Overwhelmed U.S. Immigration Court System

The U.S. immigration court system is overwhelmed with its current 2.5 million open cases with those seeking asylum waiting an average of 5.8 years for a trial or hearing on the merits. This primarily is due to shortfalls in the federal immigration budget.[1]

A leading example of these problems is the immigration court in Omaha, Nebraska with jurisdiction over cases in that state plus Iowa, which in recent years have drawn migrants, some with papers and some without, to work in slaughter houses and other agricultural jobs. Its three judges oversee nearly 32,000 cases that have been undecided for an average of 2.7 years while its asylum cases have an average wait of 5.8 years, the longest in the nation. [2]

An example of the pressure this overwhelmed system places on migrants is Guadalupe, a Guatemalan woman now 54 years old, who came to the U.S. on a tourist visa in 2017 and immediately requested asylum protection. After two months detention, she was released and moved to rural Iowa where she had an aunt and obtained a job at a clothing manufacturing company while her nights are often sleepless as she worries about her three children and seven grandchildren in Guatemala. Her first Omaha court appearance was in October 2017, when she obtained a final hearing date in 2020 that was postponed to 2022 because of the pandemic and then postponed again to May 2023 because the judge was not available. Now her next hearing is scheduled for September 2023 to set a date for her final hearing.

Conclusion

 Clearly the U.S. Congress needs to authorize more spending to equip the U.S. immigration administration and its courts for expeditious handling of this large backlog of cases. Other important related issues for Congress are (a) promoting more immigration to meet U.S. need for more workers;[3] (b) providing more financial assistance to cities and states that are absorbing more immigrants:[4] and (c) amending U.S. immigration law and procedure.[5]

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

[1] Caldwell, Millions of Migrants Stuck in Legal Limbo, Wall St. Journal (Sept. 1, 2023). However, the hard-right House Freedom Caucus is threatening to block an interim spending bill in Congress unless it includes a security crackdown on the U.S.-Meixco border. (Demirjian, Hard Right Injects Immigration Into Spending Fight, Raising Shutdown Fears. N.Y. Times (Sept. 1, 2023).

[2] See, e.g., List of Posts to dwkcommentaries—Topical: LAW (REFUGEE & ASYLUM).

[3] E.g., Wall Street Journal Editorial: U.S. Needs More Immigrants, dwkcommentaries.com ( July 25, 2023).

[4] E.g., New York City Pleads for Federal Financial Aid for New Migrants, dwkcommentaries (Aug. 11, 2023).

[5] E.g., Increasing Migrant Crossings at U.S. Border Call for Legal Change, dwkcommentaries.com (Aug. 16, 2023).

Cuba Reports 1.5 Million Tourists Have Visited the Island So Far This Year

According to Granma, the official organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Cuba, during the first seven months of 2023, Cuba had close to 1.5 million foreign visitors, which is 178.4% more than in same period last year and confirms the gradual recovery of this important sector of the Cuban economy.

These tourists mainly come from Canada (630,041), the United States (99,012), Russia (87,509), Spain (48,762), Germany (41,878) and France (36,549), all with year-on-year increases of between 115 and 240%, respectively. In addition, 210,019 Cubans who reside abroad visited their homeland.

Cuba still has the objective of reaching 3.5 million international tourists this year.

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

One and a half million foreigners visited Cuba until the end of July, Granma (Aug. 26, 2023).

 

 

 

 

U.N. Agency Reports Afghan Human Rights Violations Against Former U.S. Partners

On March 28, 2002, the U.N. Security Council established the U.N. Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) to promote peace and stability in that country and thereafter that mandate annually has been renewed and revised to reflect the continued needs of that country. This Mission’s headquarters is in Kabul with a field presence of around 1,187 staff throughout the country.[1]

UNAMA’s Report on Taliban’s Human Rights Violations[2]

On August 22, 2023, UNAMA released its report that the Taliban has committed at least 800 human-rights violations against U.S. partners since the Taliban’s takeover of the country in 2021. Members of the Afghan National Army are at the “greatest risk,” followed by national and local police officers and National Directorate of Security officials. Targets also include prosecutors, judges and national, provincial and district officials who served in the U.S.-backed government.

At least 218 Afghan partners have been murdered, the report says. “Some were taken to detention facilities and killed while in custody,” the report says, while “others were taken to unknown locations and killed, their bodies either dumped or handed over to family members.”

In addition, the report asserts that there have been 144 instances of torture and maltreatment, including beatings with pipes and cables, plus at least 14 enforced disappearances and more than 424 arbitrary arrests.

Reactions to the U.N. Report[3]

The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal reported on the above details of this report.

Their articles also noted that “tens of thousands of such former officials remain in Afghanistan, unable or unwilling to join the scramble of Afghans to flee abroad” after the Taliban takeover and inhabit a “climate of  fear.”

These news articles quoted the report as saying, “the abuses it found work against the healing of wounds in society from Afghanistan’s 40 years of war, and contravene the Taliban’s obligations under international human-rights law” and “the de facto authorities’ failure to fully uphold their publicly stated commitment and to hold perpetrators of human rights violations to account may have serious implications for the future stability of Afghanistan.”

The Wall Street Journal also published an editorial claiming that “the Biden Administration wants Americans to forget about Afghanistan” and “continues to offer too few visas for Afghans who helped America. Some Afghan partners told the U.N. that they ‘have gone into hiding’ and ‘live in fear of being arrested or killed by a member of the de facto authorities.’” Therefore, this editorial concludes, “These ugly details add to the disgrace of one of America’s worst betrayals.”

The Taliban government in a statement appended to the UNAMA report said that after the Taliban had seized power, its supreme leader had issued a blanket amnesty to all former government members, that only people acting against the Taliban had been arrested and prosecuted and,  “After the victory of the Islamic Emirate until today, cases of human rights violations (murder without trial, arbitrary arrest, detention, torture, and other acts against human rights) by the employees of the security institutions of the Islamic Emirate against the employees and security forces of the previous government have not been reported.”

Although not mentioned in the U.N. report, the U.S. needs to adopt the Afghan Adjustment Act, which would provide permanent legal status for Afghans who have been admitted to the U.S. on temporary parole visas because of their assistance to U.S. troops and personnel before September 2021.[4]

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

[1] UNAMA, About.

[2] Press Release, U.N. Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, Impunity Prevails for Human Rights Violations Against Former Government Officials and Armed Forces Members (Aug. 22, 2023); UNAMA, A barrier to securing peace: Human rights violations against former government officials and former armed force members in Afghanistan: 15 August 2021—30 June 2023.

[3] Pena, U.N. Says Taliban Committed Rights Abuses Despite Blanket Amnesty, N.Y. Times (Aug. 22, 2023); Shah, Afghans Who Allied with U.S. Face Killings, Arrests Under Taliban Rule, U.N. Finds, W.S.J. (Aug. 22, 2023); Editorial: The Fate of America’s Afghan Partners, W.S.J. (Aug. 22, 2023)Response by the de facto Ministry of Foreign Affairs to UNAMA Human Rights Service report, regarding the violation of human rights against the employees and military forces of the previous government, Directorate of Human Rights & Women’s International Affairs, Kabul (Aug. 2023).

[4] Introduction of New Proposed Afghan Adjustment Act, dwkcommentaries.com (July 31, 2023).

Increasing Migrant Crossings at U.S. Border Call for Legal Changes

This July more than 130,000 migrants were apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border. The fastest growth in this immigration, with 40,000 of the total, was in the Border Patrol’s Tucson sector, which comprises most of Arizona, which was the most since April 2008. U.S. authorities attribute this increase to smugglers now guiding migrants to the border across the most remote and harsh stretches of the Arizona desert between Yuma and Tucson to avoid detection. [1]

Crossing in desert areas in the summer can be deadly, with ground temperatures well exceeding 100 degrees Fahrenheit at times, officials say. Such extreme conditions have led to a spike in 911 calls.  Agents responding to such calls for help routinely find dozens or even hundreds of migrants in need of aid and trying to surrender to arriving border agents.

Cuba is experiencing growth in out-migration. Social-media advertisements on the island have recently increased offering door-to-door transportation to the U.S. through flights from Cuba to Nicaragua and ground travel across Central America and Mexico. Although new Biden policies require Cubans to have a U.S. citizen-sponsor for legal entry to the U.S., many Cubans do not have such sponsors and some officials say, “For ordinary Cubans, finding a sponsor who has money in the U.S. is Mission Impossible.”[2]

Another indication of this migrant pressure is the recent guilty plea by the owners of a Williamsburg, Virginia cleaning business who operated a “labor trafficking enterprise” that smuggled over 100 migrants from El Salvador, including minors, and forced them to work in U.S. under threats of violence and deportation.[3]

Recommended Changes

 Andrea R. Flores, who served as an immigration policy adviser in the Obama and Biden administrations, says, “Until Congress finds the political will to act, the president should use his authority to relieve pressure on our asylum system and give migrants the ability to legally work once they reach the United States.”[4] To that end, she recommends the following:

  • “While far from perfect, the Biden administration’s parole program for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans could serve as a model for what is possible. This policy provides safer options to people who are unlikely to meet the legal requirements for asylum, but who still have urgent humanitarian reasons to flee their homes.”
  • The President should “use his authority to grant Temporary Protected Status to the hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans who lack work authorization, which would be a boon for immigrants and the communities that welcome them. A 2023 analysisby FWD.us, a bipartisan group founded by American business leaders that favors more humane immigration reform, found that T.P.S. holders contribute $22 billion in wages annually to the U.S. economy.”
  • “The administration should also act quickly to increase the number of appointments at ports of entry; add new countries eligible for parole; lift caps on countries with urgent resettlement needs, as it did for Ukraine; and invest resources in adjudicating asylum cases expeditiously.”

Noted commentator, Fareed Zakaria, points out the obvious: “America’s immigration system is broken.” [5]Therefore, he says the following: “The laws and rules around asylum must be fixed so that immigration authorities can focus on the small number of genuine asylum seekers while compelling the rest to seek other legal means of entry. At the same time, it’s important to note that the United States is facing a drastic shortfall of labor and must expand legal immigration in many areas for just that reason. We urgently need to attract the world’s best technically skilled people so that they can push forward the information and biotech revolutions that are transforming the economy and life itself. With unemployment rates around 50-year lows, it is obvious that we need more workers in many sectors of the economy, from agriculture to hospitality. If this is done in a legal and orderly manner, Americans will welcome the new workers.”

Therefore, he says Biden “should propose an immigration bill that is genuinely bipartisan and forces compromises from both sides. It would be one more strong dose of evidence that policy can triumph over populism.” Good luck on doing that.

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

[1] Perez & Caldwell, Migrant Crossings on the Rise Again at U.S. Border,W.S.J. (Aug. 12, 2023); Miroff & Sacchetti, Border arrests surged in July, a blow to Biden immigration plan, Wash. Post (Aug. 1, 2023).

[2] Perez & Caldwell, Migrant Crossings on the Rise Again at U.S. Border, W.S.J. (Aug. 12, 2023).

[3] Paul, Laundry company owners guilty of trafficking migrants, minors for labor, Wash. Post (Aug. 13, 2023).

[4] Flores, We Know What Doesn’t Work at the Border. Here’s a Better Solution, N.Y. Times (Aug. 10, 2023).

[5] Zakaria, Immigration can be fixed. So why aren’t we doing it?, Wash. Post (Aug. 11, 2023).

 

New York Times Editorial: Trump’s Four Indictments Show His Disdain for American Democracy and His Unfitness for the Presidency 

A recent New York Times’ editorial persuasively shows how Donald Trump’s four criminal indictments (to date) show his disdain for American democracy and his unfitness for the country’s presidency.[1]

Editorial’s Details

The new Georgia criminal indictment shows Trump was “leading what was effectively a criminal gang to overturn the 2020 presidential election in that state.” This indictment alleges that he “often behaved like a mob boss, pressuring the Georgia secretary of state to decertify the Georgia election and holding a White House meeting to discuss seizing voting equipment.” This indictment included these alleged crimes: “conspiracy to commit first-degree forgery, for arranging to have a false set of Georgia electors sent to Washington to replace the legitimate ones for Joe Biden, . . . conspiracy to impersonate a public officer and a series of charges relating to filing false statements and trying to get state officials to violate their oath of office.”

This indictment along with his other three indictments “offer a road map of the trauma and drama Mr. Trump has put this nation through. They raise questions about his fitness for office that go beyond ideology or temperament, focusing instead on his disdain for American democracy.”

Indeed, “Mr. Trump has put his ego and ambition over the interests of the public and of his own supporters. He has aggressively worked to undermine public faith in the democratic process and to warp the foundations of the electoral system. He repeatedly betrayed his constitutional duty to faithfully execute the nation’s laws. . . . [H]is actions, as detailed in these indictments, show that he is concerned with no one’s interests but his own.”

“A president facing multiple criminal trials, . . . could not hope to be effective in enforcing the nation’s laws — one of the primary duties of a chief executive. (If re-elected, Mr. Trump could order the federal prosecutions to be dropped, though that would hardly enhance his credibility.) A man accused of compromising national security would have little credibility in his negotiations with foreign allies or adversaries. No document could be assumed to remain secret, no communication secure. The nation’s image as a beacon of democracy, already badly tarnished by the Jan. 6 attack, may not survive the election of someone formally accused of systematically dismantling his own country’s democratic process through deceit.”

“[A] healthy political party does not belong to or depend on one man, particularly one who has repeatedly put himself over his party and his country. A healthy democracy needs at least two functioning parties to challenge each other’s honesty and direction. Republican voters are key to restoring that health and balance.”

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

[1] Editorial: What if, Knowing What They Know Now, Republicans Don’t Vote for Donald Trump?, N.Y. Times (Aug. 15, 2023). Previous Times’ editorials set forth similar arguments against Trump’s again becoming our President: Editorial: Even Donald Trump Should Be Held Accountable (Mar. 30, 2023); Editorial: Donald Trump Should Never Again Be Trusted With the Nation’s Secrets (June 9, 2023); Editorial: A President Accused of Betraying His Country (Aug. 2, 2023).

 

Other Comments on David Brooks’ Column  on “the Bad Guys”  

The New York Times’ on August 2 published a David Brooks’ column entitled, “What If We’re the Bad Guys Here?”[1] and on August 9 this blogger published his blog post about that column.[2]

Now on August 12 the Times published the following comments by nine readers of that column.[3]

  • Michael Hadjiargyrou (Centerport, N.Y.)

“I am sick and tired of people like Mr. Brooks telling me that I am the problem or the ‘bad guy’ because I am educated (and no, I was not educated at an Ivy League school, and neither of my parents finished high school) to justify the fact that 35 percent of the population are fervent supporters of Donald Trump, no matter what he says or does.”

“Moreover, Mr. Trump is also part of the elite, but his supporters simply ignore this. This is not because he identifies with them in any way (as a golden-haired billionaire living in a mansion), but because Fox, Newsmax, and other right-wing TV and radio media outlets, right-wing militias and Trump puppet politicians in Congress essentially brainwashed them with their daily dose of propaganda about how the ‘left wing socialists and communists,’ ‘elites, the ‘woke,’ etc., are all conspiring to take their country and only Donald Trump can stop them.”

‘In my opinion, this is the biggest problem, Mr. Brooks, not educated Americans who as you correctly state are ‘are earnest, kind and public spirited.’”

“So, let’s not beat ourselves up because the other side has been completely brainwashed, does not accept facts, scientific and otherwise, is obsessed with conspiracies and lives in a right-wing echo chamber.”

(2) David Mahan (Sebring, Fla.)

“While I grew up in a small Midwestern town in a middle-class family, education has offered me a satisfying life with a secure retirement. Many of my classmates who chose a more blue-collar life path have endured more struggles, starting with military service in Vietnam. I am quite confident that many of them today support Donald Trump, at least partly for the reasons that David Brooks suggests.”

“Mr. Brooks’ column was a brilliant, moving description of the unspoken arrogance of many of us who are left-leaning. I believe that some sincere humility and understanding with regard to the concerns of many who feel left behind would go a long way to healing some of our divisions. Thanks to Mr. Brooks for his insight.”

  • Brian Smith (Dayton, Ohio)

“I’ll accept David Brooks’ plea that we not blame the logic-defying viability of Donald Trump on the wrongheadedness of tens of millions of Americans. I get the class resentment. I share the rage against excessive political correctness and the feeling that immigration is unchecked and overwhelming. I see his point that the elite stoke these resentments by voicing our support for the nonelite while spending most of our energy and resources protecting our own class privilege.”

“But let’s not gloss over the main factor here: Mr. Trump is the latest version of a leader who is little more than a self-obsessed expert at exploiting and inflaming the fear and resentments of the masses to benefit his own power and ego. Such a leader cares nothing about those who harbor these resentments, and certainly does not share the same fears.”

“On a more practical note, those who resent wokeism are shooting themselves in the foot by supporting someone who so many Americans, elite and otherwise, would vote for over their proverbial dead bodies.”

  • Ellen S. Hirsch (New York)

“The irony behind the case that David Brooks makes for Donald Trump’s support is that this support is based entirely on words (primarily offensive) and not actions. What did Mr. Trump do as president to help his supporters and make their lives better?”

“His major accomplishment was the tax reform enacted in 2017, which heavily favored the rich and elites (including himself). His supporters love the way he attacks his ‘enemies’ and anyone who disagrees with him and feel he speaks for them. The lack of actual benefits they have enjoyed seems not to matter.”

  • Jeffrey Callahan (Cleveland)

“Donald Trump, as loathsome as he is, has done one significant service for this country. He has made clear the great social divide that David Brooks describes in his excellent column. Now, how to fix it?”

“As a former naval officer and Vietnam veteran, I would suggest universal national service, with almost no exemptions. Being forced to live with, eat with, work with people from all over the country would teach all of us to be more tolerant. This would not just be military service; it would include working in national parks, teaching in underserved schools, and many other forms of service to the nation.”

“The only thing standing in the way is a timid Congress. Is there anyone in Congress brave enough to take this on?”

  • James A. Lepone (Telfod, Pa.)

“David Brooks makes a familiar and not unreasonable argument about how the fear, resentment and sense of alienation that fuel the cult of Trumpism proceed from economic and cultural realities for which liberal elites are, in large part, responsible.”

“When Mr. Brooks asks, however, whether anti-Trumpers should consider whether they are the ‘bad guys,’ he embarks on an analysis that completely excludes millions of people like me who find Donald Trump and Trumpism appalling, without being ‘elite’ at all.”

“I was raised in a row home in northeast Philly by a single mom who was a cop. My dad was a union construction worker. I’ve been a musician and a bartender for most of my adult life. In short, I’m hardly part of the elite class that Mr. Brooks seems to equate with the anti-Trump movement, and yet I’m passionately anti-Trump!”

“Maybe this particular piece simply wasn’t aimed at people like me, and that’s fine. But all too often I see this oversimplified, false duality that leaves out all the decent working-class people who have themselves been hurt by neoliberal policies and narratives, and yet would never channel their frustration into an odious movement like Trumpism. When we condemn Mr. Trump and his followers, we do so with a clean conscience.”

  • Jack Stern (Setauket, N.Y.)

“David Brooks identifies the privileges enjoyed by the highly educated class and the resentment of the less educated class that might cause them to be ardent supporters of Donald Trump. Mr. Brooks concludes with a warning that history is the graveyard of classes with preferred caste privileges.”

“What he fails to consider is that in the United States his identified ‘upper’ class encourages, both by words and action, members of the ‘lower’ class to join it. Nothing would make those with college or graduate degrees happier than if every capable child joined their class. This differs very much from any true caste system.”

  • Phillip L. Rosen (Venice Beach, Calif.)

“David Brooks’ column gave me a new perspective regarding why people support this obvious con man named Donald Trump. Although Mr. Brooks makes excellent points regarding the anger that people feel, is it not the Democrats who advocate and pass legislation regarding the minimum wage, infrastructure, child care, education, the environment, middle-class tax relief, financial assistance with community colleges and technical schools, etc., all for the benefit of working- and middle-class Americans?”

“Mr. Trump and the current crop of Republicans have done nothing to help these people. In light of this, isn’t propaganda from Mr. Trump and his followers, as well as the cynical right-wing media, also to blame for this misplaced anger and anti-democratic sentiment?”

  • Trudy Ring (Bend, Ore.)

“David Brooks does an excellent job of setting up a straw man to bring down. Most liberals aren’t part of the ‘elite,’ no matter how many right-wingers parrot that lie.”

“Exit polls from 2020 found that Joe Biden outpaced Donald Trump significantly among voters making less than $100,000 a year, while Mr. Trump did better among those making $100,000 or more. Mr. Trump is no friend to the working class, and polls like these give me confidence that a majority of the working class recognizes this. And any member of the working class who supports him or today’s extreme-right Republican Party is going against their own best interests.”

“It’s liberals and Democrats (usually but not always the same) who support policies to empower workers and reduce economic inequality, and the other side doesn’t give a damn. Liberals are not the elite and are not the enemy of the working class.”

This Blogger’s Reactions to These Comments

I share the belief of one of the published comments that “Mr. Trump is the latest version of a leader who is little more than a self-obsessed expert at exploiting and inflaming the fear and resentments of the masses to benefit his own power and ego. Such a leader cares nothing about those who harbor these resentments, and certainly does not share the same fears.”

Although I am a liberal, I believe that some liberals or left-leaning people exhibit “unspoken arrogance” and that all of us need “sincere humility and understanding with regard to the concerns of many who feel left behind would go a long way to healing some of our divisions.”

One way to work at healing those divisions is the suggested “universal national service, with almost no exceptions, [such as] working in national parks, teaching in underserved schools, and many other forms of service to the nation. Being forced to live with, eat with, work with people from all over the country would [help] teach all of us to be more tolerant.” This suggestion, however, is practically and politically unrealistic.

The laudable goal of helping us all to be more understanding and tolerant of those with different political opinions, especially of urban and rural dwellers, could be furthered by having members of urban churches and civic groups develop programs for visiting and spending time with members of rural churches and civic groups, devoted to talking about these various public issues. A key for urban dwellers like myself, I believe, is recognizing that many rural areas in the U.S. are experiencing problems associated with aging and declining population. So too members of rural churches and civic groups could spend time with members of such groups in urban areas talking about public issues and the urban-area problems such as crime in the streets.

There also should be recognition by all that many Democrats advocate and pass legislation regarding minimum wage, infrastructure, child care, education, the environment, middle class tax relief, and financial assistance for community colleges and technical schools for the benefit of working and middle-class Americans.

Another problem not mentioned in these selected reader comments is all of us tend to watch and listen to radio and television news programs that are oriented to our existing opinions and orientations to public issues.

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

[1]  Brooks, What if We’re the Bad Guys Here?, N.Y. Times (Aug. 2, 2023).

[2] Are Anti-Trumpers “the Bad Guys”?, dwkcommentaries (Aug. 9, 2023), .

[3] LETTERS: Are the Elite Anti-Trumpers the ‘Bad Guys’?, N.Y. Times (Aug. 12, 2023),

 

New York City Pleads for Federal Financial Aid for New Migrants

At an August 9 press conference, New York City’s Mayor Eric Adams pleaded for federal financial aid for the city’s influx of new migrants.[1]

For fiscal 2023 the City spent $1.45 billion on shelter services for migrants and this June approved $2.9 billion for same for fiscal 2024, but already knows that will not be enough. The Mayor said it now looks like it will require $5 billion because the City had failed to include the new migrants now coming under the new Biden Administration’s asylum and immigration rules [2] and a 1996 federal law that requires asylum seekers to wait five months in the U.S. before applying for work permits.

Massachusetts is experiencing the same problem. Its Governor, Maura Healey, this week declared, “a state of emergency exists in Massachusetts due to rapidly rising numbers of migrant families arriving in . . . [the state] in need of shelter and services and a severe lack of shelter availability in the state.” She also denounced “a federal crisis of inaction” and asked for faster work authorizations. [3]

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

[1] Editorial, The Blue State Migrant Crisis, W.S.J. (Aug. 9, 2023).

[2] E.g., Biden Administration’s New Restrictions on U.S. Asylum Law Being Challenged in Federal Courts, dwkcommentareis.com (Aug. 6, 2023).

[3] Press Release, Governor Healey Declares State of Emergency, Calls for Support for Newly Arriving Migrant Families, Mass. Govt (Aug. 8, 2023).

Are Anti-Trumpers “the Bad Guys”?

This is the question posed in a recent David Brooks column in the New York Times.[1]

 He starts out with the admission (or confession) that he is an anti-Trumper who believes that members of this group are “the good guys, the forces of progress and enlightenment” while the “Trumpers are reactionary bigots and authoritarians” who see Trump as “the embodiment of their resentments.”

At least for purposes of argument, however, Brooks considers whether the anti-Trumpers are the bad guys by creating the “modern meritocracy” system.

Such a system started in the 1960s “when high school grads had to go off to fight in Vietnam but the children of the educated class got college deferments. It continues in the 1970s, when the authorities imposed busing on working-class areas in Boston but not on the upscale communities like Wellesley where . . . [the educated class] lived.”

The latter is “the modern meritocracy. We built an entire social order that sorts and excludes people on the basis of the quality that we possess most: academic achievement. Highly educated parents go to elite schools, marry each other, work at high-paying jobs and pour enormous resources into our children, who get into the same elite schools, marry each other and pass their exclusive class privileges down from generation to generation.”

“Everybody else is forced into a world down there. . . . Today middle-class children lose out to the rich children at school, and middle-class adults lose out to elite graduates at work. Meritocracy blocks the middle class from opportunity. Then . . . [the modern aristocracy]  blames those who lose a competition for income and status that even when  everyone plays by the rules, only the rich can win.”

“Armed with all kinds of economic, cultural and political power, we [members of the modern aristocracy] support policies that help ourselves. Free trade makes the products we buy cheaper, and our jobs are unlikely to be moved to China. Open immigration makes our service staff cheaper, but new, less-educated immigrants aren’t likely to put downward pressure on our wages.”

“We [the members of the modern aristocracy] also change the moral norms in ways that suit ourselves, never mind the cost to others. For example, there used to be a norm that discouraged people from having children outside marriage, but that got washed away during our period of cultural dominance, as we eroded norms that seemed judgmental or that might inhibit individual freedom.”

“After this social norm was eroded, . . . [m]embers of our class still overwhelmingly married and had children within wedlock. People without our resources, unsupported by social norms, were less able to do that.”

As Adrian Wooldridge points out in his magisterial 2021 book, “The Aristocracy of Talent, ‘Sixty percent of births to women with only a high school certificate occur out of wedlock, compared with only 10 percent to women with a university degree.” That matters, he continues, because ‘the rate of single parenting is the most significant predictor of social immobility in the country.’”

Brooks believes that most of our class [the modern aristocracy] are “earnest, kind and public-spirited. But we take for granted and benefit from systems that have become oppressive. Elite institutions  have become so politically progressive in part because the people in them want to feel good about themselves as they take part in systems that exclude and reject [others].”

“It’s easy to understand why people in less-educated classes would conclude that they are under economic, political, cultural and moral assault — and why they’ve rallied around Trump as their best warrior against the educated class. Brooks understands that it’s not the entrepreneurs who seem most threatening to workers; it’s the professional class. Trump understood that there was great demand for a leader who would stick his thumb in our eyes on a daily basis and reject the whole epistemic regime that we rode in on.”

“If distrustful populism is your basic worldview, the Trump indictments seem like just another skirmish in the class war between the professionals and the workers, another assault by a bunch of coastal lawyers who want to take down the man who most aggressively stands up to them. Of course, the indictments don’t cause Trump supporters to abandon him. They cause them to become more fiercely loyal. That’s the polling story of the last six months.”

“Are Trump supporters right that the indictments are just a political witch hunt? Of course not. As a card-carrying member of my class, Brooks says, I still basically trust the legal system and the neutral arbiters of justice. Trump is a monster in the way we’ve all been saying for years and deserves to go to prison.”

Therefore, for sociologist Digby Baltzell and David Brooks, “the real question is: When will we stop behaving in ways that make Trumpism inevitable?”

Reactions

In this column, Brooks does not provide an answer to his “real question.” Maybe there will be a future column in which he does so.

This blogger, however, believes at least part of the “real answer” for the State of Minnesota and many other states lies in the declining and aging population of rural parts of the State and the resulting negative impacts on their economies and visions of the future.[2] This problem suggests the need for more immigration to help solve the need for more labor with immigrant visas requiring the recipients to live and work in the areas with declining population.

Another part of the answer for this State and others, therefore, this blogger believes, is developing a system to promote and maintain intimate social contacts between people in the two parts of the states and thereby developing better understanding of the two sectors and programs for addressing the needs of the people in the rural parts of the states. Such a system requires everyone to exercise mutual forbearance toward each other[3] and to recognize our failings (sins) and request forgiveness from God and those whom we have wronged.[4]

Readers are invited to provide comments to this post with other ideas for answering the “real question” posed by Brooks.

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

[1] Brooks, What if We’re the Bad Guys Here?, N.Y. Times (Aug. 2, 2023). 

[2] See, e.g., these posts in dwkcommentaries.com: Another Defining Challenge of the 21st Century (Jan. 28, 2023);Skepticism About Douthat’s Defining Challenge of the 21st Century (Jan. 30, 2023); COMMENT: Developments in Africa and Italy Accentuate Douthat’s Concerns (Jan. 31, 2023); Iowa State Government Encouraging Refugee and Migrant Resettlement Feb. 1, 2023); COMMENT: National Worker Shortages in U.S. (Feb. 3, 2023); Migrant Workers Being Paid Premium Wages in U.S. Tight Labor Market (Feb. 8, 2023); More Details on U.S. and Other Countries’ Worker Shortages (Feb. 9, 2023);Your Longevity Is Important for Many Reasons (Feb. 12, 2023); Other States Join Iowa in Encouraging Immigration To Combat Aging, Declining Populations (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); U.S. Needs To Ameliorate Brutal Jobs Endangering Immigrant Workers (Feb. 26, 2023); COMMENT: Layoffs in Overall U.S. Economy Are Rare (Feb. 27, 2023); COMMENT: Many Undocumented Immigrants Leaving U.S. (March 1, 2023); Protections for U.S. Child Labor Need Improvement (APRIL 22, 2023; Wall Street Journal Editorial: U.S. Needs More Immigrants (July 25, 2023); COMMENT: Americans in Their Prime Are Flooding Into the Job Market (July 26, 2023:COMMENT: Dire Shortages of Workers in U.S. Public Sector (July 27, 2023).

[3] E.g., Minneapolis’ Westminster Presbyterian Church: Presbyterian Principles: It is our duty to exercise mutual forbearance toward each other, dwkcommentaries.com (May 19, 2023).

[4] E.g., The Prayer Jesus Taught: “And forgive us for our debts as we forgive our debtors,” dwkcommentaaries.com (May 9, 2023).

 

State Court Imposes Sentence of 57 Months Imprisonment on Tou Thao for Aiding Manslaughter of George Floyd

When George Floyd was killed on May 25, 2020, Tou Thao was a Minneapolis police officer who was in charge of monitoring and restraining the large nearby crowd of bystanders while observing fellow officers Derek Chauvin, Thomas Lane and Alexander Kueng physically restraining and killing George Floyd on the nearby pavement. On August 7, 2023, Thao was sentenced in state court to 57 months imprisonment for aiding and abetting second-degree manslaughter. The following is a summary of Minnesota state courts’ proceedings, convictions and sentencings of these four ex-Minneapolis police officers.

Prior State Court Proceedings[1]

The State of Minnesota charged Thao and the other three officers with various crimes for the killing of Mr. Floyd. The officer in charge, Derek Chauvin, was the first officer to go on trial in the Hennepin County District Court and a jury found him guilty of second- and third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter and the court sentenced him to 22.5 years  imprisonment.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals then denied Chauvin’s appeal and the Minnesota Supreme Court declined to hear his further appeal. According to his attorney, Chauvin will petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review his case.

In Hennepin County District Court in May 2022, Officer Lane pleaded guilty to a charge of aiding and abetting second-degree manslaughter and was sentenced to 2.5 years imprisonment.

In October 2022, also in Hennepin County District Court, Kueng pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting manslaughter  and was sentenced to three years imprisonment.

Thao, however, rejected a proposed guilty plea and instead chose to have Judge Cahill try him on stipulated evidence.

District Court’s Conviction of Thao[2] 

 On May 1, 2023, District Court Judge Peter Cahill issued the Court’s 177-page Verdict, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Memorandum Opinion. In finding Thao guilty of aiding and abetting second-degree manslaughter of George Floyd, the Verdict stated:

  • “Thao actively encouraged his three colleagues’ dangerous prone restraint of Floyd while holding back a crowd of concerned bystanders begging the officers to render medical aid. Thao knew, as the minutes passed and the restraint continue unimpeded, that Floyd had stopped talking and fallen silent, had stopped moving altogether, and
  • had become totally unresponsive. In fact, by about six minutes into the restraint, Floyd stopped breathing, lost consciousness, and became pulseless.”
  • That night Thao “was an experienced Minneapolis police officer with almost a decade’s experience. He knew that the officers’ prone restraint could kill. Like the other officers, Thao had been trained specifically to turn an individual onto his side to avoid positional asphyxia, the very thing that several eminent medical specialists who testified at trial concluded caused Floyd’s death. Like the bystanders, Thao could see Floyd’s life slowly ebbing away as the restraint continued. Yet Thao made a conscious decision to actively participate in Floyd’s death: he held back the concerned bystanders and even prevented an off-duty Minneapolis firefighter from rendering the medical aid Floyd so desperately needed.”
  • ““Thao also directly insisted upon continuing the restraint that took Floyd’s death that night. Soon after Floyd had been subdued prone on the street, Thao retrieved a device called a ‘hobble’ from Lane’s and Kueng’s squad. If properly employed, that hobble would have saved Floyd’s life. But Thao encouraged the other officers not to use the hobble and instead to ‘hold on’ and continue the physical restraint by which his three fellow officers were bearing down on Floyd, forcing him into the unyielding concrete of the street, drastically inhibiting his ability to breathe effectively. Thao’s stated reason? ‘If we hobble him, the sergeant is going to have to come out’ to complete the paper work for a ‘use of force review’ mandated by MPD policy whenever the hobble is employed. The short of it: Tou Thao did not want to follow the proper protocol and the work it would entail. George Floyd died as a result.”

District Court’s Sentencing of Thao[3]

On August 3, 2023, Minnesota Assistant Attorney General  Erin Eldridge submitted a three-page letter to the Court noting that the presumptive sentence for this crime for Thao was 48 months with a guideline range of 41 to 57 months and that the State requested the imposition of a 51 month sentence for the following reasons:

  • “Thao’s conduct was calculated, deliberate, and directly facilitated and perpetuated the restraint that led to Floyd’s death. Throughout the encounter, Thao was aware of Floyd’s distress and the dangerousness of the ongoing prone restraint. Thao discouraged the officers from using a hobble—a device that, if properly utilized, would have saved Floyd’s life. . . . Instead, Thao actively encouraged his fellow officers to continue to restrain Floyd prone on the ground. . . . . . Thao also ‘expressly refused to allow’ ‘a trained Minneapolis firefighter’ ‘to tend to Floyd, . . . despite Floyd’s obvious distress. . . . In short, Thao bears personal responsibility for what happened that day. This Court should impose a punishment that reflects Thao’s culpability.”
  • “Thao’s conduct was even more egregious in light of his extensive experience and training. Thao completed the police academy in 2009, and became a full-time officer in 2012, serving in that capacity for 8 years. …. Over the course of his multi-year career, Thao completed 1,014 hours of MPD training, including medical training, defensive tactics training, procedural justice training, and crisis intervention training. . . . .Above all, Thao had been trained about the importance of placing individuals in the side recovery position to alleviate the risk of positional asphyxia. . . . Yet despite his extensive on-the-job experience and copious training, Thao intentionally encouraged the use of a dangerous prone restraint, discouraged the use of a hobble, and prevented an off-duty firefighter from rendering aid. In short, Thao knew better, but did not do better.”
  • “Thao acted callously and cruelly. Thao mocked Floyd, telling the concerned bystanders: ‘This is why you don’t do drugs, kids.’ . . . . Thao dismissed Floyd’s pleas: ‘He’s talking, so he’s fine.’ . . . And Thao encouraged the dangerous behavior for selfish reasons: In Thao’s words, if the officers used a hobble, ‘a sergeant’s going to have to come [to the scene].’ ….This Court put it best: ‘Tou Thao did not want to follow the proper protocol and the work it would entail. George Floyd died as a result.’ . . . . “
  • “[A] a significant term of incarceration would serve as a deterrent for similar misconduct. Police officers enforce the law; they are not above the law. A 51-month prison sentence will discourage other public servants from engaging in similar criminal behavior or abuses of authority.”
  • “Thao has neither accepted responsibility nor shown any remorse for his actions”

At the August 7 sentencing hearing, Mr. Eldridge said, “George Floyd’s last words were heard around the world,  but more importantly they were heard by Tou Thao and we cannot forget them now three years later.”

Mr. Thao’s attorney, Robert Paule, said at the hearing, “The death of Mr. Floyd is a tragedy, but the court is a place of justice, not retribution. Mr. Thao went out that day with the purest intentions. My client is a good and decent man with a family.” Paule then requested a sentence of 47 months, which was 10 months less than the maximum of the sentencing guidelines.

Mr. Thao then spoke for about 23 minutes to say, “Hold on to the truth that I did not commit these crimes; my conscience is clear. I will not be a Judas nor join a mob in self-preservation or betray my God. I did not intend on hurting anyone that day. I did the best I thought I could. Obviously the outcome didn’t come out the way I wanted it. I’ll leave it at that” without any apology. He then quoted Biblical passages and preached of repentance, fear of God and forgiveness. “Today if you feel the love of God pulling at your heart. . . . Let it be your day of salvation. Do not harden your heart in rebellion, for God desired mercy and relationship with you.”

Thao then directly asked Judge Cahill if he was a brother in Christ and apologized if he had offended the Judge by refusing to take a guilty plea deal and having said, “it would be a lie and a sin for me to accept a plea deal.” The Judge then said no offense was taken.

Thao closed by saying that he is praying for everyone in the room, including the Judge, and that if anyone needs him for prayer, “you know where to find me. Thank you judge. God bless you.”

Judge Cahill then said, “After three years of reflection, I was hoping for a little more remorse, regret, acknowledgement of some responsibility and less preaching.” The Judge added that he would not rehash the facts of the case, but that Thao’s “culpability is less than Mr. Chauvin, but well above Mr. Kueng and Mr. Lane as an experienced senior officer who was in the best position to save George Floyd.” Therefore, a sentence of 57 months was appropriate.

This sentence will be served in Minnesota state prison, to which he will be transferred from federal prison where he already is serving his federal sentence of 42 months for violations of Floyd’s civil rights with the balance of that federal sentence to be served concurrently with the state sentence. [4]

Conclusion

After the hearing, Thao’s attorney said he would appeal the guilty verdict and the sentence.

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

[1] See, e.g., List of Posts to dwkcommentaries—Topical: George Floyd Killing.

[2] Tou Thao, ex-MPD Officer, Convicted for Aiding and Abetting Second-Degree Manslaughter of George Floyd, dwkcommentaries.com (May 3, 2023); Briefs in Tou Thao’s State Court Criminal Case Over Killing of George Floyd, dwkcommentaries.com (Feb. 2, 2023);

[3] Hyatt, Ex-Minneapolis cop Tou Thao sentenced to nearly 5 years for aiding George Floyd’s killing, StarTribune (Aug. 7, 2023); Karnowski, Ex-Minneapolis officer unrepentant as he gets nearly 5 years in George Floyd killing, AP News (Aug. 7, 2023); Betts, Former Officer Gets More than 4 Years in Final Sentencing for Police Killing of George Floyd, N.Y. Times (Aug. 7, 2023). Bailey, Ex-Minneapolis officer gets second sentence in George Floyd’s death, Wash. Post (Aug. 7, 2023); Helmore, Ex-officer sentenced to nearly five years for role in George Floyd’s murder, Guardian (Aug. 7, 2023); Letter, Minnesota Assistant Attorney General Erin R. Eldridge to Judge Peter Cahill (Aug. 3, 2023).

[4] Tou and the other three ex-MPD officers were also sued in federal court for alleged violations of Mr. Floyd’s civil rights. All four of them were convicted and sentenced to federal imprisonment. (E.g., U.S. Court of Appeals Affirms Federal Conviction of Tou Thao for Violating the Civil Rights of George Floyd, dwkcommentaries.com (Aug. 5, 2023).) https://www.startribune.com/tou-thao-sentenced-nearly-5-years-aiding-george-floyds-killing/600295391/?refresh=true

Biden Administration’s New Restrictions on U.S. Asylum Law Being Challenged in Federal Courts 

This year has seen many developments regarding the Biden Administration’s attempts to cope with the large numbers of migrants illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. Here is a review of some of those developments.

Biden’s New Asylum Regulation[1]

On February 21, the Biden Administration announced a proposed rule that would  require rapid deportation of an immigrant at the U.S. border who had failed to request protection from another country while en route to the U.S. or who had not previously notified the U.S. via a mobile app of a plan to seek asylum in the U.S. or who had applied for the new U.S. humanitarian parole programs for certain countries (Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela). This rule was scheduled to take effect will take effect on May 11, with the expected termination that day of Title 42 which allowed the U.S. to swiftly expel migrants at the U.S. border.

This announcement stated that the new rule would “incentivize the use of new and existing lawful processes and disincentivize dangerous border crossings, by placing a new condition on asylum eligibility for those who fail to do so. These steps are being taken in response to the unprecedented western hemispheric migration challenges – the greatest displacement of people since World War II – and the absence of congressional action to update a very broken, outdated immigration system.”

DHS Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas stated, “We are a nation of immigrants, and we are a nation of laws. We are strengthening the availability of legal, orderly pathways for migrants to come to the United States, at the same time proposing new consequences on those who fail to use processes made available to them by the United States and its regional partners. As we have seen time and time again, individuals who are provided a safe, orderly, and lawful path to the United States are less likely to risk their lives traversing thousands of miles in the hands of ruthless smugglers, only to arrive at our southern border and face the legal consequences of unlawful entry.”

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland added the following: “The Department of Justice is responsible for administering the Nation’s immigration courts and ensuring that claims are adjudicated expeditiously, fairly, and consistent with due process. This proposed rule will establish temporary rules concerning asylum eligibility in those proceedings when the Title 42 order is lifted. We look forward to reviewing the public’s comments on this proposed rule.”

The Administration said that without this new rule, immigration at the U.S. border would “increase significantly, to a level that risks undermining the … continued ability to safely, effectively and humanely enforce and administer U.S. immigration law.”

On May 12, 2023, these new restrictions on applications for asylum under U.S. law went into effect. Under these new restrictions aliens were disqualified for making such applications if they had crossed into the U.S. without either securing an appointment for an official U.S. interview at an official port of entry or without seeking legal protection in another country along their way to the U.S.

Reactions to U.S. New Asylum Rules[2]

Prior to this new rule, U.S. border patrol officials were daily encountering about 7,500 migrants trying to cross the U.S. border illegally. Since then the numbers have declined to about 3,000 per day, still historically high but dramatically lower than the 7,500.

There is abundant evidence that migrants have been applying for asylum in record numbers under this new rule and now are in long lines, taking several years, for their cases to be heard in Immigration courts. (At the end of fiscal 2022, there were nearly 1.6 million pending asylum applications.) Moreover, other migrants without legal support, are likely to miss the 12 month deadline for submitting the complicated application) and fall into the more perilous category of the undocumented.

In a joint statement, Democratic Sens. Bob Menendez (N.J.), Cory Booker (N.J.), Ben Ray Luján (N.M.) and Alex Padilla (Calif.) called on the administration to drop the proposed rule. “We are deeply disappointed that the administration has chosen to move forward with publishing this proposed rule, which only perpetuates the harmful myth that asylum seekers are a threat to this nation. In reality, they are pursuing a legal pathway in the United States.”

A similar reaction came from leading Democrat House members (Rep. Jerrold Nadler and Pramila Jayapal). In their joint statement, they expressed “deep disappointment” with the newly proposed rule and stated, “The ability to seek asylum is a bedrock principle protected by federal law and should never be violated. We should not be restricting legal pathways to enter the United States, we should be expanding them.”

Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, said they applaud the expanded pathways for those four countries announced in January but question where that leaves migrants from other countries. She says it favors people with resources who can afford the necessary requirements of finding a financial sponsor and buying a plane ticket to the U.S. And some people are so at risk, they simply cannot wait in their country for a humanitarian parole slot. Critics have also highlighted technological problems with the app.”

The Federation for American Immigration Reform said that the rule isn’t designed to halt migrants as much as make the process more orderly: “In other words, the real objective is not to end large-scale asylum abuse, but rather to get them through the next election cycle.”

Justice Action Center’s counsel, Jane Bentrott, said the proposed rule “would send asylum seekers back to danger, separate families, and cost lives, as human rights advocates have been asserting for weeks. It is in direct contravention of President Biden’s campaign promises to reverse Trump’s racist, xenophobic immigration policies, and give all folks seeking safety a fair shot at asylum.”

Lindsay Toczylowski, the executive director of Immigrant Defenders Law Center in California, criticized the inept operations of the government’s online system for scheduling an asylum application interview. “It’s almost like a lottery. You have to win a ticket to be able to seek protection in the U.S.”

An ACLU attorney, Lee Gelernt, who successfully challenged similar efforts by the Trump Administration, said that Biden’s new proposed rules had the same legal flaws as the Trump rules  and that the ACLU would sue to block the latest move.

Challenge to New Asylum Regulations in U.S. District Court[3]

A lawsuit challenging the new asylum rule was filed with the U.S. District Court for Northern California. The U.S. Government obviously opposed this lawsuit and submitted an affidavit  by Blas Nuñez-Neto, assistant secretary of homeland security for border and immigration policy, that described the real-world alternatives to the new rule: Customs and Border Patrol “facilities will be overcrowded once again, placing the noncitizens in our custody and the front-line personnel who care for them at risk.” Border communities “will once again receive large scale releases of noncitizens that will overwhelm their ability to coordinate safe temporary shelter and quick onward transportation.” And interior cities such as New York “will, once again, see their systems strained.”

Therefore, the U.S. Government argued that the Biden plan is necessary to the government’s “continued ability to safely, effectively, and humanely enforce and administer U.S. immigration law, including the asylum system.”

Nevertheless, on July 25, 2023, Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for Northern California held that these new restrictions were “both substantively and procedurally invalid.” The Judge said, “The court concludes that the rule is contrary to law because it presumes ineligible for asylum noncitizens who enter between ports of entry, using a manner of entry that Congress expressly intended should not affect access to asylum.”

The judge, however, “immediately stayed his decision for 14 days, leaving the asylum policy in place while the federal government appealed the decision.”

An ACLU attorney for the plaintiffs said this ruling “is a victory, but each day the Biden administration prolongs the fight over its illegal ban, many people fleeing persecution and seeking safe harbor for their families are instead left in grave danger.”

According to the Homeland Security Secretary, Alejandro N. Mayorkas, however, “the administration strongly disagreed with the decision. With the policy still in place while the decision is appealed, he added, migrants who did not follow the current rule would face stiff consequences.” This result “does not limit our ability to deliver consequences for unlawful entry,” including prompt removal, a future bar on admission and potential criminal prosecution.”

Appeal About Asylum Rules in Court of Appeals[4]

The U.S. Government took an immediate appeal from Judge Tigar’s decision, and on August 3, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided, 2 to 1, that the pause or stay of the District Court’s decision invalidating the Biden Administration’s new asylum restrictions should continue for as long as it takes the appellate court to rule on the case. The appellate court also stated that it would “expedite its consideration of the government’s appeal and said that briefs from both sides would be due by the end of September at the latest. A hearing will follow.”

The two judges in the majority—William A. Fletcher and Richard A. Paez—did not explain their reasoning.

However, the dissenting judge, Lawrence Van Dyke, said that the majority judges did not give the Trump Administration the same deference when the court invalidated asylum restrictions, which were practically the same as those adopted by the Biden Administration. Van Dyke more colorfully said that Biden’s asylum restrictions were so similar to the Trump administration’s that it looks like they “got together, had a baby, and then dolled it up in a stylish modern outfit, complete with a phone app.”

A spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, Erin Heeter, responded to this appellate ruling. She said, “We will continue to apply the rule and immigration consequences for those who do not have a lawful basis to remain in the United States. The rule has significantly reduced irregular migration, and since its implementation on May 12 we have removed more than 85,000 individuals. We encourage migrants to ignore the lies of smugglers and use lawful, safe and orderly pathways.”

Katrina Eiland, the ACLU lawyer who argued the case for the plaintiffs, had a different reaction. She said, “We are confident that we will prevail when the court has a full opportunity to consider the claims. We are pleased the court placed the appeal on an expedited schedule so that it can be decided quickly, because each day the Biden administration prolongs its efforts to preserve its illegal ban, people fleeing grave danger are put in harm’s way.”

Conclusion

We all now await the parties’ appellate briefs and oral arguments followed by the Court of Appeals decision and then potential further proceedings in that court and the U.S. Supreme Court.

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

[1] Biden Administration Announces Proposed Restrictions on Asylum Applications, dwkcommentaries.com (Feb. 27, 2023). h

[2] Meko & Vitchis, New Migrants Have a Year to Apply for Asylum. Many Won’t Make It, N.Y. Times (July 3, 2023); Sullivan, Lawyers Say Helping Asylum Seekers in Border Custody Is Nearly Impossible, N.Y. Times (July 22, 2023);Shear, Turkewitz & Sandeval, How and Why Illegal Border Crossings Have Dropped So Dramatically, N.Y. Times (July 26, 2023);

[3] Jordan & Sullivan, Federal Judge Blocks Biden Administration’s New Asylum Policy, N.Y. Times (July 25, 2023); Hackman & Caldwell, Judge blocks Biden Administration Asylum rules, W.S.J. (July 25, 2023); Editorial: Why are courts messing up a Biden asylum policy that works? Wash.Post ( July 27, 2023).

[4] Shear, Appeals Court Allows Biden’s Asylum Restrictions to Continue for Now, N.Y. Times (Aug. 3, 3023); Sacchetti & Miroff, Biden’s asylum restrictions for migrants may remain in place, federal appeals court rules, Wash. Post (Aug. 4, 2023)