A few interesting things from this Fall Regulatory Agenda (most of which will be cancelled under Biden).
DHS suggests it's going to publish a final regulation this month "delegating authority for temporariness determinations in H-2A [applications] to the Department of Labor."
We also now have more information on the pending-for-months proposal to issue a temporary final rule that would invoke COVID to totally ban all humanitarian protections for people crossing the border from Mexico.
USCIS also lists on the agenda a possible proposed rule (which won't happen) that would have eliminated the ability to concurrently file a visa petition and an I-485 application for a green card—more dismantling of legal immigration. reginfo.gov/public/do/eAge…
CBP suggests it's going to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking this month that will modify (read, limit) the period of admissions for people coming on tourist or business visitor visas.
There's not really anything interesting coming out of EOIR—pretty much the same stuff. They've really pushed out most of the major rules they wanted to already.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Under this new rule, one of Trump's last parting body blows to the United States' system of humanitarian protection, none but the lucky few will be able to win asylum.
The regulation creates near-total bans on asylum for wide swathes of people and herculean procedural barriers.
Before I get into just how horrific this new anti-asylum regulation is, a picture of Petra I took this morning to soften the blow of what is a terrible thing to read through—even though the Biden administration will be working to end it ASAP and court challenges are certain.
Tom Homan sold his soul to Fox News, and with it every shred of dignity he once had.
This is, of course, a lie. Jeff Sessions said early in 2017 the purpose of Zero Tolerance was separating families—and even a parent which served 24 hours in jail wasn't reunited with their kid.
Why is Homan on Fox News talking about this? Because he JUST wrote an op-ed trying to "debunk" the idea that family separation was bad.
Again, the families that have chosen not to reunite haven't done so because it would mean deporting their children. washingtontimes.com/news/2020/dec/…
Homan's op-ed is *riddled* with errors. For example, he claims here that children were only held in ORR custody "until their parents were released."
This is flatly wrong. @DHSOIG and @OIGatHHS have both independently confirmed no such plans to reunite kids existed.
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 ... “
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.