@ReichlinMelnick's Threads
Fact check! Today @ICEgov's Matt Albence said "The vast majority, about 87% of [families] placed on the accelerated court docket have failed to show up for even their initial court hearing."
THIS IS NOT TRUE. In fact, it's almost the opposite.
So why did he say that? A thread.
THIS IS NOT TRUE. In fact, it's almost the opposite.
So why did he say that? A thread.
@ICEgov First, let's talk reality.
In June, @TRACReports analyzed nine months of government data on the immigration courts' accelerated "Family Unit Dockets."
Almost exactly opposite to what Albence claimed today, TRAC found 85.5% of all families had attended the first hearing.
In June, @TRACReports analyzed nine months of government data on the immigration courts' accelerated "Family Unit Dockets."
Almost exactly opposite to what Albence claimed today, TRAC found 85.5% of all families had attended the first hearing.
@ICEgov @TRACReports In total, @TRACReports found that 39,957 of 46,743 people on the accelerated family unit docket who'd had at least one hearing had appeared in court.
Albence claimed 87% had failed to appear. Clearly not.
trac.syr.edu/immigration/re…
Albence claimed 87% had failed to appear. Clearly not.
trac.syr.edu/immigration/re…
Today the House Oversight Committee on Oversight and Reform is holding a hearing on USCIS's elimination of Medical Deferred Action, leaving many sick people out in the dark.
You can follow along here! oversight.house.gov/legislation/he…
You can follow along here! oversight.house.gov/legislation/he…
I'm watching this Medical Deferred Action hearing in the background and in his opening statement, Chip Roy has used most of his time not talking about Medical Deferred Action but instead talking about the border and people "trashing" ICE officers.
Really powerful testimony from some of the people who have benefited from the medical deferred action program.
At the El Paso immigration court this afternoon to observe “Remain in Mexico”/MPP hearings.
Today the court has 101 people scheduled to appear today for an initial MPP hearing, but only 46 people were brought to court from the border.
I’ll update more after court is over.
Today the court has 101 people scheduled to appear today for an initial MPP hearing, but only 46 people were brought to court from the border.
I’ll update more after court is over.
I spent two hours in immigration court today in El Paso, watching a "Remain in Mexico"/MPP hearing. It was sobering, and a reminder of the way the appearance of law can be weaponized to deprive people of due process.
Let me explain how today went.
Let me explain how today went.
First, just getting in to observe a "Remain in Mexico"/MPP hearing is difficult. Although the immigration courts are public, in El Paso many people are turned away for capacity reasons.
That partially happened to me today. I was only allowed to watch half of the hearings.
That partially happened to me today. I was only allowed to watch half of the hearings.
NEW!
Interim Rule from the @DOJ_EOIR rearranging EOIR's org chart to reflect changes made in the Trump era, plus some odd new changes to the BIA and to the Director's role.
Reading them now.
s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspect…
Interim Rule from the @DOJ_EOIR rearranging EOIR's org chart to reflect changes made in the Trump era, plus some odd new changes to the BIA and to the Director's role.
Reading them now.
s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspect…
@DOJ_EOIR The biggest new change to EOIR's organizational structure is the Office of Policy, created in 2017 and just now being formalized in regulations. This office has been the source of many of the Trump administration's worst changes to immigration courts.
@DOJ_EOIR Board of Immigration Appeals members, known since the creation of the Board as "Board Members," are now going to be officially also called "Appellate Immigration Judges."
The politics of that choice are... interesting.
The politics of that choice are... interesting.
Three things:
1. This release is yet another example of the extreme politicization of agencies which have traditionally been scrupulously non-political.
2. 85% of non-citizen arrests were for immigration crimes.
3. The underlying report is professional and not inflammatory.
1. This release is yet another example of the extreme politicization of agencies which have traditionally been scrupulously non-political.
2. 85% of non-citizen arrests were for immigration crimes.
3. The underlying report is professional and not inflammatory.
Today's BJS report is definitely interesting. Despite the inflammatory headline from the press release, the data actually shows that when you exclude immigration arrests, there are actually FEWER arrests of non-citizens than in previous years.
Here's data from Table 2:
Here's data from Table 2:
Of course, the data looks VERY different when you start counting immigration-related crimes like improper entry or illegal reentry. Under the Trump administration, prosecutions for these crimes have surged—making federal arrest numbers go way up.
Here's data from Table 2 again.
Here's data from Table 2 again.
Ouch. I did not see that coming at all.
This means, I believe, that starting I believe immediately? the government can refuse credible fear interviews to every asylum seeker who enters in Texas or New Mexico, except for Mexicans.
This means, I believe, that starting I believe immediately? the government can refuse credible fear interviews to every asylum seeker who enters in Texas or New Mexico, except for Mexicans.
Because the other case challenging Asylum Ban 2.0 did not produce an injunction, this means that Asylum Ban 2.0 is now fully in effect in New Mexico and Texas immediately.
Asylum seekers will now have a much harder time accessing protection in the US.
Asylum seekers will now have a much harder time accessing protection in the US.
For more background on Asylum Ban 2.0 and why today's decision letting it go into place in Texas and New Mexico is such a big deal, here is a piece from my colleague Caroline Walters, who explains just how much the ban guts our humanitarian protections.
immigrationimpact.com/2019/07/16/tru…
immigrationimpact.com/2019/07/16/tru…
At 10AM the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) will be holding a hearing on "Unprecedented Migration at the U.S. Southern Border: What Is Required to Improve Conditions?" where @DHSOIG and @CBPMarkMorgan will testify.
I'll be livetweeting here!
I'll be livetweeting here!
@DHSOIG @CBPMarkMorgan Today's hearing is airing on C-Span at the following link.
This is the first time that Mark Morgan (former Obama Border Patrol Chief and former Trump Acting ICE Director) is going in front of Congress in his new role as Acting CBP Commissioner.
c-span.org/video/?463040-…
This is the first time that Mark Morgan (former Obama Border Patrol Chief and former Trump Acting ICE Director) is going in front of Congress in his new role as Acting CBP Commissioner.
c-span.org/video/?463040-…
@DHSOIG @CBPMarkMorgan Today's hearing will also feature the third (possibly fourth?) appearance in front of Congress from Jennifer Costello, the Acting Inspector General of @DHSOIG. She has previously testified about the OIG's reports. Here's a thread about one of such reports.
This is a MASSIVE and DANGEROUS change.
Now, if ICE believes someone is undocumented and has lived in the US for less than two years—with the burden on the immigrant to prove otherwise—they can deport that person within days, with almost no court review allowed.
Now, if ICE believes someone is undocumented and has lived in the US for less than two years—with the burden on the immigrant to prove otherwise—they can deport that person within days, with almost no court review allowed.
This is a good, easy way to understand expedited removal, which previously applied only to people who crossed in the past 14 days, and only within 100 miles of the US border.
Imagine you’ve lived in the US for three years.
You’re arrested by ICE on your way to work, and an ICE officer tells you that unless you prove to him—right here, right now—that you’ve lived here for more than two years, you’re on the next plane out.
You’re arrested by ICE on your way to work, and an ICE officer tells you that unless you prove to him—right here, right now—that you’ve lived here for more than two years, you’re on the next plane out.
Good morning all! In a few minutes the House Oversight committee will hold a hearing on child separation and the border, where Acting DHS Secretary Kevin McAleenan (@DHSMcAleenan) will testify. I'll be live-tweeting in this thread.
Here's the live feed: c-span.org/video/?462642-…
Here's the live feed: c-span.org/video/?462642-…
@DHSMcAleenan Today's hearing is in some ways the second part to a hearing held last Friday, where members of congress and advocates testified about conditions at the border. You can find my thread on that hearing here.
@DHSMcAleenan We begin with Chair @RepCummings, who gives his opening statement. He begins by describing a new report his committee put out last week on what he calls the "inhumane" practice of separating families. Here's a link. oversight.house.gov/news/press-rel…
Good morning! Today the House Oversight Committee will hold a hearing on "The Trump Administration’s Child Separation Policy: Substantiated Allegations of Mistreatment." I'll be livetweeting parts of the hearing (from 10AM-12PM).
Here's the livestream. oversight.house.gov/legislation/he…
Here's the livestream. oversight.house.gov/legislation/he…
Today's hearing is broken into two panels. Up first will be four members of Congress themselves testifying about what they witnessed firsthand at the border on a recent trip: Representatives @AOC, @RepEscobar, @RashidaTlaib, and @AyannaPressley.
The second panel includes both government and non-government witnesses. Members will hear from Jennifer Costello, Acting DHS Inspector General, Ann Maxwell, Assistant IG for HHS, Columbia Law's Elora Mukherjee, @youngcenter's Jennifer Nagda, and former ICE Director Thomas Homan.
This is a stunning document that speaks volumes with its total omission of one key thing; the Voting Rights Act.
After litigating up to the Supreme Court on the rationale that a citizenship question was about VRA enforcement, this EO does not even mention the VRA once!
After litigating up to the Supreme Court on the rationale that a citizenship question was about VRA enforcement, this EO does not even mention the VRA once!
After swearing up and down to multiple courts that a citizenship question was about Voting Rights Act enforcement, the White House now drops that entirely and offers four brand new rationales, three of which have to do with immigration and one to do with redistricting.
The first rationale offered for collecting citizenship data is to determine immigration policy. The second is to determine how much immigrants are using public benefits and to set policy on that basis.
Again, DOJ swore up and down it had nothing to do with immigration.
Again, DOJ swore up and down it had nothing to do with immigration.
This piece from @AdamSerwer is great and everyone should read it.
That said, I want to dissect one paragraph in it because it encapsulates the extreme difficulty of talking about / reporting on immigration detention.
Take a journey into nuance with me! theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
That said, I want to dissect one paragraph in it because it encapsulates the extreme difficulty of talking about / reporting on immigration detention.
Take a journey into nuance with me! theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
This is the paragraph in @AdamSerwer's piece that I'm going to overthink. It powerfully collects primary source reports about detention, but also:
1. Conflates types of immigration detention;
2. Gets a fact wrong;
3. Mistakenly implies people with legal status aren't detained.
1. Conflates types of immigration detention;
2. Gets a fact wrong;
3. Mistakenly implies people with legal status aren't detained.
Before I go any further I need to provide some basic background information on the three agencies that appear in the paragraph:
- Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
- Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
- Health and Human Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR)
- Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
- Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
- Health and Human Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR)
🚨 Breaking! DHS Office of Inspector General releases report on "Dangerous Overcrowding and Prolonged Detention of Children and Adults in the Rio Grande Valley."
Conditions "represent an immediate risk to the health and safety of ... those detained."
Conditions "represent an immediate risk to the health and safety of ... those detained."
The DHS watchdogs visited five Border Patrol facilities and two ports of entry in the Rio Grande Valley in the week of June 10th and found 8,000 people crammed into cells for days at a time. Some men had been held in "standing room only" conditions for days at a time.
Across the Rio Grande Valley Sector, the Border Patrol was holding families and children for days, or weeks, often longer than permitted by law.
There were 2,669 children held in these facilities, and 826 (31%) had been held longer than 72 hours.
There were 2,669 children held in these facilities, and 826 (31%) had been held longer than 72 hours.
New @TRACReports analysis adds context to what I was tweeting about earlier: "ICE Focus Shifts Away from Detaining Serious Criminals." trac.syr.edu/immigration/re…
From September 2016 to December 2018, the number of people with serious criminal convictions in ICE custody dropped 17%.
From September 2016 to December 2018, the number of people with serious criminal convictions in ICE custody dropped 17%.
.@TRACReports also added a new tool to analyze the ICE detention data for their latest report! Even though the data only goes through December 2018, this is really great granular data that you can track through various snapshots! I know what I'll be doing. trac.syr.edu/phptools/immig…
According to @TRACReports, as of December 2018, one person has been locked up by ICE since October 2007—over 11 years. I wonder who's representing that poor guy.
TRAC also says that 10% of people in ICE jails have been there for over 6 months of prolonged detention.
TRAC also says that 10% of people in ICE jails have been there for over 6 months of prolonged detention.
New analysis from @TRACReports directly contradicts @DHSMcAleenan's testimony in front of Congress, confirming that he was dead wrong when he accused families of failing to appear in court.
TRAC: Most Released Families Attend Immigration Court Hearings trac.syr.edu/immigration/re…
TRAC: Most Released Families Attend Immigration Court Hearings trac.syr.edu/immigration/re…
At a hearing last week, DHS Acting Secretary @DHSMcAleenan told Congress that "90 percent of [families placed on the accelerated Family Unit Docket] did not show up for their hearings."
In reality? Just 14.5 percent of families missed their first hearing in court.
In reality? Just 14.5 percent of families missed their first hearing in court.
This new report also provides an interesting breakdown of appearance rates for families on the new docket by court. The outlier courts are fascinating to me. The Atlanta court is notoriously an "asylum-free zone," and I wonder whether its reputation has scared some away.
Good morning! Today the Senate Judiciary Committee is having a hearing Sen. Graham's "Secure and Protect Act," his plan to rewrite asylum laws.
Importantly, this will be Acting DHS Secretary @DHSMcAleenan's first appearance since Friday's tariffs announcement.
I'm livetweeting!
Importantly, this will be Acting DHS Secretary @DHSMcAleenan's first appearance since Friday's tariffs announcement.
I'm livetweeting!
The @NatImmForum has a great explainer on Sen. Graham's bill, which is here.
The bill would allow for vastly expanded detention of families and children, block asylum for anyone not going to a port of entry, and create other new limits on asylum.
immigrationforum.org/article/bill-s…
The bill would allow for vastly expanded detention of families and children, block asylum for anyone not going to a port of entry, and create other new limits on asylum.
immigrationforum.org/article/bill-s…
Given that today's hearing comes just days after the tariff "deal," we should expect Senators on both sides of the aisle to question @DHSMcAleenan about the details.
I wrote about the tariff deal yesterday here, and why we should remain skeptical of it.
immigrationimpact.com/2019/06/10/tru…
I wrote about the tariff deal yesterday here, and why we should remain skeptical of it.
immigrationimpact.com/2019/06/10/tru…
🚨 NEW: DHS Office of Inspector General's report on "dangerous overcrowding" at the El Paso Del Norte Processing Center is now out.
900 people held in a facility designed for 125!
In one case, "a cell with a maximum capacity of 35 held 155 detainees."
oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/…
900 people held in a facility designed for 125!
In one case, "a cell with a maximum capacity of 35 held 155 detainees."
oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/…
DHS OIG visited five different CBP facilities in the El Paso area over the week of May 6, 2019. What they found was massively overcrowded cells with asylum seekers packed in like sardines.
In one case, the Border Patrol had put 76 women into a cell designed for just twelve.
In one case, the Border Patrol had put 76 women into a cell designed for just twelve.
One cell was designed for just 8 people. But the Inspector General found 41 women forced into it.
According to the OIG, "overcrowding and prolonged detention represent an immediate risk to the health and safety not just of the detainees, but also DHS agents and officers."
According to the OIG, "overcrowding and prolonged detention represent an immediate risk to the health and safety not just of the detainees, but also DHS agents and officers."
Earlier today I flagged a new document that the DOJ's Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)—which houses the immigration court system—sent out to reporters. While this document (justice.gov/eoir/page/file…) claims to bust myths, it is actually quite deceptive.
Here's why:
Here's why:
Let's start at the beginning with EOIR's Myth 1. What's wrong here?
Not everyone with a meritorious claim can navigate the complicated court system to file an asylum application—which must be filed in English—and not every meritorious case wins; some judges deny >95% of cases.
Not everyone with a meritorious claim can navigate the complicated court system to file an asylum application—which must be filed in English—and not every meritorious case wins; some judges deny >95% of cases.
Myth 1 encapsulates the problem with this @DOJ_EOIR document: the myth is that most claims are "meritorious" but the "fact" is a statistic of what % of people who asked for asylum at the border from FY 2008-2018 eventually won asylum.
The fact doesn't directly address the myth.
The fact doesn't directly address the myth.
Hey reporters if EOIR just emailed you a “myths v. facts” sheet please do not quote it uncritically as some of the data is true but deeply disingenuous. For example, this bit, which uses “completions” data to falsely imply almost half of people miss court.
Here’s why it’s wrong:
Here’s why it’s wrong:
Looking only at completions (cases that have “ended”) distorts appearance rates.
Imagine ten people scheduled for court. Nine show up. One is deported for missing court and one has their case completed.
50% of "completions" missed court—even though 90% of people showed up!
Imagine ten people scheduled for court. Nine show up. One is deported for missing court and one has their case completed.
50% of "completions" missed court—even though 90% of people showed up!
When the government reports completion-based failure to appear rates (like here with the mention of cases which “end with an in absentia removal order”), don’t fall for their attempt to conflate this with how many people show up.
Here’s a better method:
Here’s a better method:
Today, thanks to a ton of hard work from @shepherd_kt and others, we @immcouncil filed an administrative complaint about immigration judge practices and behavior in the El Paso Service Process Center—a court with an asylum grant rate so low one judge calls it the "Bye-Bye Place."
Our complaint describes how immigrants in the El Paso SPC face obstacles to getting a fair day in court.
Unfortunately, one of those obstacles is immigration judge conduct. The best example of that is a judge declaring that "Due process is an opportunity, not a privilege."
Unfortunately, one of those obstacles is immigration judge conduct. The best example of that is a judge declaring that "Due process is an opportunity, not a privilege."
Another issue we raise in the complaint is the use of problematic "standing orders" in the El Paso SPC immigration court. One of these standing orders is one of the most egregious things I've ever seen as a lawyer; a strict limit of 100 pages on the submission of *evidence.*
I want to share this story both for the fascinating questions it raises and something more personal.
You see, the person who rediscovered these photos in 1976 was my grandmother, Elinor Reichlin, and she was responsible for them seeing the light of day.
nytimes.com/2019/03/20/us/…
You see, the person who rediscovered these photos in 1976 was my grandmother, Elinor Reichlin, and she was responsible for them seeing the light of day.
nytimes.com/2019/03/20/us/…
In 1976, my grandmother Ellie was going through dusty cabinets in the Peabody Museum and came across a tin filled with fragile daguerreotypes.
After some hard work, she was able to reveal that they were the earliest pictures of enslaved Americans.
nytimes.com/1977/05/31/arc…
After some hard work, she was able to reveal that they were the earliest pictures of enslaved Americans.
nytimes.com/1977/05/31/arc…
What my grandmother discovered was that these pictures had been taken in 1850 by Louis Agassiz, who was trying to prove “scientifically” that Africans were a different species and thus inferior.
Here’s the article my grandmother wrote on the pictures. americanheritage.com/faces-slavery
Here’s the article my grandmother wrote on the pictures. americanheritage.com/faces-slavery
This morning, DHS Secretary Nielsen will be testifying in front of the House Homeland Security Committee. I'll be watching the first hour of it before I have to head off for meetings. Expect @SecNielsen to double down on a "crisis" and Dems to push back.
Before we begin, a brief note on yesterday's reporting that February apprehensions (66,450) were the highest # for a February in a decade. But let's put this in context.
May 2014 apprehensions (61,357) were the highest May # since 2008... and since then. Because spikes happen.
May 2014 apprehensions (61,357) were the highest May # since 2008... and since then. Because spikes happen.
Last month's high numbers are only 8.3% higher than the spike in 2014, and yet CBP didn't say they were "close to breaking" or that there was a "national emergency."
Yes, more family units are arriving now. But again, only twice more than in June 2014 (16,330 vs. 36,174).
Yes, more family units are arriving now. But again, only twice more than in June 2014 (16,330 vs. 36,174).
Good morning all! I'll be watching this hearing over the next couple hours. I'm tuning in now, during @RepJerryNadler's opening statement.
This is the second of several oversight hearings in the new Congress on family separation, something that is desperately needed. Stay tuned!
This is the second of several oversight hearings in the new Congress on family separation, something that is desperately needed. Stay tuned!
A powerful statement from @RepJerryNadler in his opening statement. "When a stranger rips a child from a parent's arms without any plan to reunify them, it is called kidnapping."
Rep. Nadler then calls family separation kidnapping again and highlights the trauma to children.
Rep. Nadler then calls family separation kidnapping again and highlights the trauma to children.
From @RepJerryNadler on the El Paso family separation pilot project: "How is it remotely possible that after quietly conducting this family separation program for five months, the agencies at this hearing did not recognize the obvious need for critical officer training, ...
Here's a hard fact for you, @SpoxDHS; every single claim in your tweet is deeply misleading. I'm going to focus on your big whopper; that 90% of asylum-seekers do not "qualify" for asylum! That's just not true. I'll show you why, using only data from the government itself.
Here's what we know about the caravan members and their asylum "qualifications."
In April, when the first caravan arrived, USCIS Asylum Officers determined that 93% of caravan members who asked for asylum had a credible fear of persecution.
buzzfeednews.com/article/adolfo…
In April, when the first caravan arrived, USCIS Asylum Officers determined that 93% of caravan members who asked for asylum had a credible fear of persecution.
buzzfeednews.com/article/adolfo…
What does it mean to have a "credible fear" of persecution? Well, under US law, that means that an Asylum Officer determined that there is a "a significant possibility" that a person could win asylum. This translates to about at least a 10% chance of winning asylum.
