin. not only refuses to enforce current U.S. immigration laws, they now want to stop Texas from enforcing laws against illegal immigration,” Abbott said in the post. According to NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth, when signing SB 4 into law, Abbott said, “We think that Texas already has a constitutional [right] to do this but we also welcome a Supreme Court decision that would overturn the precedent set in the Arizona case.”

Support accountability journalism

LIKE

COMMENT

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

HISTORICAL NOTE: The article states that the Refugee Act of 1980 “passed Congress unanimously.” But, that isn’t completely accurate.

There was indeed very strong bipartisan support for that Act. It passed the Senate, 88-0.

A different version of the bill overwhelmingly passed the House, 328-47. Therefore, a Conference Committee was formed to resolve differences.

The Conference Committee report largely adopted the Senate version. The Conference bill unanimously passed the Senate again. But, the vote in the House was closer, 207-192, with 34 Representatives abstaining.

The above summary was reconstructed from the outstanding historical article by refugee guru Professors Deborah Anker and Michael Posner in the San Diego Law Review (1981) with an assist from my own recollection of events in which I long ago participated. https://digital.sandiego.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1735&context=sdlr.

Another helpful resource that I consulted is Ballotpedia.

https://ballotpedia.org/Refugee_Act_of_1980.

The Popular Information article reprinted above does very accurately set forth the lies, misinformation, and invidious intent behind the GOP’s attack on and attempt to dehumanize legal asylum seekers!

When a party has no issues, no accomplishments, and no plans for governing in a responsible way, “ginning up” hate, resentment, and “revenge” with lies, misrepresentations, and myths becomes a “strategy.” And somehow, the mainstream media largely falls for it.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-06-24

☠️ ⚰️ FIRST IT WAS IMMIGRANTS, THEN WOMEN, LGBTQ+, ELECTION OFFICIALS, TEACHERS, LIBRARIANS — GOP’S LATEST TARGET OF TOXIC LIES, CRUELTY, STUPIDITY: Hungry Kids! 🤮 “The announcements by Reynolds and Pillen seem almost tailor-made to validate the adage that for Republicans, ‘life begins at conception and ends at birth.’”

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=52a9eb75-c262-45a3-93e8-89f8e05a06b5

Michael Hiltzik writes in the LA Times:

Question: Is there anything more absurd than red state governors rejecting federal programs that directly benefit their constituents?

Easy answer: Yes. It’s the explanations they give to make their actions appear to be sober, responsible fiscal decisions.

The Republican governors of Iowa and Nebraska brought us the most recent examples of this phenomenon just before Christmas.

The issue in both states is a summer food program that provides $40 a month per child in June, July and August to families eligible for free or reduced-price school meals.

The program is known as the Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer Program for Children, or Summer EBT. Its purpose is to give the eligible families a financial bridge during the months when their kids aren’t in school.

The governors didn’t see it that way. Here’s how Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds justified her decision to reject the federal subsidy

for low-income Iowans: “Federal COVID-era cash benefit programs are not sustainable and don’t provide long-term solutions for the issues impacting children and families.”

Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen’s explanation was,

“I don’t believe in welfare.”

Both governors said their states already had programs in place to address food needs for low-income families, and that was enough.

It’s worth noting that the explanations by both Reynolds and Pillen are fundamentally incoherent. What does Reynolds even mean by calling the program “not sustainable”? It would be sustained as long as Congress continues to fund it, which is almost certain as long as Republicans don’t take control of both houses and kill it.

As for Pillen’s crack about “welfare,” he didn’t bother to explain what he believes is wrong with “welfare” as such; he just uttered the term knowing that it’s a dog whistle for conservative voters aimed at dehumanizing the program’s beneficiaries.

What makes these governors’ refusals so much more irresponsible is that the federal government is picking up 100% of the tab for the benefits; the states only have to agree to pay half the administrative costs. Their shares come to $2.2 million in Iowa and $300,000 in Nebraska, according to those states’ estimates.

In return, 240,000 children in Iowa would receive a total of $28.8 million in benefits over the three summer months, and 150,000 Nebraskans would receive a total of $18 million. Sounds like a massively profitable investment in child health in those states.

The governors’ defenses smack of the same strained plausibility of those statements made by banks, streaming networks and other commercial entities that explain that their price hikes and service reductions are “efforts to serve you better.”

. . . .

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

Read the complete article at the link.

Cowardly, irresponsible GOP governors pick on poor kids and their families. And, the other things that might lift families out of poverty: higher wages, shorter hours, more childcare, better health care, educational opportunities, vocational assistance, family planning assistance — the GOP opposes them all in their totally corrupt and disingenuous “race to the bottom.”

Just look at the amount of money GOP politicos have wasted on cruel stunts and gimmicks intended and guaranteed to make the humanitarian situation worse!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-04-23

☠️⚰️🤯 MARY MEG McCARTHY @ CHI SUN TIMES: Elected Officials Must Be Held Accountable 👎 For Unnecessary Migrant Deaths!

Remain in Mexico — A girl peers out from an encampment at the U.S.-Mexico border where she and several hundred people waited to present themselves to U.S. immigration to seek asylum. Politicos of both parties disgracefully treat the lives of asylum seekers as “collateral damage” and apparently expect no consequences from their deadly, inhumane, and often illegal actions against legal asylum seekers! / Photo by David Maung

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2023/12/21/24007965/migrant-death-jean-carlos-martinez-rivero-immigration-chicago-city-council-israel-gaza

Elected officials must act to prevent more migrant deaths

The United States has the resources to welcome new neighbors, but it is going to take cooperation, from the White House to the mayor’s office, to prevent further loss of life and improve safety for migrants.

By Letters to the Editor Dec 21, 2023, 3:32pm CST

It was heartbreaking to learn of the death of 5-year-old Jean Carlos Martinez Rivero, who had been living with his family at a privately contracted Chicago migrant shelter. This tragedy must be a wakeup call for all levels of government to start working together to protect people’s basic human rights at a time of increasing global humanitarian displacement.

For months, community members raised concerns about conditions inside the city’s shelters and volunteered to help better meet migrants’ basic needs. The accounts of life inside the shelter now coming to light are disturbingly similar to those that my colleagues at the National Immigrant Justice Center hear from clients held in immigration detention centers.

The city and the companies profiting from shelter contracts must be held accountable.

No doubt, the city has been forced to face the unprecedented challenge of welcoming thousands of new neighbors with minimal support from the federal government. The Biden administration and Congress must also be held accountable to repair the broken immigration system, support cities like Chicago that are welcoming migrants, and provide legal pathways so new arrivals have access to employment, secure housing and safety.

Jean Carlos’ death occurred at the same time the Biden administration and some U.S. senators are considering signing off on extreme anti-immigrant legislation in exchange for military aid for Ukraine and Israel.

The proposals under negotiation would create permanent new barriers to asylum protection and put U.S. immigrant communities at heightened risk of mass deportations. The proposals are structured to put Black, Brown and Indigenous communities at most risk.

Biden seems to have lost sight of his prior promises to defend immigrants’ rights, not to mention the U.S. government’s obligations to uphold international human rights law. Chicagoans should be holding our own Sens. Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth accountable to loudly oppose these proposals.

The United States has the resources to welcome new neighbors, but it is going to take cooperation at every level — from the White House to the mayor’s office — to prevent further loss of life and improve access to safety for migrant communities.

Mary Meg McCarthy, executive director, National Immigrant Justice Center

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

Unfortunately, accountability seems unlikely unless it happens at the ballot box. The GOP has become the party of inhumanity, irresponsibility, and immunity. And, although the Biden Administration and “wobbly” Dems tend to avoid overtly dehumanizing asylum seekers with their language, their actions and attitudes too often mirror those of Trump, Miller, and the GOP nativists. Indeed, quite disgustingly, politicos of both parties appear to expect to harvest political gains from the blood of migrants! 🤮

The Senate is basically engaging in “bipartisan” negations to knowingly and intentionally violate domestic and international protection laws, abrogate constitutional due process, and increase the number of unnecessary deaths of asylum seekers. That arrogant politicos, on both sides of the aisle, although primarily the GOP, openly advocate for such actions shows just how little fear of any type of accountability they have.

In many ways, that’s precisely the message that Trump and his MAGAmaniacs have been pushing — intentionally hateful and inflammatory language, followed by horrible, sometimes deadly, actions with little or no fear of any type of accountability. Sadly, the Dems seem to think that a program of cowardly acquiescence, rather than principled opposition, is the key to political success.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

01–03-23

🇺🇸🗽⚖️ ANOTHER VIEW, FROM DAN KOWALSKI @ SUBSTACK: “An Opportunity, Not a Crisis — Let them in. Give them work permits. Watch America thrive!”

An Opportunity, Not a Crisis

Let them in. Give them work permits. Watch America thrive.

DAN KOWALSKI

DEC 29

READ IN APP

Reading* the news, it appears that many are freaking out about the “crisis” along the U.S. / Mexico border.

In fact, there is no crisis. Yes, there are logistical problems around feeding and housing migrants, and legal problems around sorting out their legal claims in immigration court.

Thanks for reading Dan’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Pledge your support

But the numbers are the numbers: “[T]he past decade has seen unusually slow growth in immigration. In fact, the period from 2012 to 2022 saw slower growth in the immigrant share of the population than the 2000s, 1990s, 1980s and 1970s. You have to go all the way back to the 1960s, when the immigrant population actually shrank, to find a lower growth rate.” – David J. Bier, Oct. 3, 2023

America is graying. We need more immigrants, not fewer, and the younger the better. “With the national unemployment rate reaching a historic low of 3.4% in 2023—and states like Massachusetts (2.5%) and Pennsylvania (3.5%) reaching record lows—employers and elected officials have been desperate to find new workers.” – Andrew Kreighbaum, Dec. 29, 2023.

But under current law, it can take many months, if ever, for migrants to obtain work permits. Meanwhile, they are forced to work for cash, under the table, exposed to horrible working conditions, sub-market wages and the continual threat of deportation. Once they have work permits, however, they gain bargaining power.

Hein de Haas, professor of sociology at the University of Amsterdam, and the author of How Migration Really Works, says: “Fundamental choices have to be made. For example, do we want to live in a society in which more and more work – transport, construction, cleaning, care of elderly people and children, food provision – is outsourced to a new class of servants made up mainly of migrant workers? Do we want a large agricultural sector that partly relies on subsidies and is dependent on migrants for the necessary labour? The present reality shows that we cannot divorce debates about immigration from broader debates about inequality, labour, social justice and, most importantly, the kind of society we want to live in.”

Many years ago I was “on the bus” for a border journalism junket. With me was Wall Street Journal editorial writer Jason Riley. His 2008 book, Let Them In: The Case for Open Borders, is still fresh as a daisy.

Look I get it: I was lucky enough to grow up bilingual, enjoy the benefits of “higher ed,” and travel a lot, so I am not afraid of immigrants. Many Americans aren’t so lucky. Still, unless we are OK with China and India eating our economic lunch, we need to face facts and let in more immigrants, stat.

* Pro Tip: Never watch television.

Thanks for reading Dan’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Pledge your support

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

There’s plenty of empirical support for Dan’s view that we are largely creating a “crisis” while missing a golden opportunity. Indeed, while the U.S. is the world’s richest and most powerful nation, many smaller and poorer countries are able to resettle more asylum seekers, refugees, and other types of forced migrants, by both absolute numbers and proportion. See, e.g., https://www.nrc.no/shorthand/fr/a-few-countries-take-responsibility-for-most-of-the-worlds-refugees/index.html.

What we appear to have is more of a politically-driven crisis of lack of confidence, political will, and basic competence to manage a humanitarian situation that is predictable, largely inevitable, and an opportunity to harness the human capital of migration — the same energy that actually built our nation and made it great. We’ve wasted huge amounts of money, resources, and time on cruel, failed, counterproductive enforcement gimmicks, while underfunding and failing to creatively update adjudication and resettlement functions.

Sadly and disturbingly, politicos of both parties and the Administration are basically pledging and scheming to ignore the advice of experts and creative problem-solvers and to do an even worse job next year and into the future. They will certainly leave a scurrilous trail of fraud, waste, abuse, cruelty, futility, failure, death, and missed oportunities in their wake — if we let them get away with it!

Austin Kocher, Ph.D.
Research Assistant Professor
TRAC-Syracuse
PHOTO: Syracuse U.

Dan’s essay also reminds me of another recent Substack essay from immigration expert and statistical guru, Professor Austin Kocher. Austin’s theory is that backlogs in and of themselves might not be as bad as we often portray them — particularly in light of the alternatives and the intentional failures to make obvious reforms to improve the “robustness” and fairness of our immigraton system. See https://austinkocher.substack.com/p/3-million-cases-are-now-pending-in.

Here’s the core of what Austin says:

First, it is worth questioning our basic assumptions about whether the “backlog”, as it is somewhat sensationally referred to, is actually a bad thing. Unlike the Obama administration, when the rapid growth of court cases was more attributable to people who lived in the U.S. for a long time getting caught up in interior enforcement, the recent growth is almost entirely due to the arrival of asylum seekers into the country. If you believe that asylum seekers deserve an opportunity to have their cases heard, then these numbers might be a positive sign. More people will have at least a nominal opportunity to apply for asylum instead of being turned away outright at the border.

Second, it remains absurd to me that the current practice in the U.S. is to force recently arrived asylum seekers into court in front of an immigration judge rather than to direct their cases toward asylum officers at USCIS who are trained for precisely this purpose. Immigration courts were designed to adjudicate cases of non-citizens who are suspected of violating U.S. immigration laws. The courts are adversarial environments that, as far as I can tell, require far more taxpayer resources and migrant resources than non-adversarial asylum interviews do. The fact that there are 3 million cases in court is, to me, an indictment of a system that treats humanitarian crises through the lens of quasi-criminalization.

Third, since no real change is likely forthcoming, I think we should rethink our sensationalization of the backlog number and simply accept the growing immigration court backlog much like we accept the U.S. national debt ticker in New York City.2 It’s just going to keep going up unless something absolutely fundamental changes about the world we live in. Get over it. This is how things work now. We need to end the delusional thinking that reforms—even much-needed reforms, such as the creation of an independent court system—are going to “solve” the backlog. The U.S. immigration system either needs radically rethought or we need to simply accept that the number of pending cases will reach 4 million, 5 million, or 6 million cases in the next few years.

Lastly, if we really want to solve the backlog, the easiest way to resolve the backlog is for Congress to give everyone with an NTA (i.e., everyone with a pending court case) and who meets certain minimal criteria a special visa that regularizes their status and puts them on a path to citizenship just like other lawful permanent residents. Yes, yes—I know that not everyone will like that solution for political reasons, but at least admit that you don’t like it for political reasons, not because it wouldn’t solve the backlog (because it would). After all, the US Census Bureau is already forecasting absolute population decline in the US within our lifetimes. Three million new citizens now wouldn’t solve that problem, but it might not hurt in the long run.

I was struck by his second point. One of the positive regulatory changes made by the Biden Administration was to confer authority on USCIS Asylum Officers to grant asylum immediately, at the border or in reception centers, rather than referring all arriving asylum seekers who pass credible fear to the Immigration Courts. Nevertheless, as I among many pointed out, the Administration had neither the personnel nor the training in place to make this change effective.

I also argued that without a new BIA of expert Appellate Judges and exceptionally-well-qualified asylum expert Immigration Judges assigned to key Immigration Courts to provide dynamic leadership, de facto supervision, and a series of far better positive precedents guiding adjudicators to grant asylum in many repetitive situations, this positive change was doomed to failure.

Sure enough, the Administration botched the implementation — running inept, timid, and minute “pilot programs” that could only be termed “sad jokes.” To make matters worse, when recently faced with a humanitarian situation at the border, where a “surge” of qualified Asylum Officers working with NGOs to screen arrivals could have made a huge difference, the Administration inexplicably “suspended” this most useful part of their regulations. Meanwhile, they opted to keep more problematic provisions in effect.

To compound the problem, nativist GOP State AGs mounted frivolous court challenges to the expanded role of Asylum Officers. Stripped of its legal gobbledygook, they essentially and absurdly argued that the Administration lacked authority to empower statutory Asylum Officers to grant asylum.

Dan’s essay found favor with well-known expert Careen Shannon:

This post about the opportunity presented by migrants who want to live in the United States is a sensible message with which to end the year. Kudos to Dan Kowalski for stating what should be obvious but apparently cannot be repeated often enough.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-31-23

🗽⚖️ REFUGEE EXPERT BILL FRELICK @ THE HILL: HUMAN RIGHTS ARE NON-NEGOTIABLE!

https://thehill-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/thehill.com/opinion/immigration/4380120-biden-must-not-trade-away-the-right-to-seek-asylum/amp/

On the eve of a U.S. presidential election year and under the shadow of wars in Ukraine and Gaza, asylum seekers and refugees have become chips on the Capitol Hill bargaining table.

What risks being lost in this high-stakes game is a recognition that fundamental human rights are not negotiable, including “the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution” enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of Bill’s article at the link.

Echoes what many of have saying for a long time! The problem is that the politicos of both parties have abandoned due process (except as it applies to them personally or to their cronies) and human rights.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-30-23

🗽⚖️ PROVING OUR POINT, AGAIN: “Sir Jeffrey” & I Have Been Ripping The Garland BIA’s Contrived “Any Reason To Deny” Misinterpretations Of Nexus & PSG — 1st Cir. Is Latest To Agree With Us! — Espinoza-Ochoa v. Garland

Kangaroos — Turning this group loose on asylum seekers is an act of gross legal, judicial, and political malpractice by the Biden Administration and Merrick Garland!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/
Creative Commons License

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/21-1431P-01A.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/big-psg-and-nexus-victory-at-ca1—espinoza-ochoa-v-garland

“Here, the IJ and BIA found, and the government does not dispute, that Espinoza-Ochoa credibly testified that he experienced harm and threats of harm in Guatemala that “constitute[d] persecution.” But the agency concluded that Espinoza-Ochoa was still ineligible for asylum for two reasons. First, it held that Espinoza-Ochoa had failed to identify a valid PSG because the social group he delineated, “land-owning farmer, who was persecuted for simply holding [the] position of farmer and owning a farm, by both the police and gangs in concert,” was impermissibly circular. Second, the IJ and BIA each held that, regardless of whether his asserted PSG was valid, the harm Espinoza-Ochoa experienced was “generalized criminal activity” and therefore was not on account of his social group. We conclude that the BIA committed legal error in both its PSG and nexus analyses. We first explain why Espinoza-Ochoa’s PSG was not circular and then evaluate whether his PSG was “at least one central reason” for the harm he suffered. Ultimately, we remand to the agency to reconsider both issues consistent with this opinion. … For all these reasons, we agree with Espinoza-Ochoa that legal error infected both the PSG and nexus analyses below. Accordingly, we GRANT the petition, VACATE the decision below, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

[Hats way off to Randy Olen!]

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

You’ve been reading about this damaging, deadly legal travesty going on during Garland’s watch:

🌲UNDER YOUR TREE: A GIFT 🎁 FROM “SIR JEFFREY” CHASE OF THE ROUND TABLE 🛡️— “Asylum In The Time Of M-R-M-S-“ — “One reaction to this decision would have involved explaining that the Board’s illogical holding was reached not by error but by design, in furtherance of a restrictionist agenda; asking why the current administration hasn’t changed the makeup of a BIA specifically constructed to do exactly that . . . . But such talk would be of no practical help. What those representing asylum applicants and those in government deciding those claims need now is a path to negotiate this latest obstacle and still reach the correct result.”

🤯 MISFIRES: MORE MIXED MOTIVE MISTAKES BY BIA — “Expert” Tribunal Continues Underperforming In Life Or Death Asylum Cases! — Sebastian-Sebastian v. Garland (6th Cir.) — Biden Administration’s “Solution” To Systemic Undergranting Of Asylum & Resulting EOIR Backlogs: Throw Victims Of “Unduly Restrictive Adjudication” Under The Bus! 🚌🤮

How outrageous, illegal, and “anti-historical” are the Garland BIA’s antics? The classic example of Marxist-Leninist revolutionary persecutions involve targeting property owners, particularly landowners. Indeed, in an earlier time, the BIA acknowledged that “landowners” were a PSG. See, e.g., Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211 (BIA 1985).

But, now in intellectually dishonest decisions, the BIA pretzels itself, ignores precedent, and tortures history in scurrilous attempts to deny obvious protection. These bad decisions, anti-asylum bias, and deficient scholarship infect the entire system.

It makes cases like this — which could and should have easily been granted in a competent system shortly after the respondent’s arrival in 2016 — hang around for seven years, waste resources, and still be on the docket.

This is a highly — perhaps intentionally — unrecognized reason why the U.S. asylum asylum system is failing today. It’s also a continuing indictment of the deficient performance of Merrick Garland as Attorney General.

Obviously, these deadly, festering problems infecting the entire U.S. justice system are NOT going to be solved by taking more extreme enforcement actions against those whose quest for fair and correct asylum determinations are now being systematically stymied and mishandled by the incompetent actions of the USG, starting with the DOJ!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-28-23

🤯 PROVING MY POINT: “Justice for asylum seekers and other migrants shouldn’t be this difficult in Garland’s courts!” — Despite “Happy Ending,” 600-Day Ordeal In What Should Have Been “Day 1 Grant” To Afghan Ally Shows Deep-Seated Problems @ Garland’s DOJ/EOIR & Human/Operational Consequences Of That Failure!

Star Chamber Justice — AG Merrick Garland’s methods for treating allies and friends of America when they apply for asylum in his “courts” are highly questionable and demonstratively counterproductive. Did the DC Circuit use “trial by ordeal” during Garland’s tenure? If not, why is it OK for EOIR?

From Human Rights First (“HRF”):

https://humanrightsfirst.org/library/ice-pushes-to-deport-asylum-seeking-afghan-incarcerated-in-the-united-states/

About Us

Join the Work

HELPING AN AFGHAN INCARCERATED IN THE UNITED STATES EARN ASYLUM

Mohammad[1] is an Afghan citizen of the Hazara ethnic minority and Shi’a religion, who fled Afghanistan after repeated threats to his life following the Taliban’s consolidation of power in 2021. He escaped by traveling through the treacherous and only available route to the United States to seek asylum.

In Afghanistan, Mohammad was a professor with a history of advocacy for women’s rights and for victims of the Taliban and other extremist groups. Mohammad’s wife, who worked for a U.S. government-funded nonprofit organization in Afghanistan. Due to her work, she has an initially approved Special Immigrant Visa application that also gives Mohammad a path to permanent residence in the United States.

Despite this, Mohammad was criminally prosecuted for entering the United States to seek asylum. He spent 7 months in prison before he was transferred to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody, where he could only then begin to pursue his asylum claim. ICE repeatedly denied Mohammad’s release into the community despite his having permanent resident family in the United States ready to sponsor and receive him.

Mohammad was forced to undergo his asylum case without an attorney while detained in immigration jail. After being held for one year, an immigration judge denied Mohammad’s asylum claims despite extensive evidence that he survived multiple attacks on his life by the Taliban and ISIS-K, and that the Taliban continue to search for him. The judge also dismissed irrefutable evidence of the significant risk he would face due to his ethnic and religious minority status if forced to return to Afghanistan, and the escalating violence imposed by the Taliban.

Mohammad’s story was detailed by the Associated Press. The article provided “a rare look inside an opaque and overwhelmed immigration court system where hearings are often closed, transcripts are not available to the public and judges are under pressure to move quickly with ample discretion” and highlights Human Rights First’s efforts to find justice for Mohammad.

The United States should not deport Afghan allies—especially not those like Mohammad, who have courageously fought for human rights in Afghanistan, are members of ethnic and religious minority groups, and have family eligible for SIV status—all factors that would lead to certain risk of persecution and torture at the hands of the Taliban if forced to return.

We argued that Mohammad was subjected to unreasonably prolonged incarceration. He deserved to live freely in the United States and be reunited with his family while he sought asylum.

As Human Rights First acted on Mohammad’s case, we updated this blog with details of that effort. Please follow this link for more on Mohammad’s story.

December 22, 2023

Mohammad’s journey has been long – he traveled from Afghanistan to South America, through the Darien Gap to the border, to ICE detention, and more – but it has come to a successful conclusion.

Our attorneys were successful in stopping the Department of Homeland Security from deporting Mohammad back to Afghanistan. We filed a Motion to Reopen Mohammad’s case and then filed a new asylum application. We made multiple parole requests to get Mohammad released. We filed for Temporary Protected Status for Mohammad, arguing that it is the U.S. government’s long-standing policy to release any individual who is prima facie eligible for TPS. We contacted government officials and advocated for Mohammad’s release for his sake and for his family — two small children and his wife, whose application through the Special Immigrant Visa program has long been approved. Our request to have his TPS application expedited was denied.

With our partners at the law firm of Akin LLP, we prepared Mohammad for his December 13 Individual hearing before a new judge in Dallas Immigration Court. We gathered additional evidence, spoke with eyewitnesses, consulted with an expert, and filed all necessary filings.

Finally, on December 20, 2023, 602 days after he first arrived in the United States, Mohammad was granted asylum. The immigration judge found that Mohammad had suffered persecution due to his political opinions and ethnicity.

Mohammad was released from detention on December 22, 2023, and will soon reunite with his niece in Michigan. Human Rights First and Akin LLP will now work to reunite Mohammad with his wife and children and help him to pursue a dignified life in the relative safety of the United States.

December 12, 2023

Mohammad is scheduled for an Individual Hearing on December 13. We are very concerned about the possibility of his facing more detention even though he has an incredibly strong case with multiple claims to asylum.

Mohammad is an ethnic Hazara Shia Muslim who was an outspoken law professor and advocate on behalf of victims of Taliban terrorist attacks. His wife was employed by a U.S.-funded organization, and was granted COM approval for her Special Immigrant Visa. Mohammad’s two brothers converted to Christianity, a crime punishable by death; Mohammad fears retribution by the Taliban due to their close family relationship and because they lived in the same building unit. In recent months, the Taliban have visited their home in Afghanistan multiple times.

We continue to believe and will argue that Mohammad should have never been detained in the first place.

December 2, 2023

On December 1, USCIS denied Human Rights First’s request to expedite Mohammad’s application for Temporary Protected Status (TPS). At the time of our request, Mohammad had been in detention for over 550 days.

We argued for expedited processing of his TPS application based on urgent humanitarian reasons — he survived an ISIS-K bombing and an attempted gunpoint abduction by the Taliban — and the national interest of the United States.

We anticipated that the filing of Mohammad’s TPS application would be sufficient for DHS to release him, as he clearly meets the prima facie eligibility requirement. It is a long-standing U.S. government policy that “once granted TPS, an individual cannot be detained by DHS based on their immigration status in the United States.”

Unfortunately, our parole requests have repeatedly been denied, even after the submission of proof of TPS filing and of Mohammad’s wife’s COM approval for her Special Immigrant Visa (SIV).

September 25, 2023

Following the immigration judge’s erroneous denial of Mohammad’s asylum claim, he was connected with a pro bono attorney at Human Rights First to timely appeal that decision. Although ICE argued that Mohammad waived his right to appeal during the final immigration court hearing, experts, including former immigration judges, have reviewed the court transcript and agree with Human Rights First that Mohammad did not receive a fair hearing or knowingly waive his right to appeal. Unfortunately, the Board of Immigration Appeals summarily dismissed Mohammad’s appeal due to that purported waiver.

Human Rights First then filed a motion to reopen his removal proceedings directly with the Immigration Court. With the assistance of Akin Gump LLP, Mohammad also filed a petition for review of the BIA’s decision.[2]

On September 21, Mohammad’s motion to reopen before the immigration court was granted, despite the government’s continued opposition, winning him the opportunity to present his evidence for asylum again but this time with the assistance of an attorney and a new judge. That same day, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that the Secretary has redesignated Afghanistan for Temporary Protected Status, which will provide an additional path to temporary protection from deportation for Mohammad. Human Rights First will continue to defend Mohammad’s case until he secures protection for himself and his family.

[1] full name withheld due to security concerns for his family

[2] this petition will be voluntarily dismissed as Mohammad’s motion to reopen removal proceedings was separately granted by an immigration judge

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

I said it yesterday on “Courtside.”

https://immigrationcourtside.com/2023/12/26/🌲under-your-tree-a-gift-🎁-from-sir-jeffrey-chase-of-the-round-table-🛡️-asylum-in-the-time-of-m-r-m-s/.

And, “bingo,” Garland and his inept minions at EOIR and DOJ furnish a great example of a backlog-building, due-process denying, expertise-lacking, dysfunctional, illogical “court” system that is damaging humanity while undermining U.S. justice and democracy in so many ways!

The full scope of USG failure is on display in this saga:

Prosecutorial abuse;
Coercive detention;
Denial of counsel;
Bad judging at both trial and appellate levels of EOIR;
Lack of asylum expertise;
Absence of positive precedents granting asylum in recurring situations like Afghanistan;
Ignoring evidence;
Punishing allies;
Disregarding potential solutions;
Backlog-building, totally unnecessary “Aimless Docket Reshuffling;”
Squandering USG and NGO resources;
Alienating the NGO community;
Mistreating those we eventually will be welcoming and relying upon in our society;
Generating unnecessary litigation;
Promoting arbitrary and inconsistent results.

The HRF report also notes the supportive role of former Immigration Judges in obtaining justice for Mohammad.

As renowned asylum expert Eleanor Acer, Refugee Protection Director at HRF, said of this case on X:

So relieved that he was finally granted asylum, but I continue to be appalled that people seeking asylum in the US often face so many obstacles & injustices. Senators & Biden officials should focus on staffing & steps for accurate & just decisions, not more barriers & cruelty.

Yup! Our leaders “just don’t get it” when it comes to human rights, immigration, and the reality of forced migration. The costs to humanity of their failures is incalculable!

Institutionalizing “accurate and just decisions” is something that has largely eluded Garland — despite his long service as an Article III Judge and his near-elevation to the Supremes. Many of us, obviously incorrectly, believed that with his judicial background and reputation — and few other real priorities on his plate given his recusal from the Trump prosecutions — Garland would be the AG who would finally fix EOIR and push the transition to Article I status. Instead, he has allowed EOIR to drift and deteriorate on his watch, with destruction of human lives and the undermining of justice in America as consequences!

All the punitive measures Congress is discussing will make things worse! The legislators and the politicos “running” this dysfunction are completely detatched from reality! (Reportedly, Secretary Blinken and other Administration politicos are now in Mexico looking for more “ guaranteed to to fail yet cause more human misery” ways to “enforce their way” out of a humanitarian crisis that is not at core a law enforcement problem at all!)

EOIR and the BIA require senior leaders who are practical experts in asylum law, who put due process and fundamental fairness first, and who are proven problem solvers — not part of the problem as is now the case. Unless and until we get an AG and senior DOJ leaders who recognize both the problems and the (now unrealized) opportunities at EOIR, American justice and democracy will continue to suffer! And human lives will continue to hang in the balance!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-27-23

⚖️🗽👏 ESTHER NIEVES OF WICKER PARK, IL “GETS” THE MESSAGE OF CHRISTMAS 😇 & THE HUMANITY OF ASYLUM SEEKERS, EVEN IF OUR LEADERS (AND TOO MANY “FOLLOWERS”) DO NOT!🤯☹️👎

Description Immigrants & Refugees Welcome - Banner on Facade - Pilsen - Chicago - Illinois - USA Date Taken on 18 February 2017, 10:55 Source Immigrants & Refugees Welcome - Banner on Facade - Pilsen - Chicago - Illinois - USA Author Adam Jones from Kelowna, BC, Canada — Description Immigrants & Refugees Welcome – Banner on Facade – Pilsen – Chicago – Illinois – USA
Date Taken on 18 February 2017, 10:55
Source Immigrants & Refugees Welcome – Banner on Facade – Pilsen – Chicago – Illinois – USA
Author Adam Jones from Kelowna, BC, Canada
Creative Commons License

From the Chicago Sun Times:

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2023/11/30/23982579/migrants-families-racism-venezuela-chicago-tents-nuclear-power-plant-war-letters

Migrants are cut from the same cloth as the rest of us

One of the words I have not heard to describe migrants — but is a more accurate than the negative portrayals — is “families.”

By Letters to the Editor Nov 30, 2023, 5:11pm EST

With the holidays upon us, there will undoubtedly be plenty of work parties, shopping sprees with kids in tow and the ubiquitous family gatherings. The coming months will also challenge us to wear layers of clothes and wrap ourselves and our loved ones in blanket-like coats. I am fortunate to have plenty of gloves, scarves, coats and boots.

Others are less fortunate. The unfortunate ones include the “new arrivals,” most of whom have never experienced a Chicago winter. Since the migrants’ arrival, critics have taken to the airwaves offering their comments about the tents, buses, use of police stations, encroachment on city streets, and, what they believe is the destruction of the city’s social and economic fabric. Descriptions of migrants are also disconcerting: liars, troublemakers, thieves, wayward parents using their kids to manipulate the immigration system and outsiders trying to live off the municipal dough.

One of the words I have not heard but is a more accurate depiction of the new arrivals is families. The buses full of people reflect a multi-generational exit from countries steeped in turmoil and unrest: infants, children, parents, or other caretakers. Describing those who arrive as families could lead us to consider them fully human, more like us. Instead, we use words that create a chasm that places the migrants at an arm’s distance from us, society and our city.

Throughout the next month, love, joy, harmony and peace will be words we will likely hear daily in songs, written in holiday cards and celebrated in plays and movies that bring friends and families together. Some will celebrate the season by remembering the birth of a unique child. Warned to flee to ensure the safety of his wife and newborn child, the family patriarch left for other lands. Wouldn’t it be remarkable if we could see the face of this child in the faces of the children we see coming here? Perhaps we can take the first step by using words that remove the stigma and distance between us and the “new arrivals.” The words? Families, of course.

Esther Nieves, Wicker Park

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

Yup, contrary to the absolute, hateful, BS from Trump, Johnson, and the rest of the MAGA right, and the disgraceful indifference of too many Dems, most migrants want: 1) security, 2) opportunity, and 3) a better future, particularly for family. That’s what I found over more than 13 years on the trial bench at the Immigration Court. Basically, what all of us want from life!

Migrants deserve fair, humane, dignified treatment from the U.S. and our legal system, regardless of whether they ultimately are able to meet the legal criteria to remain!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-24-23

⚖️🤯👩🏽‍⚖️👨🏻‍⚖️ AS GARLAND’S BACKLOG HITS 3 MILLION, WAY PAST TIME TO CLEAN HOUSE, 🧹 BRING IN COMPETENT EXPERTS, 🧐 & START IMPLEMENTING THE “MPI PLAN” FOR BACKLOG REDUCTION & DUE PROCESS! — Empower “The Magnificent Seven” To Take The Field & Bring Order From Chaos!

As predicted by experts from the “git go,” AG Merrick Garland’s indolent, half-baked approach to his most important responsibility — bringing justice and functionality to his Immigration Courts, has been a disastrous failure endangering our entire democracy!
PHOTO: Thomas Hawk
Creative Commons
Amateur Night

Here’s the latest report from TRAC documenting how former Federal Judge Merrick Garland’s failure to fulfill his most important duty — reforming and fixing the U.S. Immigration Courts, has built backlog at record paces and undermined our democracy:

https://trac.syr.edu/reports/734

Here’s the “action plan” that’s been publicly available since July 2023 — “Rethinking The U.S. Immigration Court System” — yet largely, and disastrously ignored by Garland, his lieutenants, and the Biden Administration:

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/mpi-courts-report-2023_final.pdf

Executive Summary

The U.S. immigration courts—and the nation’s immigration enforcement system they support—face
an unprecedented crisis. With a backlog of almost 2 million cases, it often takes years to decide cases. Moreover, the recent growth in the caseload is daunting. In fiscal year (FY) 2022, immigration courts received approximately 708,000 new cases, which is 160,000 more than in any previous year. Such numbers, coupled with the courts’ resource constraints and decision-making processes, ensure that the court system will continue to lose ground.

For asylum cases, which now make up 40 percent
of the caseload, the breakdown is even more dire. Noncitizens wait an average of four years for a hearing on their asylum claims to be scheduled,
and longer for a final decision. Those eligible for protection are thus deprived of receiving it in a timely manner, while those denied asylum are unlikely

to be returned to their countries of origin, having
established family and community ties in the United
States during the intervening years. The combination
of years-long backlogs and unlikely returns lies at the
heart of our broken asylum system. That brokenness contributes to the pull factors driving today’s migration to the U.S.-Mexico border, thereby undermining the integrity of the asylum and immigration adjudicative systems, and immigration enforcement overall.

Many of the factors contributing to the dramatic rise in the courts’ caseload have deep and wide-reaching roots, from long-standing operational challenges in administering the courts to new crises in the Americas that have intensified both humanitarian protection needs and other migration pressures. The scale of these twin challenges has made it more urgent than ever to address them together. In the aftermath of lifting the pandemic-era border expulsion policy known as Title 42 in May 2023, the Biden administration is implementing wide-ranging new border policies and strategies that establish incentives and disincentives linking how migrants enter the United States with their access to the asylum system. But timely, fair decisions are also central to the success of this new regime.

While many other studies have outlined wholesale changes in the immigration court system that only Congress can enact, such legislative action seems unlikely, at least in the near term. Thus, this report calls
for changes that can be made by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), the agency within the Department of Justice (DOJ) that houses the immigration courts, as it is presently organized. Because the immigration courts are administrative bodies, the executive branch has considerable latitude in determining their policies and procedures. The changes laid out in this report hold great potential to improve the courts’ performance and, in turn, enhance the effectiveness of the U.S. immigration system more broadly.

Some steps in this direction are already being taken. The Biden administration has streamlined certain important policies and procedures at EOIR. Nonetheless, these courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals

2 million

cases in the backlog

About 650

immigration judges nationwide

Less than 500

cases completed per judge in most recent years

1

AT THE BREAKING POINT: RETHINKING THE U.S. IMMIGRATION COURT SYSTEM

(BIA), which reviews appeals from immigration court decisions, fall short of meeting the hallmarks of a well- functioning adjudicatory system: that decisions be accurate, efficiently made, consistent across both judges and jurisdictions, and accepted as fair by the public and the parties in the case.

Related issues of caseload quantity and decision quality have given rise to the difficulties EOIR is confronting. Under the Trump administration, the reopening of thousands of administratively closed cases and increased interior enforcement led to rising court caseloads. And since 2016, increased border crossings have accounted for growing numbers of new cases, many of them involving asylum claims.

Cases are also taking longer to complete. While pandemic-related restrictions played a role in this slowdown, case completion rates had in fact already been declining. In FY 2009, each immigration judge completed about 1,000 cases per year. By FY 2021, the completion rate had decreased to slightly more than 200 cases per year, even as the number of immigration judges grew. Thus, more judges alone are not the answer. Slow hiring, high turnover, and a lack of support staff have resulted in overwhelmed judges whose productivity has decreased as the backlog has grown.

Concerns about the quality of decision-making by immigration courts and the BIA have existed for decades. More than one in five immigration court decisions were appealed to the BIA in FY 2020, and appeals of BIA decisions have inundated the federal courts. Federal court opinions have pointed to errors of statutory interpretation and faulty reasoning when overturning decisions. Policy changes at

the BIA, ever-changing docket priorities from one
administration to the next, and some recent Supreme
Court directives have contributed to the diminished
adjudicative quality. Wide variances in case outcomes among immigration judges at the same court and across different courts around the country further point to quality concerns; for example, the rate at which individual immigration judges denied asylum claims ranged from 1 to 100 percent in FY 2017–22.

EOIR has increasingly turned to technology to manage its dockets, primarily through video-conferencing court proceedings. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated its use of internet-based hearings. Four important, yet at times competing, considerations are central when evaluating how technology—and particularly video-conferencing tools—are used in immigration proceedings: efficiency, the impact of technical difficulties, security issues, and concerns about due process.

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) attorneys who prosecute removal cases also play an important role in the court system. Their use of prosecutorial discretion, along with judges’ docket management tools, help shape which cases flow through the system, and how.

Legal defense representation—or the lack of it—is a critical issue plaguing the immigration court system. Noncitizens in immigration proceedings, which are civil in nature, are not entitled to free legal counsel, as

The rate at which asylum claims are denied varies widely, from

1% with one judge to

100%

with another in FY 2017-22

2

AT THE BREAKING POINT: RETHINKING THE U.S. IMMIGRATION COURT SYSTEM

defendants in criminal proceedings are. But they can face life-changing, and sometimes life-threatening, circumstances when subject to an order of removal from the United States. Studies have repeatedly found that representation in immigration proceedings improves due process and fair outcomes for noncitizens. It also improves efficiency, as represented noncitizens move more quickly through immigration court. Lawyers, accredited representatives, immigration help desks, and legal orientation programs aid some noncitizens through this process. But many more move through complex proceedings pro se (i.e., unrepresented).

Federal funding for representation of noncitizens in removal proceedings is effectively barred. Public funding at the state and local levels has increased the availability of representation for some noncitizens. A large share of representation is provided by nonprofit legal services organizations and pro bono law firm resources. Nonetheless, representation is fragmented and insufficient, given the scale of need.

One element of this system that has seen notable signs of change in recent years has been how border management feeds into the courts’ caseload. The Biden administration began implementing a new
asylum processing rule at the southwest border in June 2022 that aims to ease the growing pressures on immigration courts.1 The rule authorizes asylum officers, who are part of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), to make the final decision in asylum cases instead of immigration judges. Asylum seekers whose claims are denied by an asylum officer can still appeal the decision, but on an expedited timeline. As such, the rule holds the potential to reduce the growth of the immigration court backlog and shorten adjudication times to months instead of years.

Since lifting the Title 42 expulsion policy, the Biden administration has paused implementation of the asylum rule due to competing demands for asylum officer resources. But returning to the rule, and strengthening EOIR’s functioning overall, will be important for managing the flow of cases into the immigration courts and the courts’ ability to keep pace with them. Doing so depends on the court system using technology better, more strategically exercising discretion in removal proceedings, and increasing access to legal representation so that courts deliver decisions that are both timely and fair.

This report’s analysis of the issues facing the nation’s immigration courts and its recommendations for addressing them reflect research and conversations with a diverse group of stakeholders—legal service providers, immigration lawyers and advocates, current and former immigration judges, BIA members and administrators, academics, and other experts who have administered, practiced before, and studied the immigration court system. The report urges EOIR and DHS, in its role as the agency whose decisions and referrals come before EOIR, to work together to:

Strengthen the immigration court system’s management and efficiency

► Schedule new cases on a “last-in, first-decided” basis. Such a reset to the system, which has proven successful in the past, could bring processing times on new cases down to months, rather than years.

1 This rule draws in part on proposals made in an earlier Migration Policy Institute (MPI) report: Doris Meissner, Faye Hipsman, and T. Alexander Aleinikoff, The U.S. Asylum System in Crisis: Charting a Way Forward (Washington, DC: MPI, 2018).

3

AT THE BREAKING POINT: RETHINKING THE U.S. IMMIGRATION COURT SYSTEM

Because this disadvantages cases that have already been waiting for a long time, it should be treated as a temporary, emergency measure alongside policy and procedural reforms that protect fairness and promote efficiency more broadly. Shifting resources back to adjudicating older cases, as timeliness is established with incoming cases, is essential for shrinking the growth and size of the backlog, which should be among the courts’ highest priorities.

► Terminate cases that do not meet the administration’s prosecutorial guidelines, which focus priorities on felons, security threats, and recent entrants. One approach to this would be to task ICE attorneys with triaging backlog cases to determine which could be fast-tracked for grants of relief or for removal. Such efforts would allow the courts and ICE attorneys to focus on more serious cases, especially those involving criminal charges.

► Centralize case referrals from DHS. Instead of the current practice of having all three DHS immigration agencies (ICE, USCIS, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection) refer cases separately to EOIR, ICE attorneys should initiate all cases. As de facto prosecutors, they are best positioned to determine the legal sufficiency and priority for moving cases the government has an interest in pursuing.

► Establish two tiers of immigration judges—magistrate and merits judges—modeled on existing state and federal court systems where judges and staff are assigned to different roles or dockets so that cases move through the adjudication system efficiently and expeditiously.

► Expand the use of specialized dockets or courts that handle cases involving specific groups of noncitizens or require certain subject matter expertise, such as juveniles, families, reviews of credible fear determinations, cancellation of removal, adjustment of status, and voluntary departure.Restart the asylum officer rule and provide the support needed to implement it

► Establish a dedicated docket for the asylum officer rule’s streamlined appeal proceedings. As the most far-reaching reform the Biden administration has introduced for strengthening management of the asylum and immigration court systems, implementing the rule effectively is key to reducing the pace of caseload growth in the court system and discouraging weak claims.

Upgrade how the courts use technology

► Ensure that technology is used to make immigration courts fairer for everyone involved, such as by holding hearings remotely when parties would be unable to attend an in-person hearing. Special attention should be paid to how the use of technology can affect detained noncitizens and vulnerable populations such as children.

Increase access to legal representation

► Establish a new unit within EOIR devoted to coordinating the agency’s efforts to expand representation. The unit should collaborate with nongovernmental stakeholders to make representation of detained noncitizens a priority and to allow partially accredited representatives— some of whom may be non-lawyers—to appear in immigration court for limited functions.

4

AT THE BREAKING POINT: RETHINKING THE U.S. IMMIGRATION COURT SYSTEM

► Develop new and innovative ways to scale up representation by coordinating with lawyers who take responsibility for specific aspects of cases or non-lawyers who are specially trained and supervised
to do so. Legal service providers should build a multi-stage, collaborative online system that enables representation by lawyers or non-lawyers in specific stages of a case for which they have the requisite expertise (e.g., filing forms, attending bond or master calendar hearings, or seeking relief ). This approach requires creating e-files for cases, with files moving from one representative or provider to another as cases progress, resulting in both expert representation at each stage and greater efficiency in moving cases forward overall.

► Encourage efforts by state and local governments to provide and/or increase funding to support representation, especially given current restrictions on federal funding of representation in most removal cases.

Despite efforts by successive administrations to bring
the immigration court system’s unwieldy caseload
under control and to improve the quality of its
decision-making, the courts remain mired in crisis.
And while many of the most pressing problems have
roots that stretch back decades, they have in recent
years reached a breaking point. The measures
proposed in this report hold the potential to reduce
case volumes, increase the pace of decision-making,
and improve the quality of adjudications. They would
also mitigate migration pull factors that result from
years-long waits for decisions. The deeply interconnected nature of the nation’s immigration court system and its immigration enforcement and asylum systems mean that such efforts to modernize and fully resource the courts are critical to the health of the U.S. immigration system overall.

The deeply interconnected nature of the nation’s immigration court system and its immigration enforcement
and asylum systems mean that such efforts to modernize and fully resource the courts are critical to the health of the U.S. immigration system overall.

BOX 1
About the Rethinking U.S. Immigration Policy Project

This report is part of a multiyear Migration Policy Institute (MPI) project, Rethinking U.S. Immigration Policy. At a time when U.S. immigration realities are changing rapidly, this initiative has been generating a big- picture, evidence-driven vision of the role immigration can and should play in America’s future. It provides research, analysis, and policy ideas and proposals—both administrative and legislative—that reflect these new realities and needs for immigration to better align with U.S. national interests.

The research, analyses, and convenings conducted for MPI’s Rethinking initiative address critical immigration issues, which include economic competitiveness, national security, and changing demographic trends, as well as issues of immigration enforcement and administering the nation’s immigration system.

To learn more about the project and read other reports and policy briefs generated by the Rethinking U.S. Immigration Policy initiative, see bit.ly/RethinkingImmigration.

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

Read the full report at the link.

Not the first time I’ve said this, but it’s time for “Amateur Night @ The Bijou” (“A/K/A Merrick Garland’s failed EOIR”) to end! Reassign the EOIR senior management folks who have demonstrated “beyond any reasonable doubt” their inability to provide dynamic, due process with efficiency management and visiononary leadership and to solve pressing problems. (This includes the inability to stand up and “just say no” to bonehead “gimmicks” like Garland’s due-process-denying, quality diminishing, backlog-building, “expedited dockets”).

It’s not an exaggeration to say that the anti-asylum, anti-human rights, anti-reality charade now playing out in Congress is driven in large part by Garland’s three-year failure to do his job by getting functionality and due process focused leadership into EOIR.

Bring in a competent, expert executive team, hand them the MPI Plan, and empower them to move whatever “bureaucratic mountains” need to be moved to get results, including, but not limited to, major personnel changes at the BIA and in Immigration Courts and taking a “hard line” with counterproductive performance by DHS (actually “just a party” before the Immigration Courts, NOT “their bosses!”)

Bring in these experts:

Judge (Retired) Dana Leigh Marks
Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr
Dean Kevin Johnson
Michelle Mendez (NIPNLG)
Professor Michele Pistone
Jason “The Asylumist” Dzubow
Wendy Young (KIND)

Task this “Magnificent Seven” — folks with centuries of practical expertise and creative ideas for actually solving humanitarian problems (rather than making them worse, as per the ongoing travesty on the Hill) — with turning around the EOIR disaster; support and empower them to achieve results and to reject politicized bureaucratic meddling from DOJ and elsewhere! Make the long-unfilled “promise of INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca” — a legitimate, properly generous, practical, efficient asylum and refugee adjudication system that complies with international and domestic law and simple human decency — a reality!

This is about rebuilding America’s most important and consequential court system, NOT running an “government agency!”

This is also the “demand” that Congressional Dems SHOULD be making of the Biden Administration, instead of engaging in disgraceful (non) “bargaining” with GOP nativists that seek an end to asylum and an increase to human suffering and ensure continuing humanitarian disaster at our borders!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-19-23

🤮☠️ AS CONGRESS ENGAGES IN TRUTH & REALITY FREE (NON) DEBATE ON HOW TO INFLICT MORE CRUELTY AND MAYHEM ON VULNERABLE ASYLUM SEEKERS, THE REAL IMMIGRATION PROBLEMS GO UNADDRESSED — “No Fair Day” Documents Continuing Abuse Of Kids In Immigration Court!

Stephen Miller Cartoon — Stephen Miller & Count Olaf. Despite promises to the contrary, the Biden Administration still channels Stephen Miller in its approach to kids in court. And, now they are working with GOP nativists and wobbly Dems in Congress to make things even worse, for kids and other asylum seekers!
Evil Twins, Notorious Child Abusers

A new “white paper” investigation from UCLA Center for Immigration Law and Policy documents shocking abuses already being inflicted on children Immigration Court even as Congress and the Administration look for more ways to strip asylum seekers of legal rights and human dignity:

https://law.ucla.edu/sites/default/files/PDFs/Center_for_Immigration_Law_and_Policy/No_Fair_Day_Children_in_Immigration_Court_White_Paper.pdf

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This white paper provides a comprehensive assessment of the Biden

administration’s treatment of children facing removal in immigra-

tion court. While much attention has rightly been given to the Biden

administration’s border and asylum policy, less attention has been

paid to child-specific policies in immigration court. This matters

both because tens of thousands of removal orders have been issued

against children during the Biden administration, and because chil-

dren’s cases present unique legal issues—including most obviously

that children generally bear little, if any, legal responsibility for the

situations in which they find themselves.

We find that the Biden administration took important steps at the

outset to protect children in ways the prior administration did

not. The decision to exempt children from the border expulsion

policy known as Title 42 was particularly significant in this respect.

However, for children who were permitted to enter the system and

ordered to appear for proceedings in immigration court, the Biden

administration has largely continued the policies of previous admin-

istrations. Those policies have utterly failed to protect the rights of

children in court.

These failures are all the more striking because they have continued

even as the administration has signaled support for the principle

that children deserve legal representation in immigration court as

a matter of basic fairness. Department of Homeland Security Sec-

retary Mayorkas—the nation’s foremost immigration enforcement

official—has repeatedly stated that he does not believe children can

receive fair removal hearings without legal representation, even as

prosecutors under his purview have proceeded with thousands of

such hearings and obtained thousands of removal orders against

unrepresented children through those grossly unfair processes.

The administration’s policies toward children in immigration court

have far-reaching impacts. In the first five months of Fiscal Year 2022,

almost one third of all new cases in immigration court involved chil-

dren, including tens of thousands of children under the age of five.1

Some of these children are “unaccompanied” because they arrived

1 TRAC, One-Third of New Immigration Court Cases

Are Children; One in Eight Are 0-4 Years of Age

(Mar. 17, 2022), https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/

reports/681/.

NO FAIR DAY: THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION’S TREATMENT OF CHILDREN IN IMMIGRATION COURT 3

alone, while others are in “consolidated proceedings” with their fami-

lies. The immigration system, and the Biden administration, has failed

both. Many of these children proceeded without counsel, and a huge

number of children have been ordered removed for failure to appear.

We explain why these two policies—the imposition of in absentia

removal orders against unrepresented children and the failure to

provide counsel—are unlawful, and we provide recommendations

for how the Biden administration can remedy this crisis.

. . . .

It should be obvious that immigration court proceedings are far too

complex for children to navigate without legal representation. As

Secretary Mayorkas acknowledged earlier this year, “a nine-year-old

child cannot navigate the immigration system.”44 Attorneys General

under the Obama administration made similar statements, as had

the government’s own expert in litigation challenging the failure to

provide counsel for children several years ago.45 Prior to that conces-

sion, one supervisory immigration judge was extensively ridiculed

for stating his view that he could teach three- and four-year-olds to

understand immigration law and represent themselves in immi-

gration court.46 Yet, despite the obvious absurdity of that view, the

Biden administration’s immigration courts—like the immigration

courts of all prior administrations—recognize no age below which

children cannot proceed without a lawyer in court.

. . . .

CONCLUSION

Despite taking some strong symbolic and practical steps in its early

days, the Biden administration has failed children in immigration

court under its watch. In the last three years, Immigration Judges

have issued removal orders against tens of thousands of children in

violation of basic due process principles. Though the administration

has not enforced most of those removal orders, nothing will stop a

future administration from doing so without ever providing those

children a fair day in court.

But there is time to reverse course. We urge the administration to

adopt the concrete recommendations laid out in this paper: prohibit

the issuance of in absentia removal orders against unrepresented

children; terminate the Dedicated Docket; and ensure legal represen-

tation for all children in removal proceedings. To do so would make

real the Biden administration’s promise of a fair and humane immi-

gration system for children.

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

Read the complete report at the above link.

This should be a fixable problem! Instead, Congress and the Administration are fixated on making things worse for children and other legal asylum seekers at the border. What’s happening in the Senate now is neither a “negotiation” nor does it have much to do with “national security.”

It’s mostly about bullying the most vulnerable while diverting attention from the failure of all three branches of Government to address human migration and human rights in an rational, lawful, and constructive manner.

Artificially inflating and manipulating “in absentia” order statistics has been a long-time practice of EOIR under Administrations of both parties. The DOJ and EOIR use their own unfair procedures to paint a false picture of individuals evading the system.

In reality, statistics show that the overwhelming majority of those able to secure representation and therefore understand the “system” want fair merits decisions on their asylum applications.

But, as many who, unlike Garland and his minions, have actually practiced in the dysfunctional Immigration Courts know, getting a timely merits hearing on meritorious, already-prepared cases can be “mission impossible” in a system wedded to “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and lacking in dynamic due-process-focused expert leadership!

Additionally, “notice” problems at EOIR are endemic — now reaching the Supremes for the third time (after being blown out on the first two trips) in a “supreme dereliction of duty” by Garland’s DOJ. Haphazard notice procedures and endless delays are also major contributors to the abuse of children in Immigraton Court.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-18-23

⚖️🗽 THERE ARE WAYS TO HARMONIZE & HARNESS THE REALITY & HUGE POSITIVE POTENTIAL OF GLOBAL HUMAN MIGRATION— They Are Neither “Simple” Nor “Immediate” — But “Deterrence Only” Definitely Is NOT Among Them!☠️

Amy E. Pope
Director General
International Organization for Migration
PHOTO: IOM

Filippo Grandi
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
PHOTO: UNHCR

From Time Magazine:

https://time.com/6344740/global-immigration-system-reform/

IDEAS

BY AMY E. POPE AND FILIPPO GRANDIDECEMBER 11, 2023 11:43 AM EST

Pope is the Director General (DG) of the International Organization for Migration; Grandi is the UN High Commissioner for Refugees

F

rom the sands of the Sahel to the waters of the Mediterranean, from the wilderness of the Darien in Central America to the Bay of Bengal, millions of refugees and migrants journey along routes that are synonymous with desperation, exploitation and lost lives. As the heads of the two U.N. agencies that protect and support people on the move, we believe this is one of the great global challenges of our time.

The loudest political response has been to claim that only tougher action can resolve it. Most recently, a number European states have announced plans to “offshore” or simply deport asylum seekers and/or make conditions around immigration and asylum more hostile.

Such plans are increasingly in vogue. They are also wrong. They overly concentrate on deterrence, control and law enforcement, and disregard the fundamental right to seek asylum. This approach is ineffective and irresponsible, leaving people stranded or compelling them to take even greater risks.

We do not want to understate the scale of the challenge created by today’s population movements. But to meet it, bigger thinking and bolder leadership are needed. The right strategy would tackle every stage of the journey, through a comprehensive and route-based approach of engagement. So, what should such a strategy look like?

First, we need to address the issues that compel people to leave home in the first place. Resolving conflicts, improving security, reinforcing human rights, providing sustained and reliable financial support to boost growth and resilience—all address the root causes of displacement and migration by investing in people’s futures. Failing to make these investments and cutting development aid are false economies.

Nonetheless, millions of people have no choice but to leave home—protracted conflicts, widescale rights abuses, intolerable poverty, and the devastating effects of climate change are just some of the causes. Yet the same point applies: offer hope and opportunity and people will take it.

. . . .

Two ingredients are essential for our proposals to succeed: cooperation and real responsibility-sharing between governments, even in these divisive times; and attention to every part of the journey. An approach focused mainly on deterrence will fail—indeed, it is already failing.

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

Read the complete article at the link!

“Offer hope and opportunity and people will take it!” That’s essentially what the Supremes said 35 years ago in the landmark decision INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca requiring a suitably generous interpretation and application of the international “refugee” definition that also governs asylum.

Over the next several decades, slow but noticeable progress was made toward “realizing the full promise of Cardoza.” At one point, largely as a result of some Court of Appeals interventions, and a few positive BIA precedents granting asylum in the mid to late 1990’s, the “combined protection granted rate” for asylum, withholding, and CAT by EOIR, the primary precedent-setter and adjudicator of asylum law in the Executive Branch, exceeded 60% for those actually able to get to merits hearings in the somewhat haphazard system.

However, over the past several Administrations most of that progress has been reversed, sometimes intentionally, other times negligently. The dysfunction, mounting backlogs, poor precedents, lack of asylum expertise, endless “any reason to deny gimmicks,” and the dreaded “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” have made a mockery of justice for asylum seekers at EOIR. It has also generated a tidal wave of failure and mindless attempts by the USG to evade the rule of law and their responsibilities to fairly adjudicate asylum claims that goes far beyond our borders.

None of the nativist, restrictionist, proposals now being discussed in the Senate would help this situation! Indeed, they would undoubtedly make everything worse in the long run! They will also compromise our national security and enrich and embolden human smugglers and cartels. Nativist deterrence is definitely a “lose-lose proposition” even if many U.S. politicos are unwilling or unable to admit that!

In many ways, the “head in the sand” approach of prosperous nations to human migration reminds me of their past attempts to deny or ignore the effect of climate change — something that is directly related to forced migration and not adequately addressed by the post WW II refugee framework.

I was heartened to see among the recommendations in this article:

But this is not just about policies and strategies. It means engaging more closely with the people in mixed movements, such as offering practical and legal advice on accessing protection, to guidance on applying for third-country options. Such a chain of engagement might require new, bespoke models of collaboration but, if done strategically, would address a range of situations.\

This supports the recent proposal that Retired Wisconsin Judge Thomas Lister and I published on “Courtside” for the creation of a volunteer group of “Judges Without Borders” (“JW/OB”). https://immigrationcourtside.com/2023/12/13/%F0%9F%91%A9%F0%9F%8F%BD%E2%9A%96%EF%B8%8F%F0%9F%91%A8%F0%9F%8F%BB%E2%9A%96%EF%B8%8F-%E2%9A%96%EF%B8%8F%F0%9F%97%BDjudges-without-borders-an-innovative-op/

Volunteer retired judges from various State and Federal systems could potentially assist the USG and NGOs by advance screening applicants, inside and outside the U.S., for asylum with an eye toward helping individuals make good choices and directing those unable to meet the current refugee and asylum criteria to humane alternatives. It’s exactly the type of new, creative, “model of collaboration” (and cost efficiency) that the authors recommend!

Given the current state of the world, with active wars on several fronts, and many corrupt and/or repressive governments, it’s highly likely that forced migration will continue to increase in the foreseeable future. That makes it essential that developed nations work with each other and humanitarian experts on viable, durable solutions that recognize the complexity, the opportunities, and the inevitability of human migration.

On Meet the Press today, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) spouted virtually every “border myth” in the book, without much effective pushback from moderator Kristen Welker. In particular, Welker continued her practice of not featuring any experts who actually work with forced migrants at the border. Meanwhile, Graham was unwilling to condemn Trump’s Hitlerian language about immigrants “poisoning the blood” despite numerous opportunities by Welker for him to do so.

What Graham didn’t do, and Welker didn’t press him on, was establish any connection between eliminating asylum and either reducing terrorist threats or fighting drug smuggling which has been shown time and again to have little or nothing to do with individuals struggling to get appointments through “CBP One” or turning themselves in to CBP upon entry to submit to asylum screening.

Additionally, Graham continued to repeat, without evidence (other than one lame anecdote), the nativist claim that almost nobody coming to the border has a legitimate fear of return. That contradicts almost all reports from those who actually work with forced migrants at the border and elsewhere. It’s also remarkable because the vast majority of those who have been allowed into the U.S. in the past year have not had an opportunity to document and present their claims in the fair merits hearing required by law. Yet the “border debate” remains largely one-sided and reality free!

That’s not to minimize the failure of the Biden Administration to heed expert advice and make major administrative, personnel, and expertise changes in the asylum adjudication system and the Immigration Courts on “Day One.” Nor does it excuse their failure to set up an organized, mutually beneficial, system for resettling those screened the into the country away from border points of entry.

Again, the absence of coherent rational discussion of asylum adjudication by experts by Meet the Press and other so-called “mainstream media” is both telling and disturbing. Certainly, internationally-recognized experts like Filippo Grande and Amy Pope must be available to Welker. Why don’t we ever hear from them?

Demand that Congress and the Biden Administration stop the toxic nonsense of “trading” the lives and rights of forced migrants for bombs and weapons to fight foreign wars. It’s time to get serious about developing immigration and refugee policies that operate in the “real world” of human migration, eschew expensive, cruel, proven to fail “deterrence only,” and give primacy to the humanity and rights of migrants and the opportunities they present for our world’s future!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-16-23

😢 CRIES IN THE WILDERNESS: The Voices Of Experience & Reasonableness Are Being Drowned Out By Nativism, Butt-Covering, & Imagined Political Expediency In The One-Sided “Border Debate” Taking Place In The Senate!

Caitlyn Yates Fellow Strauss Center for International Law & Security PHOTO: Strauss Center — Caitlyn Yates
Fellow
Strauss Center for International Law & Security
PHOTO: Strauss Center

This podcast from Melissa Del Bosque of The Border Chronicle and Caitlyn Yates, who actually works with migrants in the Darien Gap, gives real life perspective on the humanitarian crisis and all the reasons why more cruelty, punishment, and deadly deterrence isn’t going to solve the flow of forced migrants. But, unhappily, policy makers aren’t interested in the voices of those who actually have experience with forced migrants, nor are they interested in learning from the forced migrants themselves — a logical — if constantly ignored — starting point for making sound policy decisions!

https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=373432&post_id=139696609&utm_source=post-email-title&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1se78m&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoxMDgxNTc5OTAsInBvc3RfaWQiOjEzOTY5NjYwOSwiaWF0IjoxNzAyMzkzMzIwLCJleHAiOjE3MDQ5ODUzMjAsImlzcyI6InB1Yi0zNzM0MzIiLCJzdWIiOiJwb3N0LXJlYWN0aW9uIn0.CSjTGVDSTEoVPMU3vd7l-vjE2t6LYzS6bfkSQ-qMOcU

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

In the Wilderness — Migration and human rights experts have excelled in court and academia. Yet, they have been consigned to wander the political wilderness, their wisdom, expertise, and real world solutions are routinely ignored or mindlessly rejected by both political parties.
Colmar – Unterlinden Museum – The Isenheim Altarpiece 1512-16 by Matthias Grünewald (ca 1470-1528) – Visit of Saint Anthony the Great to Saint Paul the Hermit in the Wilderness
Creative Commons

Four “takeaways” on what a consensus on migration should be:

Human migration is real;
Forced migration is largely beyond the unilateral control of any one nation;
Deterrence alone won’t stop migration;
More legal pathways for migration are necessary.

We’re a long way from that needed consensus right now!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-16-23

Catherine writes:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Ruth writes in The Messenger:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Rachel Slade writes in the NYT:

Sound like disconnects? That’s because they are! Ones that responsible voters should no longer put up with!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

From Popular Information/Substack:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Michael Hiltzik writes in the LA Times:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Elected officials must act to prevent more migrant deaths

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

From Human Rights First (“HRF”):

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

From the Chicago Sun Times:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Here’s the latest report from TRAC documenting how former Federal Judge Merrick Garland’s failure to fulfill his most important duty — reforming and fixing the U.S. Immigration Courts, has built backlog at record paces and undermined our democracy:

Here’s the “action plan” that’s been publicly available since July 2023 — “Rethinking The U.S. Immigration Court System” — yet largely, and disastrously ignored by Garland, his lieutenants, and the Biden Administration:

Bring in these experts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

A new “white paper” investigation from UCLA Center for Immigration Law and Policy documents shocking abuses already being inflicted on children Immigration Court even as Congress and the Administration look for more ways to strip asylum seekers of legal rights and human dignity:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

From Time Magazine:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts: