Six broad, initial thoughts about how to defend immigrant rights in concrete law & policy, as it appears likely that Biden will be president and Rs will control the Senate. (Thread)
1. Trump’s electoral defeat is a true victory against racism and fear, but it is a defensive victory. It stems the bleeding, and maybe only temporarily. A very big battle, but not the war. Immigrants will remain under threat.
2. The Democrats’ failure to take the Senate means that hoping for large scale immigration reform legislation is, yet again, likely going to be fruitless. Worthy as it is, it may sap scarce political capital from achievable and also urgent goals.
3. Executive action is key. An urgent priority for Biden. Stop the cruelty immediately. Restructure the enforcement machine. Reopen asylum. Tear down the invisible wall. Reverse engineer Trump, in essence. It’s not as durable as legislation, but it’s high impact and he can do it.
4. Focus on smaller bite/big impact legislation. The pursuit of a grand bargain on immigration isn’t bearing fruit. But there may be opportunities to get high impact fixes to immigration law written into legislation. Take advantage of these opportunities if they arise. They may.
5. Think locally. Don’t depend on national elections alone to protect immigrants. New data shows that by cutting off the jail-to-deportation pipeline using local authority, families are kept together. People who would be deported instead stay in their homes, where they belong.
6. Be very aware that, at most, we won a 4-year window. A breather. A racist demagogue may come to power again. We need to do what we can to make sure that everyone in our community is as protected as possible when that happens.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In Las Vegas, it is now plausible for a person with a strong case to hope to win asylum. That's new. Here's what I wrote about applying for asylum in Las Vegas in my book, THE BATTLE TO STAY IN AMERICA. I wrote this in 2019. 2/
Now, the two judges with 95+% denial rates (Sharda and Romig) have both left Las Vegas, and 3 of the 4 with the highest denial rates have left. BUT the Las Vegas Immigration Court is hardly a haven for refugees. (See next tweet.) 3/
In Oct 2019, the Las Vegas Sheriff, threatened with litigation and pressured by the community, agreed to limit his jail's cooperation with ICE. We now have some data hinting that this likely slowed deportations and kept families together in Las Vegas. (THREAD) 1/
My book, THE BATTLE TO STAY IN AMERICA focuses on this fight, a microcosm of a struggle that has taken place across the country to cut the jail-to-deportation pipeline. This report from @TRACReports - albeit with incomplete data - indicates that these fights were worth it. 2/
Some caveats. The data - the number of detainers issued by ICE to local jails - is only a part of a larger, complex deportation pipeline. I wish we could see more, but ICE has been refusing to release some of the more revealing data to @TRACReports. 3/
Yesterday, ICE announced - with great pride - 2000 arrests of people it wants to deport. It's significant ... and also a distraction. They want media, activists, and immigrant communities to focus on these arrests, the proverbial knock on the door. They're not the main attack. 1/
In 2018, only about 1 in 5 deportations from inside the U.S. started with a direct arrest by ICE. The vast, vast majority (apprx 80%) begin with a largely hidden system by which local police hand people over to ICE. (Excerpt from The Battle to Stay in America.) 2/
The data comes rom @TRACReports. As their report shows, there is good reason to think that local communities can reduce the chances of their neighbors being deported by limiting cooperation with ICE. 3/ trac.syr.edu/immigration/re…
I very much recommend this column by @adamjwhitedc and Yuval Levin to my progressive friends (and everyone, really). I have a few quick comments on it, but it is important and thought provoking. nationalreview.com/2020/08/the-re… 1/
There is a subtle imbalance in the way Trump's executive actions are compared to Obama's. White/Levin describe Trump's recent EOs with precision, which as they point out shows the orders to be more limited than Trump's rhetoric and more arguably, narrowly constitutional.
2/
By contrast, White and Levin describe Obama's actions (specifically DACA & DAPA) in sweeping terms. This makes it easier to make the sweeping claim that "President Obama essentially rewrote immigration law." That's quite contestable. 3/
I teach immigration law. I recommend this thread by @juliettekayyem, debating @JulianCastro on 1325 repeal. It’s the best non-racist case that can probably be made for keeping 1325, beyond mere political calculation. But I believe her arguments to be flawed in 3 ways (thread):
1) Misdemeanor punishments don’t deter migration, although as we’ve seen formal criminalization can be the legal foundation for remarkable cruelty. In general in immigration policy, deterrence becomes a rationale for cruelty, and little more.
2) If the goal is to detain (a goal I can’t per se endorse, but still) I fail to grasp why this misdemeanor statute is not duplicative of non-criminal provisions that allow long term detention of migrants.