U.S. Needs To Ameliorate Brutal Jobs Endangering Immigrant Workers

This blog has emphasized the U.S. need for more immigrant labor, especially in those states with aging, declining population.[1]

The U.S. also needs to ameliorate the harsh, brutal working conditions facing many of these immigrants, especially children, as detailed in a New York Times investigation of such conditions in 20 states.[2]

==========================

[1] Posts and Comments to dwkcommentaries.com: Iowa State Government Encouraging Refugee and Migrant Resettlement (Feb. 3, 2023); Comment: National Worker Shortages in U.S. (Feb. 3, 2023); Comment: Economists Surprised by January New Jobs Data (Feb. 4, 2023); Comment: Migrant Workers Being Paid Premium Wages in Tight U.S. Job Market (Feb. 8, 2023); More Details on U.S. and Other Countries’ Worker Shortages (Feb. 9, 2023); Other States Join Iowa in Encouraging Immigration to Combat Aging, Declining Population (Feb.22, 2023); COMMENT: More Support for Immigrants’ Importance for U.S. Economy (Feb. 23, 2023); U.S. High-Tech Layoffs Threaten Immigrants with Temporary Visas (Feb. 25, 2023).

[2] Drier, Alone and Exploited, Migrant Children Work Brutal Jobs Across the U.S., N.Y. Times (Feb. 25, 2023); Vondracek, Labor Department: Over 100 children hired to clean meatpacking plants, including in Minnesota, StarTribune (Feb. 17, 2023).

U.S. Adopts Confusing New Program for Resettling Certain Foreigners

On January 19, the Biden Administration announced an additional program for the resettlement of certain foreigners, i.e., “refugees,” in the U.S. that directly will involve U.S. citizens, acting through the State Department’s U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP). This new program seeks to resettle refugees from Latin America and the Caribbean with the assistance of Americans “ranging from members of faith and civic groups, veterans, diaspora communities, businesses, colleges and universities, and more.” [1]

This new program already has its own website—Welcome Corps–which says that  more than 200 diverse organizations are signaling their support and that Americans will “work in groups of at least five  to welcome newcomers by securing and preparing initial housing, greeting refugee newcomers at the airport, enrolling children in school, and helping adults to find employment.” Most importantly, the individuals in these citizen groups will “offer a sense of welcome, belonging, and inclusion for families.”

The “Welcome Corps” website also describes its training program for “providing core private sponsoring services (e.g., housing, benefits and services access, cultural adjustment, etc.) and an overview of how to help facilitate the long-term integration of refugees, . . . the logistics of forming a Private Sponsor Group, fundraising, developing a Welcome Plan, and resiliency-building.” This training must be completed by at least one member of the Private Sponsor Group.”

Who Will Be Welcomed by the Welcome Corps? [2]

The initial Corps materials repeatedly use the word “refugee” to identify the foreigners it will be seeking to help relocate in the U.S. Those same materials also refer to  Latin Americans, Caribbeans, Afghans and Ukrainians as people they want to welcome to the U.S. Those are certainly laudatory goals.

But not all of those groups have been determined to meet the legal requirements for  “refugee” status under international and U.S. law as shown by the following:

  • International Law. On April 22, 1954, the international Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees went into force and became a binding treaty after its ratification or accession by the sixth state. Then after its amendment by the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees that went into effect on October 4, 1967, the international definition of “refugee” was the following: Any person who “owing to well- founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who,not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.”

(Excluded from that international definition of “refugee” was “any person . . . [who] (a) . has committed a crime against peace, a war crime or a crime against humanity . . . ; (b) . . .          has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee; [and] (c) . . . has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the [U.N.].”)

  • U.S. Law. The U.S. did not ratify the previously mentioned Protocol (and by incorporation the previously mentioned Convention) until November 1, 1968, and 12 years later the U.S. finally adopted the implementing federal legislation (the Refugee Act of 1980), which defines “refugee” as follows: “any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” That federal statute also provided, “The term ‘refugee’ does not include any person who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”

It must also be noted that this last Session of Congress failed to enact the Afghan Adjustment Act, which would have provided some temporary legal protection for Afghan evacuees who have not been determined to be “refugees.”[3]

Conclusion

It is utterly dumbfounding that the Departments of State and Homeland Security could erroneously use the important legal concept of “refugee” in this  matter of foreign policy.

============================

111 State Dep’t, Launch of the Welcome Corps—Private Sponsorship of Refugees (Jan. 19,2023); State Dep’t, U.S.  Refugee Admissions Program, (Jan. 19, 2023);  Welcome Corps Website, State Dep’t, U.S.  Refugee Admissions Program, (Jan. 19,2023); 200+ Organizations Signal Support for the Welcome Corps, New Service, Opportunities for Private Refugee SponsorshipThe Welcome Corps Essentials Training, Jordan, Biden Administration Invites Ordinary Americans to Help Settle Refugees, N.Y. Times (Jan. 19, 2023); Santana, (AP), Welcome Corps provides a new way for Americans to sponsor refugees, Ch. Sci. Monitor (Jan. 19, 2023).

[2] Refugee and Asylum Law: The Modern Era, dwkcommentaries.com (July 9, 2011); Refugee and Asylum Law: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, dwkcommentaries.com (July 10, 2011); Weissbrodt, Ni Aolain, Fitzpatrick & Newman, International Human Rights: Law, Policy, and Process at 1040-42 (4th ed. 2009).

[3] Need To Prod Congress to Enact the Afghan Adjustment Act, dwkcommentaries.com (Dec. 17, 2022); Apparent Failure To Enact Bipartisan Immigration Bills, dwkcommentaries.com (Dec. 18, 2022); Congress Fails to Adopt Important Immigration Bills, dwkcommentaries.com (Dec. 28, 2022).

 

 

 

 

President Biden’s Argument for New Asylum/Border Policy

The Biden Administration’s new asylum/border policy was announced on January 5th. [1] That same day President Biden made the following lengthy statement about the new policy.[2]

“On my first day in office . . . I  sent Congress a comprehensive piece of legislation that would completely overhaul what has been a broken immigration system for a long time: cracking down on illegal immigration; strengthening legal immigration; and protecting DREAMers, those with temporary protected status, and farmworkers, who all are part of the fabric of our nation.’

“But congressional Republicans have refused to consider my comprehensive plan. And they rejected my recent request for an additional $3.5 billion to secure the border and funds for 2,000 new . . . asylum officers and personnel — and 100 new immigration judges so people don’t have to wait years to get their claims adjudicated, which they have a right to make a claim legally.”

“And the failure to pass and fund this comprehensive plan has increased the challenges that we’re seeing at our southwest border. . . .”

“People come to America for a whole lot of different reasons. To seek new opportunity in what is the strongest economy in the world. Can’t blame them wanting to do it. They flee oppression . . . to the . . . freest nation in the world. They chase their own American Dream in the greatest nation in the world.”

“And the story of America is the story of so many of your families — including mine, going back to the mid-1800s from Ireland.”

“Now, there are a number of ways to immigrate to America legally under our existing laws. For example, an American citizen — an American citizen can sponsor an immediate family member from another country. An American company can sponsor an employee from another country. There are visas for students to study in our colleges and other special categories.”

“And regardless of the legal pathway, . . they process them to require everyone be involved in following the law. That’s the notion. There are laws to get here legally. That includes another legal way for someone to come to America by seeking asylum because they’re fleeing persecution, like a lot of our ancestors did as well.”

“And for many people, that’s what’s happening at our southwest border now.”

“Over the past several years, thousands of people have been fleeing from Central and South America and the Caribbean countries ruled by oppressive dictators — including Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela — and escaping gang violence, which has the same impact, in Haiti.”

“Currently, these four countries account for most of the people traveling into Mexico to start a new life by getting . . .to the American border and trying to cross.”

“But instead of safe and orderly process at the border, we have a patchwork system that simply doesn’t work as it should. We don’t have enough asylum officers or personnel to determine whether people qualify for asylum. . . . {W] don’t have enough . . .immigration judges to adjudicate the claims of immigrants.”

In fact, the previous administration used a rule called Title 42 to deal with . . . the pandemic, . . . to rapidly expel people who crossed the border. It was . . . designed to deal with the pandemic, but it’s used as a means to expel people at the border.”

“People turned away under Title 42, and they are . . . not barred from trying to come back. They’ve been turned away. They go back. They try again. They try again.. . . [T]hey can and they do try to re-enter the United States again and again, which makes the problem . . . at the border even worse.”

And under the [upcoming] United States Supreme Court decision . . . on Title 42 later this year, my administration will . . . make a decision, finally, what to do about Title 42. In the meantime, my administration will continue to use that authority as the Supreme Court has required.”

And until Congress passes the funds — a comprehensive immigration plan to fix the system completely — my administration is going to work to make things better at the border using the tools that we have available to us now.”

“Today, my administration is taking several steps to stiffen enforcement for those who try to come without a legal right to stay, and to put in place a faster process — I emphasize a ‘faster process’ — to decide a claim of asylum. . . .”

“Over the summer, we saw a huge spike in the number of Venezuelans traveling through — through Mexico and attempting to enter the United States without going through our legal processes.”

“We] responded by using and ensuring that there are two safe and lawful ways for someone leaving [their] country to come to America.”

“First, if they’re seeking asylum, they can use an app on their cell phone called CBP One. . . .  To schedule an appointment at a port of entry and make their asylum claim there without crossing the border unlawfully and have a decision determined by an asylum officer . . . [whether] they qualify.”

“Second, in October, we worked with the Mexican government to launch a new parole program. . . . The way this parole program works: One must have a lawful sponsor here in the United States who agrees to sponsor you to get here.”

“Then, that person has to . . . undergo rigorous background checks and apply from outside the United States and not cross the border illegally in the meantime.”

“If they apply and their application is approved, they can use the same app, the CBP One app, to present at a port of entry and be able to work in the United States legally for two years. That’s the process.”

“But if their application is denied or if they attempt to cross into the United States unlawfully, they will be returned back to Mexico and will not be eligible for this program after that.”

“If they apply and they do it properly, fine. If they . . . don’t apply and they try to come through, they’re not going to have an opportunity to deal with the program.”

“This new process is orderly, it’s safe, and it’s humane. And it works.”

“Since we created the new program, the number of Venezuelans trying to enter America without going through a legal process has dropped dramatically, from about 1,100 per day to less than 250 per day on average. That’s several hundred people on average every single day who are not crossing into America illegally.”

“Today I’m announcing that my administration is going to expand the parole program for people not only from Venezuela but from Cuba, Nicaragua, and Haiti.”

“Again, these four countries — Venezuela, Cuba and — Cuba and Nicaragua and Haiti — these four countries account for most of the people now traveling into Mexico to try to start a new life by crossing the border into the United States of America on the southwest border.”

“We anticipate this action is going to substantially reduce the number of people attempting . . . to cross our southwest border without going through a legal process.”

“In fact, today I’m announcing that Mexico has agreed to allow [the U.S.]up to re- — to return up to 30,000 persons per month who try, get caught, and get sent back from those four countries who are apprehended while attempting to unlawfully cross the . . . the southwest border.”

“My message is this: If you’re trying to leave Cuba, Nicaragua, or Haiti, . . . or have agreed to begin a journey to America, . . . do not just show up at the border. Stay where you are and apply legally from there.”

“Starting today, if you don’t apply through the legal process, you will not be eligible for this new parole program.”

“Let me reiterate: You need a lawful sponsor in the United States of America. . .  And you need to undergo a rigorous background check.”

If your application is approved and you show up at . . . when and where directed, you have access.”

“But if your application is denied or you attempt to cross into the United States unlawfully, you will not be allowed to enter.”

[We] should all recognize that as long as America is the land of freedom and opportunity, people are going to try to come here. And that’s what many of our ancestors did, and it’s no surprise that it’s happening again today.”

“We can’t stop people from making the journey, but we can require them to come here . . .in an orderly way under U.S. law.”

“The actions we’re announcing today will make things better — will make things better but will not fix the border problem completely.”

“That work will not be done unless and until the Congress enacts and funds a more comprehensive immigration plan that I proposed on day one.”

“Last year, I brought together 20 leaders . . .from the Western Hemisphere . . . to stabilize the flow of immigration, to expand pathways to immigration, and to manage . . .”the border humanely.”

“The leaders of the hemisphere have built on those efforts that I led when I was Vice President to expand economic assistance to nations in north Central America so people . . .can improve their economic prospects at home, instead of having to leave for the United States.”

“Most people would much rather stay in the country they are if they can feed their families, be safe, send their kids to school, and have opportunity.”

“It’s not like people are sitting around a table . . . somewhere in Central America and saying, ‘I got a great idea. Let’s sell everything we have. Let’s give it to a coyote, a smuggler. They’ll take us on a harrowing journey for thousands of miles to get to the United States, then we’re going to illegally cross the border. They’re going to drop us in a desert. And we’re — in a place where we don’t speak the language. Won’t that be fun?’”

“ [Vice] President Harris . . . led this effort to make things better in the countries from which they are leaving. And thanks to her leadership, she’s been able to generate more than $3.2 billion from the private sector to create jobs and opportunities in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala to help people stay in their own countries . . . where it’ll be safer and they have some opportunities.”

“We’ve also set up joint patrols and law enforcement with Mexico and Guatemala that share real-time information on locations that smugglers are using to convince migrant groups to cross illegally.”

“We embedded our Border Patrol officers with Mexican patrols to detect . . . and raid human smuggling operations. . . . [T]hus far, there have — more than 7,000 arrests of human smugglers in the last six months. . . .”

“That’s not just human smuggling at the border. We’re focused on cracking down on drug smuggling, which is a serious and deadly . . . problem. . . .”

“My administration has allocated record funding that added hundreds of additional Border Patrol agents and installed new cutting-edge technologies to be able to use . . . like a X-ray machine, detailed to be able to look through these large containers to determine what’s in the container and — at the border.”

“For example, since August of last year, Customs and Border Patrol have seized more than 20,000 pounds of deadly fentanyl. That’s enough to kill — kill as many as 1,000 people in this country.”

“And next week, I’m going to travel to Mexico where I’m going to meet with President López Obrador. We have a big agenda that ranges from the climate crisis to economic development and other issues. But one important part of that agenda is strengthening our border between our nations.”

And I will visit the border myself this Sunday, in El Paso, to assess border enforcement operations, meet with the local officials and community leaders and the folks at the border [telling] me what they need that they don’t have, and make it public what they conclude they need they don’t have to try to convince my Republican colleagues they should do something.”

“And I know that migration is putting a real strain on the borders and on border communities.”

“We’re going to get these communities more support. And I want to thank all the nonprofits, the faith groups, the community leaders, and other volunteers who will make sure that vulnerable immigrants have what they need to survive, whether it’s food, warm clothing, shelter, medical care right after their arrival.”

“These religious and civic groups represent . . .our nation’s generosity — the best of our country. . . . And they’re a powerful rebuke to the hostility and even the hate which many people face when they arrive here legally.”

“. . . . Our problems at the border didn’t arise overnight and they’re not going to be solved overnight. It’s a difficult problem.”

“It’s clear that immigration is a political issue that extreme Republicans are always going to run on. But now they have a choice: They can keep using immigration to try to score political points or they can help solve the problem. . . .and come together to fix the broken system.”

“Before Congress adjourned for the holidays, some Democrats and Republicans, a few of them, got together — both sides, in the Senate — and decided they were going to put together a comprehensive plan on immigration.”

“But the Republican leadership . . . rebuked it and rejected it out of hand . . . just like they rejected my plan two years ago, just like they rejected my recent request for an additional $3.5 billion to secure and manage the border with more holding facilities , better transportation, additional funding for 2,000 new asylum officers and personnel, 100 new immigration judges to more rapidly adjudicate for people when they come here, and . . . so much more.”

“I’ll sit down with anyone who, in good faith, wants to fix our broken immigration system. And it’s hard. . . . But if the most extreme Republicans continue to demagogue this issue and reject solutions, I’m left with only one choice: to act on my own, do as much as I can on my own to change the atmosphere.”

=============================

[1] Department of Homeland Security Announces Important Proposed Rules To Improve Immigration Laws and Border Security, dwkcommentaries.com (Jan. 5, 2023)

[2] White House, Remarks by President Biden on Border Security and Enforcement  (Jan. 5,2023).

 

Congress Fails To Adopt Important Immigration Legislation

Previous posts documented Congress’ earlier failure this Session to adopt (a) the Afghan Adjustment Act to improve the legal status of Afghan evacuees in the U.S. and (b) important bipartisan immigration reform, one of which was offered by Senators Kyrsten Sinema (ex-Democrat & now Independent) and Thom Tillis (Rep., NC) that would have addressed the legal fate of so-called Dreamers and provided billions of dollars to secure the U.S. border with Mexico and improve processing of asylum claims.[1]

Nor were these failures rectified in the balance of the Session with its primary focus on what was known as the Omnibus bill, which is discussed below.

The Omnibus Bill[2]

On the evening of December 19, the 4,155 page Omnibus Bill was introduced in the Senate.  The bill provides $1.65 trillion to finance all of the federal government for the rest of fiscal 2023 (ending September 30, 2023). This includes $858 billion for defense, a 9.7% increase; $45 billion in new military and economic aid for Ukraine; new incentives for citizens’ retirement savings; increased funding for food stamps, heating assistance, Pell grants, Head Start, Child Care and Development Block Grant Program plus $40 billion in emergency spending (mostly to assist communities recovering from drought, hurricane and other natural disasters); and a ban on TikTok on government devices.

Other parts of this bill would make changes to Medicaid eligibility, the Children’s Health Insurance Program and Medicare provider payments.

According to a Wall Street Journal editorial, this is the “ugliest omnibus bill ever” and “[m]ajor changes in law deserve their own debate and vote. Instead, a handful of powerful legislators wrote this vast bill in a backroom. Members can use the need to fund the government as an excuse to say they supported, or opposed, specific provisions as future politics demands.”

 Senate Approves the Omnibus Bill[3]

On the afternoon of December 22, the Senate passed the Omnibus bill, with a bipartisan vote of 68-29. It did so after that morning’s defeat of two proposed amendments to extend the so-called Title 42 to continue a legal ban on admission of migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border. One of these proposed amendments was offered by Senator Mike Lee (Rep., Utah), which was defeated 47-50; the other by Senator Sinema (Indep., Arizona) and Senator Tester (Dem., Montana), which was defeated with only 10 affirmative votes.

House Approves the Omnibus Bill[4]

The next day, December 23, the House approved the omnibus bill, as amended by the Senate, without any additional proposed immigration amendments, 225-201. The bill thus now will go to President Biden, who is expected to sign it in coming days.

Later on December 23 the 117th Congress adjourned and will terminate on January 3, 2023.

Litigation Over Continuation of Title 42[5]

 While these legislative machinations were going on, there was pending litigation over the continuation of Title 42, which had been adopted by the Trump Administration to allow migrants to be quickly expelled back to Mexico after illegally crossing the border into the U.S. in order to prevent the threat of further spread of the coronavirus in the U.S. and which was scheduled to expire on December 21.

After such litigation had been dismissed by lower federal courts, the case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, and on December 19th Chief Justice John Roberts ordered a temporary ban against termination of Title 42 until the Supreme Court had acted on the issue.

Then on December 27, the Supreme Court, 5-4, issued an unsigned order that was supported by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh and Barrett. That order (a) granted the application for stay of the District Court order, pending certiorari, that had invalidated Title 42; (b) granted the applicants’ suggestion that its application be treated as a petition for a writ of certiorari; and (c) directed the parties  to brief and argue whether the State applicants may intervene to challenge the District Court’s summary judgment order. The Court added that this stay “precludes giving effect to the District Court order setting aside and vacating the title 42 policy,” but “does not prevent the federal government from taking any action with respect to that policy” and the Supreme Court “does not grant review of those merits, which have not yet been addressed by the Court of Appeals.”

This unsigned order then concluded by directing the Clerk “to establish a briefing schedule that will allow the case to be argued in the February 2023 argument session” and by stating that the Court’s “stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court” and that the previous stay order by the Chief Justice is vacated.

Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, without opinion, stated that they would deny the application while Justices Gorsuch and Jackson dissented. The latter’s dissenting opinion stated as follows:

  • The Covid “emergency on which these orders were premised has long since lapsed.” The States which now are challenging the invalidation of title 42 “do not seriously dispute that the public-health justification undergirding the Title 42 orders has lapsed.”
  • These States also “contend that they face an immigration crisis at the border and policymakers have failed to agree on adequate measures to address it. . . . But the current border crisis is not a COVID crisis. And the courts should not be in the business of perpetuating administrative edicts designed for one emergency only because elected officials have failed to address a different emergency. We are a court of law, not policymers of last resort.”

Immediately after the issuance of this Supreme Court order, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre issued a statement that the U.S. government will “comply with the order and prepare for the Court’s review” while also “ advancing our preparations to manage the border in a secure, orderly, and humane way when title 42 eventually lifts and will continue expanding legal pathways for immigration. Title 42 is a public health measure, not an immigration enforcement measure, and it should not be extended indefinitely.”

The Press Secretary then shifted to the need for “Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform measures like the ones President Biden proposed on his first day in office.” Now “Republicans in Congress [have] plenty of time . . .[to] join their Democratic colleagues in solving the challenge at our border by passing the comprehensive reform measures and delivering the additional funds for border security that President Biden has requested.”

The Department of Homeland Security that same day issued a shorter, but similar statement.

Also that same day a Wall Street Journal editorial concluded that the Supreme Court’s order “gives the President more time to prepare for Title 42’s end. Whether he makes the most of it is a different matter, and the last two years don’t bode well.”

According to an Associated Press journalist, no one knows how asylum will work after an end to Title 42 with the “Biden Administration . . . conspicuously silent about how migrants who plan to claim [asylum] should enter the . . . [U.S.when Title 42 ends], fueling rumors, confusion and doubts about the government’s readiness despite more than two years to prepare. . . . Many expect the government to use CBPOne, an online  platform for appointment registration, . . . [but this may be] impractical for migrants without internet access or language skills. . . . [Moreover, once they are in the U.S., they are being given dates as far out as March 2024 just to complete initial processing. Then they have to contend with] “a court system that is backlogged by more than 2 million cases, resulting in waits of several years for judges to reach decisions” on asylum applications.

Prospects for Adoption of Immigration Reform in 2023 [6]

 The 118th Congress opens on January 3, 2023, with the Republicans having a small majority in the House of Representatives while the Democrats in the Senate will maintain their narrow control (51-49) with Vice President Harris’ ability to break ties when the filibuster rule requiring 60 votes is not invoked.

Indeed, a U.S. Justice Department brief of December 20 referred to “new policies tailored to the consequences of the end” of Title 42 and “a complex, multiagency undertaking with policy, operational, and foreign relations that has been paused or partially unwound in light of the administrative stay” of any such changes.

Advocates for the Afghan Adjustment Act “worry that . . . [this bill] will be dead in the water if pushed into a new session next year, when Republicans appear intent on scrutinizing the Biden administration over the chaotic Kabul evacuation. About 170 Afghans and 13 U.S. troops were killed in a suicide bombing during the operation. The United States killed 10 civilians in a botched drone strike days later.”

Contributing to this uncertainty will be the House Republicans pledge to investigate the Biden administration’s record on the southern border and to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. Another problem would be responding to any court’s overturning the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program that has granted legal status to millions of people who were brought illegally to the U.S. as children. Especially despondent about this possibility is Greisa Martinez Rosas, a DACA recipient and executive director of United We Dream, the nation’s largest youth-led immigrant network. When she thinks about “ the millions of young immigrants, including DACA recipients, who have had to live their lives in a perpetual state of limbo, I am filled with righteous anger, which I channel into action and a discipline of hope that we are working to create the conditions for us to win and to build the futures we deserve.”

Conclusion

Comments with corrections or additional thoughts on these complex  issues are welcomed.

==================================

 

[1] Need to Prod Congress To Enact the Afghan Adjustment Act, dwkcommentaries.com (Dec. 17, 2022);

Apparent Failure of Bipartisan Immigration Reform Bill, dwkcommentaries.com (Dec.18, 2022).

[2] Freking, Lawmakers unveil $1.7T bill to avoid shutdown, boost Ukraine, Seattle Times (Dec. 20, 2022)..

[3] Romm, Senate approves $1.7 trillion omnibus bill to fund government, Wash. Post (Dec. 22, 2022); Hughes, Collins & Wise, Senate Passes $1.65 Trillion Omnibus Bill After Deal on Title 42 Votes, W.S.J. (Dec. 22, 2022); Cochrane, Senate Passes $1.7 Trillion Spending Bill, in Bid to Avert Government Shutdown, N.Y. Times (Dec. 22, 2022);

4/ Romm, House approves $1,7 trillion omnibus bill amid GOP objections, sending it to Biden, Wash.Post (Dec. 23, 2022).

[5] Federal judge strikes down Trump-era border policy known as title 42, Wash. Post (Nov. 15, 2022); Hackman & Wolfe, Judge Strikes Down Title 42, Used to Expel Asylum Seekers, W.S. J. (Nov. 15, 2022) ; Liptak, Chief Justice Roberts Briefly Halts Decision Benning Border Expulsions, N.Y. Times (Dec. 19, 2022); Marimow & Sacchetti, Chief Justice temporarily keeps pandemic-era Title 42 border policy in place, Wash. Post (Dec. 19, 2022); Hackman & Bravin, Supreme Court Temporarily Blocks Biden From Ending Trump-Era Border Policy, W.S.J. (Dec. 19, 2022);  Supreme Court blocks Biden from lifting Covid-era border restrictions, Guardian (Dec. 20, 2022); Spagat, How will asylum work after Title 42 ends? No one knows yet, Wash. Post (Dec. 20, 2022). Supreme Court, Order, Arizona v. Mayorkas, No. 22A544 (22-592) (Dec.27, 2022); Liptak, Jordan & Sullivan, Migrant Expulsion Policy Must Stay in Place for Now, Supreme Court Says, N.Y. Times (Dec. 27, 2022); Barnes & Marinow, Supreme Court leaves in place Title 42 border policy for now, Wash. Post (Dec. 27, 2022);Bravin & Hackman, Supreme Court Leaves Pandemic Border Controls in Place, W.S.J. (Dec. 27, 2022); White House, Statement by White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre on Supreme Court Title 42 Order (Dec. 27, 2022); Dep’t Homeland Security, Statement by the Department of Homeland Security on Supreme Court title 42 Order (Dec. 27, 2022); Sandoval, At a Crowded Border Camp in Mexico, Frustration and Shattered Hopes, N.Y. Times (Dec. 27, 2022).

[6] Spagat, How will asylum work after Title 42 ends? No one knows yet, abcnews.go.com (Dec. 20, 2022); Horton, Congress drops Afghan allies item, dimming evacuee hopes, Wash. Post (Dec. 20, 2022); Meyer & Caldwell, Why the Immigration debate is only going to get more tense, Wash. Post (Dec. 21, 2022); Rosas, Congress Has Once Again Failed Immigrant Youths, N.Y. Times (Dec. 22, 2022);

 

 

Apparent Failure of Bipartisan Immigration Reform Bill 

Minneapolis’ StarTribune published an editorial criticizing the apparent failure of Congress to pass a bipartisan immigration reform bill. A similar editorial appeared in Bloomberg News. The bill also was supported by columnist George Will.[1]

The Bipartisan Bill

The bill was developed by U.S. Senators Kyrsten Sinema (ex-Democrat & now Independent, AZ) and Thom Tillis (Rep., NC) “that would have addressed critical areas in immigration: the fate of so-called Dreamers, billions of dollars to secure the southern border, and better processing of asylum claims.” The “border-related items in the . . . bill were said to include more and better-paid Border Patrol agents, more funds for Homeland Security detention facilities and stiffer penalties for migrants who missed court hearings, along with better and faster processing of credible asylum claims.”

Reasons for Apparent Failure To Adopt This Bill

According to the StarTribune editorial, this bill “drew support from moderate lawmakers and several organizations.” But the two Senators were “unable to lock down the 60-vote supermajority needed to end the inevitable filibuster,” which prevented the inclusion of the bill in year-end appropriations legislation, all but ending any hope of immigration reform this year.”

The Bloomberg editorial notes that the proposal “aims to reduce strain on the asylum system by discouraging migrants from attempting to cross the border and expelling more of those who do.” For George Will, the bill would correct “two glaring wrongs that large American majorities recognize as such. They are the insecure southern border. And the decades-long callousness toward those called ‘dreamers.’”

This proposal “has angered immigration advocates and progressives in Congress, some of whom have already announced their opposition.” For George Will, these people ignore “the axiom that the perfect is the enemy of the good, [and who] will settle for nothing less than a ‘comprehensive’ solution to all immigration complexities.” Mr. Will also finds fault with criticism of the bill’s provisions to protect the “Dreamers” and the apparent proposed path to citizenship for the U.S.’ approximate 11 million unauthorized immigrants, two-thirds of whom have lived here for more than a decade.

There apparently was nothing in the Sinema-Tillis proposal relating to what is covered in the proposed Afghan Adjustment Act that was discussed in a prior post.[2]

Conclusion

An open invitation for comments is extended to those who are more intimately involved in this legislative conundrum.

======================================

[1] Editorial, Another failure on immigration reform, StarTribune (Dec. 17, 2022); Bloomberg, Editorial, Congress Can’t Waste This Immigration Opportunity, Wash. Post (Dec. 15, 2022); Will, How the Tillis-Sinema immigration bill would right two glaring wrongs, Wash. Post (Dec. 11, 2022); Sotomayor, Goodwin, Sacchetti & DeChaulus, Congress working to strike last-minute immigration deals, Wash. Post (Dec. 5, 2022).

[2] See Wall Street Journal Editorial Supports Afghan Evacuees, dwkcommentaries.com (Dec.13, 2022); Need To Prod Congress To Enact the Afghan Adjustment Act, dwkcommentareis.com (Dec. 17, 2022).

Minnesota State District Court Sentences Kueng for Helping To Kill George Floyd   

On October 24, 2022, Minnesota’s Hennepin County District Court Judge Peter Cahill held a hearing in the state’s criminal case against former Minneapolis police officer, J. Alexander Kueng, for aiding and abetting the manslaughter and murder of George Floyd on May 25, 2020.   [1]

Instead of the scheduled selection of a jury for the trial of those charges that day, Kueng and the prosecution announced an agreement for his pleading guilty to aiding and abetting the second-degree manslaughter of Mr. Floyd and a prison sentence of three and a half years. Kueng’s attorney, Thomas Plunkett, said that the negotiated settlement included dismissal of the second count of aiding and abetting second-degree unintentional murder and Kueng’s state sentence to be be served concurrently with his federal sentence for three years he’s serving at the federal prison in Elkton, Ohio.

In accordance with that settlement, on December 9, 2022, Judge Cahill at a short hearing imposed that three and a half year sentence on Kueng, who appeared virtually from that federal prison, but said nothing.[2]

Minnesota Assistant Attorney General Matthew Frank at this hearing said while he appreciates this guilty plea and Kueng’s taking responsibility for what he did, “it just took too long to get there. Mr. Kueng was not simply a bystander in what happened that day. In fact, he did less than some of the bystanders tried to do to help with Mr. Floyd.”

Frank also said that Floyd’s family and friends are trying to move on with healing, but that’s difficult to do with ongoing court proceedings. He added that prosecution has focused on the conduct of officers causing Floyd’s death, not an “examination on policing in general.”

Frank added, “But if some lessons can come from this case, all the better … Being a peace officer is a very difficult job, it is truly a profession. But part of that profession is dealing with people every day who are not having their best day. Who are struggling with mental health, who are struggling with addiction and other anxieties.”

According to Frank, providing medical assistance is part of the job, but officers didn’t do that for Floyd. “Mr. Kueng was more than just a rookie. He had taken all the education, gone through all the training and experience to become a licensed peace officer. He learned the law. He swore an oath to protect life, to put the sanctity of life as the highest command of the job. But that day, he did not follow that training or that oath … George Floyd is a crime victim.”

Kueng’s attorney, Thomas Plunkett, then disagreed with these statements from the Assistant Attorney General. Plunkett said Kueng was a three-day rookie after he completed his training while trusting his leadership, including now-retired Chief Medaria Arradondo and Inspector Katie Blackwell. However, “the chief rides off into the sunset with a handsome pension. Mrs. Blackwell received a promotion to inspector and Mr. Kueng, the rookie, sits in prison one year for every day he served the city.”

Plunkett concluded, “It is clear that leadership learned nothing and forgot nothing. They failed Mr. Kueng. They failed Mr. Floyd and they failed the community. Protesters have called for justice. Unfortunately, justice has become nothing more than mean-spirited revenge … I’m calling for progress. That way Mr. Floyd’s life and Mr. Kueng’s punishment will not be in vain.”

===================================

[1] Kueng and State Agree on Guilty Plea while Thao Agrees to Judge Cahill’s Deciding His Case on Existing Record, dwkcommentaries.com (Oct. 24, 2022).

[2]  Former Minneapolis officer J. Alexander Kueng sentenced in George Floyd killing, StarTribune (Dec. 9, 2022);  Bailey, Ex-Minneapolis officer sentenced on state charges in Floyd’s death, Wash. Post (Dec. 9, 2022); Assoc. Press, Former police officer who kneeled on George Floyd’s back sentenced to prison, Guardian (Dec. 9, 2022).

Kueng and State Agree on Guilty Plea While Thao Agrees to Judge Cahill’s Deciding His Case on Existing Record

On May 18, 2022, former Minneapolis Police Officer Thomas Lane in state court pleaded guilty to the charge of aiding and abetting manslaughter of George Floyd on May 25, 2020. [1]

Before Hennepin County District Court Judge Peter Cahill, this guilty plea was part of a plea agreement which dismissed the separate charge of aiding and abetting second-degree murder and for a sentence of three years imprisonment in federal prison to be served concurrently with his upcoming sentence for his February 2022 conviction in federal court for violating Floyd’s civil rights. The state court sentencing is scheduled for September 21.[2]

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison issued a statement saying, “Today my thoughts are once again with the victims, George Floyd and his family. Nothing will bring Floyd back. He should still be with us today.” Ellison then said, “I am pleased Thomas Lane has accepted responsibility for his role in Floyd’s death. His acknowledgment he did something wrong is an important step toward healing the wounds of the Floyd family, our community, and the nation. While accountability is not justice, this is a significant moment in this case and a necessary resolution on our continued journey to justice.”  Lane’s attorney, Earl Gray, however, declined to comment on this development.

Two other ex-MPD officers, Tou Thao and J. Alexander Kueng still face state charges of aiding and abetting second-degree murder and manslaughter in Floyd’s death. That trial is scheduled to commence on June 13. [3]

============================

[1] Olson, Ex-MPD officer Thomas Lane pleads guilty to manslaughter charge for role in George Floyd’s murder, StarTribune (May 18, 2022); Forlitti & Karnowski (AP), Ex-cop pleads guilty to manslaughter in George Floyd killing, Wash. Post (May 18, 2022); Ex-Minneapolis police officer pleads guilty to manslaughter in George Floyd’s death, NBC News (May 18, 2022); Minnesota Attorney General, ‘Pleased Thomas Lane has accepted responsibility ‘: Attorney general Ellison statement on guilty plea in death of George Floyd (May 18, 2022). Apparently in April, Lane, Kueng and Thao rejected a plea deal (details not publicly available) offered by the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office. (Jimenez, 3 former police officers charged in George Floyd’s death reject plea deal, CNN.com (April 13, 2022).

[2] Federal Criminal trial for Killing George Floyd: Jury Deliberations and Verdict, dwkcommentareis.com (Feb. 25, 2022).

[3] Hennepin County District Court Enters Order Regarding Trial of Three Former Minneapolis Policemen Over Killing of George Floyd, dwkcommentaries.com (April 30, 2022).

Former U.S. Presidents’ Statements at Walter Mondale Memorial Service

At the May 1, 2022, memorial service for Walter Mondale, former U.S. Presidents Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama submitted letters of tribute for Mr. Mondale that were read. Here are excerpts from those letters (substituting Carter’s April 19, 2021, letter on Mondale’s passing due to this blogger’s inability to find the complete one for the memorial service).[1]

President Jimmy Carter

“Today [April 19, 2021] I mourn the passing of my dear friend Walter Mondale, who I consider the best vice president in our country’s history. During our administration, Fritz used his political skill and personal integrity to transform the vice presidency into a dynamic, policy-driving force that had never been seen before and still exists today. He was an invaluable partner and an able servant of the people of Minnesota, the United States, and the world. Fritz Mondale provided us all with a model for public service and private behavior.”

In his statement that was read at the memorial service, Carter said Mondale’s “ideas and energy changed the office he held forever, and his intelligence, experience, humor and determination made me better at mine.”

President Bill Clinton

“Throughout his long life, Fritz never stopped believing in the power of public service to make a difference in people’s lives. As Minnesota Attorney General, Senator, Vice President, Democratic nominee for President, Ambassador, and private citizen, he put his deep policy knowledge, tireless work ethic, and uncommon decency and kindness to work — to expand civil rights and defend civil liberties; create more educational and economic opportunities for all Americans; and fulfill our Founders’ charge to form a more perfect union. And he did it all, in sunshine and storms, with humility, grace, and a wonderful sense of humor.”

“I will always be grateful for the more than 40 years of friendship he gave Hillary and me, and his fine service as both Ambassador to Japan and Special Envoy to Indonesia when I was President. Although those were the last public offices he held, his public service continued for another two decades, always fighting for the causes he loved and the country he believed in, and having a good time doing it.”

“As you gather to celebrate Fritz’s remarkable life, I’m thinking of his joyful spiritual reunion with Joan and Eleanor, and his characteristic conviction that surely there is something he can do to make the universe better. My heart goes out to Ted, William, his entire family, and all the people who were blessed by his friendship, inspired by his service, and enriched by his example.”

President Barack Obama

“I’m honored to pay tribute to Fritz, a man who dedicated his life to making government work for the American people.”

“In championing causes like fair housing and women’s rights, he helped put the promise of America within reach for more people. And he changed the role of vice president, so President Biden could be the last in the room for decisions during my administration — something I will always be grateful for.”

“Fritz’s lifetime of service was an incredible gift to our country. As we reflect on his legacy, may we all strive to embody his integrity, his humility, and his unwavering drive to do right by Minnesotans and people everywhere.”

==============================

[1] Excerpts from speeches and letters read at Walter Mondale’s memorial, StarTribune (May 1, 2022); Leaders, family and friends remember ‘Fritz’ Mondale, StarTribune (May 1, 2022); Statement from Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter on the Passing of Walter Mondale, The Carter Center (Apr. 19, 2021).

 

Minnesota’s U.S. Senators’ Statements at Walter Mondale Memorial 

At the May 1 memorial service for Walter Mondale, Minnesota’s U.S. Senators Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith made the following statements of praise about him.[1]

Senator Klobuchar’s Statement

“It was not easy for Walter Mondale to run against Ronald Reagan, knowing that most people were predicting that Reagan would win.”

“It was not easy for Walter Mondale to come out of retirement and run for the Senate after we lost Paul Wellstone.”

“It was not easy for Walter Mondale to continue his work while caring for his beloved wife, Joan, and their daughter, Eleanor, through heartbreaking illnesses.”

“None of it was easy. But when saddled with enormous setbacks, Fritz didn’t stand down; he stood up. Fritz didn’t crawl under his desk or hide from public view; he simply found a different way to serve.”

“He went from being driven around with tons of Secret Service and meeting with world leaders and negotiating international treaties to going into Lunds, grocery shopping on his own and happily ending his visit with a long, engaged talk about Mideast peace with the high school kid at the checkout counter. That happened.”

“You see, being humble meant that it was much easier to be resilient.”

“Being grounded meant that no matter how high he had risen, there was always a place to come home.”

“That place was here. That place was us.”

Senator Smith’s Statement

“This week, I have been reading a lot of tributes to Mr. Mondale’s life and his legacy,” including those from Presidents Carter, Clinton and Obama.

As I’ve been reading all these notes, I’ve been reading some sent by people who worked for Walter Mondale when he ran for president and never really left his orbit. One is from a former staffer, Gina Glantz, who told the story of how, when her mom got sick, and the Mayo Clinic seemed like really the only option for treatment, she worked up the nerve to ask Mr. Mondale for help. Well, Vice President Mondale called a retired nurse friend, and within weeks, Gina’s mother was at the Mayo, with the person behind the check-in desk at Mayo saying, ‘And how do you know our Fritz?’”

“So many Americans were called to action by that 1984 campaign, a campaign rooted in truth and decency and hope. And four decades later, many of them, many of you, are still involved in politics, still working to uphold the values that defined Walter Mondale’s remarkable life — and even though many of us have yet to find a boss who, really, we had such a personal connection to.”

==============================

[1] Excerpts from speeches and letters read at Walter Mondale’s memorial, StarTribune (May 1, 2022).News Release, Klobuchar Delivers Remarks at Memorial Service for Former Vice President Walter Mondale (May 1, 2022).

 

Federal Criminal Trial for Killing of George Floyd: Prosecution Witnesses (Part II) 

On Monday morning (February 7) the federal criminal trial of former Minneapolis policemen (J. Alexander Kueng, Thomas Lane and Tou Thau) resumed in the federal courthouse in St. Paul before U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson and a jury of 12 and 6 alternates. During the first phase of the trial (January 24-28, 31 and February 1-2), the prosecution presented 11 witnesses.[1]  The following is a summary of the testimony of the eight prosecution witnesses who testified in this resumption of the trial through February 11.[2]

Dr. David M. Systrom, Jr.

A physician at Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and an expert witness for the prosecution, Dr. Systrom first described how the lungs and diaphragm work: breathing in compresses the stomach, spleen and liver with carbon dioxide being the waste product of cellular metabolism, and if it does not leave the body, it will build up in blood and tissue (acidosis.)

In his opinion, George Floyd died of asphyxia due to compression of his upper airway and inadequate breathing caused by being held in prone position. Yet this “was an eminently reversible respiratory failure right up until the time he lost consciousness.” It “was quickly reversible if the impediments to breathing were removed.” But they were not removed, and the “fatal combination” of “obstruction and restriction” of his breathing ultimately caused him to lose consciousness and his heart to stop.

Dr. Systrom noted how “Floyd’s position on the ground with his arms cuffed behind his back and the officer on top of him was problematic” as the arms and shoulders work as “adjunct respiratory  muscles” to help create space for full diaphragmatic breathing.  This restricted breathing resulted in low lung volume and inability to draw sufficient breathe leading to complaints about “shortness of breath” followed by Floyd’s loss of consciousness.

Also supporting Systrom’s opinion was Floyd’s end-tidal carbon dioxide level of 73 milliliters of mercury, twice the normal level and “life threatening” and often associated with an increase in the hydrogen ion concentration in the blood and low oxygen. In addition, he testified that there was no evidence suggesting a heart rhythm disorder or effects of methamphetamine or fentanyl.

Even after Floyd’s heart stopped, Dr. Systrom testified, there was still a chance to save him if CPR had been started immediately, but that did not happen.

Nicole Mackenzie

MPD’s medical support coordinator, Mackenzie testified that Kueng and Lane recently were in her MPD academy “emergency medical responder” class. They were taught about the need to roll subjects into the “side recovery position” so they could breathe instead of keeping them prone on their stomachs. They also were taught that responders have a duty of care to people in medical emergencies.

Kueng and Lane, she testified, acted inconsistently with that training when they continued to restrain Floyd after he became compliant and showed clear signs of needing help, including struggling to breathe.

When Mackenzie was asked about Thao, his attorney’s objection was sustained because Thao was not present in the video shown by Mackenzie.

That attorney presented PowerPoint training materials used by MPD until last year showing officers pinning a man down by his neck when responding to an excited delirium call and another showing a nude man punching through a wooden fence and fighting off a horde of police officers trying to subdue him. Under those circumstances, Mackenzie said, “your normal techniques for compliance might not work” and restraining someone, even with a knee, might be a life-saving measure.

Vik Bebarta

Another prosecution expert witness was Vik Bebarta, professor of emergency medicine, toxicology and pharmacology at the University of Colorado in Denver. She testified that Floyd died from “a lack of oxygen to his brain” when he was “suffocated and his airway was closed [and] he could not breathe.” “When the airway is blocked, you pass out, stop breathing and your heart stops.”

In addition, he said that the amounts of methamphetamine and fentanyl were too low to have caused his death. Videos of Floyd in Cupp Foods before the encounter with the police outside showed him carrying a banana and talking to clerks and other customers. Floyd was alert. “There is no sign that he was showing any signs of an imminent drug overdose.”  In contrast, someone “heavily impaired would not laugh or smile or have a conversation.” In addition, Floyd subsequently was able to walk handcuffed with police from his car to the police car across the street.

Bebarta also said Floyd did not display any symptoms typically associated with the excited delirium condition, such as high pain tolerance, superhuman strength and endurance and he did not die from what would be referred to as that condition.

Under cross examination, Bebarta admitted that police officers do not have the education and experience of medical doctors, but they learn basic life support and “have the ability to check a pulse and check for breathing.”

Bebarta also noted the three-minute lag between (a) paramedic Derek Smith’s arriving on the scene and checking Floyd’s carotid artery for a pulse  and (b) the start of chest compressions in the ambulance when every minute of delay in starting CPR reduces a patient’s chances of survival by 10%.

Under cross-examination by Paule, Bebarta says the slang “speedball” refers to Heroin and cocaine. Sometimes people “rectally” take drugs that sometimes is referred to as “hooping.” “Excited delirium” is not a diagnosis and does not have a good list of symptoms, but often shows as agitation with psychosis. Floyd did not exhibit delirium.

McKenzie Anderson

A scientist with the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, Anderson was in charge of processing Floyd’s car and one of the squad cars on May 25, 2020. She testified that pills found in his car tested positive for methamphetamine.

Under cross-examination by Gray, Anderson says on 5/27/20 she seized from Floyd’s car: shoes, strap and blood stains. She did not see or seize any pills. This search was looking for blood evidence, counterfeit money and a cell phone.

She also said that a lab determined that a pill from the squad backseat contained methamphetamine and Floyd’s saliva and thus probably came from his mouth. From Floyd’s car she seized $20 bills that turned out to be counterfeit, which are illegal to possess.

In a December 2020 search of Floyd’s car, she collected two pills that later were identified as a “mixture of fentanyl and methamphetamine.”

Richard Zimmerman

A MPD Lt. and its most senior officer, Zimmerman sais if an officer (from lowest in rank to chief) sees another officer using too much force or doing something illegal, you need to intervene and stop it.

On 5/25/20 at home, he received call to go to 28th & Chicago because an arrestee had to go to hospital. There he met officers outside Cup Foods about 90 minutes after Floyd died. He asked Lane and Kueng what’s going on.

Thomas Lane’s body cam video showed him telling Zimmerman that they did not know Floyd’s condition and that Floyd seemed like he was on something, “just kind of paranoid.” Nor did Lane say that Floyd had been pinned under Chauvin’s knee for more than nine minutes or that the officers could not detect Floyd’s pulse or that he had appeared to stop breathing.

Zimmerman testified, “The knee on the neck—the officers should have intervened at that point and stopped it. . . . It can be deadly.”  And “rank and seniority don’t change the duty to intervene.” Moreover, Zimmerman admitted he had thought poorly of Chauvin and “I think it’s pretty much known throughout the department that he’s a jerk.”

Kelly McCarthy

McCarthy, the Mendota Heights Police Chief, testified in his role as Chair of the Minnesota Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training, which licenses all officers in Minnesota. He said, Once someone is in your custody [as an officer], they are essentially your baby. You have restricted their freedom of movement. . . so there are things they can no longer do for themselves, so because you’re the one who took them into custody, you are now responsible for those things.” These officers’ training includes learning about “positional asphyxia” and the risk of handcuffing someone, use-of-force and civilians’’ constitutional rights. Training on use-of-force and firearms is annually required.

Alyssa Funari

On May 25, 2020, Ms. Funari, then 17 years old, was at Cupp Foods and observed the police restraining George Floyd on the pavement. His distress, she testified, was obvious to several bystanders, as they observed the policemen ignore pleas to relent and render aid. She said she “instantly knew Floyd was in distress. . . He was moving, making facial expressions that  he was in pain. He was telling us he was in pain.” She warned the officers that Floyd was near unconsciousness. At one point, she “observed that over time he was slowly becoming less vocal and he was closing his eyes. He wasn’t able to tell us he was in pain anymore and he was just accepting it.” She said, “Is he talking now? He’s about ready to knock out.” Yet she did not see any of the officers provide aid to Floyd.

Under cross examination by Thao’s attorney, Robert Paule, Funari said, I “believe he [Thao] did look” at the other officers restraining Floyd. “He might not have been watching the whole time, but he knew what was going on.” He turned around “a few times” to observe the other officers and Floyd .

Matthew Vogel

A FBI special agent, Vogel presented snippets of bystander and police video with timelines and transcripts to help the jurors sort out sometimes confusing videos. It included video of Kueng and Lane talking to Sergeant David Pleoger about what had happened, but saying incorrectly that Floyd was still breathing when paramedics arrived and not saying anything about their inability to find Floyd’s pulse.

============================

[1] Federal Criminal Trial for Killing of George Floyd: Prosecution Witnesses (Part I), dwkcommentaries.com (Feb. 2, 2022).

[2] Olson, Pulmonologist says officers could have saved George Floyd’s life, StarTribune (Feb. 7, 2022); Karnowski & Webber (AP), Lung expert: Officers could have saved George Floyd’s life, AP News (Feb. 7, 2022); Mannix & Olson, Officers ‘inconsistent’ with medical training when they detained George Floyd, says police trainer, StarTribune (Feb. 8, 2022); Karnowski (AP), Police trainer testifies: Officers failed to aid Floyd, Twin Cities Pioneer Press (Feb. 9, 2022); Olson, Second physician testifies George Floyd died of asphyxia, not drugs or heart attack, StarTribune (Feb. 9, 2022); Karnowski (AP), Toxicologist: Drugs, ‘excited delirium’ didn’t kill Floyd, Assoc. Press (Feb. 10, 2022); Xiong & Olson, New footage played in federal trial shows officers did not tell superior that Floyd had no pulse, appeared to stop breathing, StarTribune (Feb. 10, 2022); Karnowski (AP), Lieutenant: Officers should have intervened in Floyd killing, AP (Feb. 10, 2022); Bailey, Officers charged in George Floyd’s killing omitted key details from the scene, Minneapolis officer testifies, Wash. Post (Feb. 10, 2022); Olson & Xiong, New body camera video: Officers didn’t tell second supervisor about restraint of Floyd, StarTribune (Feb. 11, 2022); Forliti & Karnowski, Teen bystander: Knew instantly Floyd was ‘in distress,’ Asoc. Press (Feb. 11, 2022); Live: Federal trial of 3 former Minneapolis officers in George Floyd death, StarTribune.