Judge Chhabria has had enough of ICE and GEO’s failure to protect people from COVID!
“From the start of the public health crisis until now, the conduct of the key ICE and GEO officials in charge of operations at Mesa Verde has been appalling.”
“These [ICE and GEO] officials knew that they needed a clear and detailed plan to minimize the risk of an outbreak (and to contain an outbreak if one occurred), but nine months later they still have not created one. They deliberately avoided testing detainees ...”
“... and staff for fear that the results would require them to take expensive and logistically challenging safety measures. They failed to address the safety concerns created by Mesa Verde’s unique layout, which makes it far more dangerous ... “
“ ... from a contagion standpoint than the typical jail or prison. They opposed bail for detainees on a blanket basis—even for those who clearly posed no danger to the community and were obviously not a flight risk. They gave false testimony several times in these court ... “
“ ... proceedings, on matters of importance. And at least one ICE official with significant decision- making authority over Mesa Verde obstructed the proceedings by effectively refusing to answer, during his deposition... “
“... even the most basic questions about ICE’s response to the pandemic.”
Judge Chhabria accuses one of the ICE officials that oversees the Mesa Verde Detention Center of “false statements made under oath” at a recent evidentiary hearing!
ICE and GEO officials were repeatedly warned that they needed a facility-specific plan to protect against a COVID outbreak in Mesa Verde, and even by mid-July and after at least one "dodged bullet," they still didn't have one! This is textbook deliberate indifference.
Wow! Judge Chhabria not mincing words, coming right out and accusing GEO of deliberately failing to require mandatory COVID tests for staff because "adopt[ing] safety measures" would hurt the company's bottom line.
ICE and GEO asked Judge Chhabria to lift his court order since they now have a 2-page "Detainee Intake Procedures plan."
His response is brutal: "There is a difference between having a plan and having the willingness and/or ability to execute that plan."
Chhabria tears into the ICE official in charge of Mesa Verde:
"Given Pham’s misrepresentations to the Court in sworn declarations...his evasive responses during his videotaped deposition testimony...it is difficult to put faith in a plan that depends on Pham acting responsibly."
After listing a litany of problems with ICE's intake plan, Judge Chhabria crafts his own specific requirements for ICE to protect detainees from COVID, including strict testing requirements, social distancing requirements (which will likely mean releases), and more.
Anyway, here's a link to the decision. It is one of the most unforgiving looks at the failures of government officials to protect the people they keep locked up from getting COVID, and the perverse incentives of the private prison companies involved. aclusocal.org/sites/default/…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
New! @DOJ_EOIR is *finally* moving forward with its long-planned deployment of electronic filing at the immigration courts, through a new Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that may hopefully bring the agency into the 21st century.
In the new Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, EOIR is proposing to expand its e-filing pilot program (ECAS) to all immigration courts nationwide.
ECAS post-dates my time in immigration court so I'll defer to others on how well that system has worked so far.
EOIR proposes that all new cases in immigration courts which implement the new e-filing programs would get an "electronic Record of Proceedings" rather than a paper file.
BUT—this would only apply to NEW cases. The current 1.25 million cases would not be converted to electronic.
The new policy memo from @DOJ_EOIR declares that, because in "most cases" immigrants with counsel waive the required reading of rights that occurs at the initial hearing, it's okay to end initial hearings for ALL immigrants with counsel—a wildly arbitrary decision.
Furthermore, @DOJ_EOIR's new policy memo contains a wildly inaccurate claim; that asylum seekers are highly likely to have counsel. They rely on a warped statistic—the percent of asylum APPLICANTS who have counsel.
But that ignores people who, without a lawyer, can't apply!
In today's oral argument, 7 of 9 Supreme Court justices used the phrase "illegal alien" to describe individuals currently lacking a lawful immigration status in the US.
A brief thread on the origin of the phrase, whether judges are required to use it, and why they shouldn't.
Many people claim that the phrase "illegal alien" is somehow required by law—that it's the only accurate one.
But the entire Immigration and Nationality Act (and indeed all of Title 8 of the U.S. Code) uses the phrase just six times total—and most of those date back to 1996.
2/
Since "illegal alien" isn't a term that comes from the black letter law, is it a phrase with a long history in the courts?
Nope! The first use of the phrase in a federal case came from a 1950 case called Waisboard v. United States, from the following very colorful opening.
In 2016, Chad Mizelle, a 29-year-old first-year associate volunteered for the Trump campaign. Four years later:
- He’s DHS Acting General Counsel
- His wife is a federal judge
- One law school friend and groomsman is Deputy General Counsel at DHS. Another has a DOJ job.
Here’s some more background on the groomsman I highlighted. Ian Brekke was named Deputy General Counsel at DHS with three years of experience as a law firm associate. At the time, Mizelle was at the White House where he was a close ally to Stephen Miller.
Here's an article written in February when Mizelle was named the Acting General Counsel (technically the Senior Official Performing the Duties of the General Counsel).
Many people are ordered deported by an immigration judge but cannot BE deported. This is usually because their country of nationality will not take them.
For decades, these people have been able to get work permits, since they're not going anywhere. Now DHS wants to end that.
The proposal could affect tens of thousands of people who currently have these work permits, many of whom have lived in the United States for decades, working legally and paying taxes.
Every year, USCIS approves 20,000-30,000 of these work permit applications (inc. renewals).