I've seen a lot of ink over the last two weeks attempting to explain the Taliban's lightning takeover of this beautiful country. Biden botched the withdrawal. Afghans are tribal. The Taliban wouldn't have been able to if they weren't popular. Pakistan enabled them.
I won't opine on the accuracy of these statements. People a lot smarter than I can duke it out. My calling is to help the traumatized and voiceless and take their stories to lawmakers to give them a voice. Same I did in Tijuana and Texas and at Dulles during the Muslim Ban.
I went to Dulles again on Sunday night when I found out a young Afghan had been detained there for nearly 3 days. No lawyer, no info. We dutifully filed our G-28's even though they're routinely ignored by CBP. (I've seen this movie before. A lot.)
And as usual, our persistence and hints at filing a habeus worked: he was released at 4 am Monday morning.
Today, I had the ill fortune to read another piece by Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the white nationalist mouthpiece Center for Immigration Studies. Afghanistan is too delicious a crisis for these hatemongers: they jump every time like hungry pike fish.
Vetting. That's all they care about when it comes to immigrants, especially of the swarthy bearded variety. But of course, no vetting system is enough.
These jokers are the ones that have an iron grip on immigration policy. They are, in large part, the reason my client was detained for 3 days without a lawyer.
Four decades of telling lawmakers to shut down the pipeline and extremely vet the tiny stream that remained, then set deportation booby traps to ensnare as many in the trickle that made it. Wall after wall after wall had already been built. "Build the wall?" Who are we kidding?
After Trump lost, I vowed never to be complacent again. But in Aug 2021 I was in the same literal spot as Jan 2017, begging to be allowed to see my client, texting colleagues to start ghostwriting petitions, arguing points of law to agents who DGAF.
Everything stays the same.
I get that there are security concerns. I just disagree that building walls is the solution. To me, #NoBanNoWallNoRaids means something.
We have thousands of new Afghan people landing here. There is actual agreement on both sides of the aisle on bringing them here (even if some continue to cry vet vet vet)
That was the thrust of our message when we talked to our MoC @JenniferWexton. That's my message to @SecMayorkas, and to @JoeBiden:
How we treat our newest arrivals is what defines us.
Better: how they become us is what defines us.
May God protect the people of Afghanistan in jihad against the Taliban.
Virulent Islamophobe and white nationalist sympathizer.
Pushes racist agenda under academic guise.
Thinks immigrant children should be sent to Guantánamo.
As @Allandaros notes, the respondent in this case couldn't convince the court he didn't participate in the Rwandan genocide. Bad facts make bad law.
But the Board did something interesting, too.
It noted that equitable defenses like laches originate from the Constitution.
Article III, to be specific. Real courts have this authority: immigration "courts" don't qualify.
So when we talk about due process in imm courts, we mean creating courts pursuant to Constitutional authority. For immigration, that's Article I. fedbar.org/government-rel…
OK. This is a problem. As I said in 2019, "basic standards of journalistic integrity are that these organizations be properly contextualized as the white nationalist organizations that they are.”
These are the groups that enabled ppl like Stephen Miller.
.@DefineAmerican did a similar study covering 2014-2018 and found the same troubling trend: white nationalist organizations being given cover as a legitimate "other side" of the immigration debate.
WHITE NATIONALISTS ARE NOT LEGITIMATE. That's all.
*knock knock* hey @StephenM you listening? I'm the guy unsealing the #TantonPapers, the blueprint for the organizations that told you how to build your deportation machine.
I've been at this for over 4 years. Just wanted to share a little update!
Some quick background: John Tanton was the mastermind behind the largest and most effective anti-immigrant organizations in the US. Tied inextricably to the white nationalist movements, they've infiltrated deep into all levels of government and policy.
After 4 years, thanks to @isabelaalhadeff I finally got to see the "gift agreement" Tanton struck with UM. And it likely doesn't reach the level of an enforceable contract. Nothing more than a string of receipts. But here's the kicker:
After 4 years, I'm finally taking @UMich to trial.
Yesterday we propounded initial discovery. Item #1:
"PRODUCE: The Donor/Gift Agreement between Dr. Tanton and The University of Michigan/Bentley Historical Library."
Besides the papers themselves, this secret gift agreement is the most important piece of this puzzle. Why did Tanton want to keep his papers secret through 2035? How did they agree to only keep half of them closed, and why? Were there any other parties involved in the decision?
I had tried to request this secret agreement through FOIA in 2017, but UM denied it, saying we were parties to litigation. OK, fair enough. One of my colleagues tried to ask for it, and they denied her too, saying she was my agent and therefore a party to the litigation as well!