thenation--2020-06-30--Why Be a ‘Model Minority’ When You Could Dismantle White Supremacy?

Last month , in the middle of the Covid-19 pandemic , a group of Asian American/Pacific Islander ( AAPI ) nonprofits in Seattle asked the city to sweep large homeless encampments in the Chinatown–International District neighborhood .
“ Our neighborhood ’ s density and vulnerability are not new , and so the city should have been very alert for any sign of an encampment forming and taken swift action to help the unhoused as well as our community , ” wrote the organizations in a joint statement sent to the City .
One week later , over 30 officers from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ showed up at the encampments .
They forced unhoused residents to gather their belongings , then sent in a garbage truck to trash anything left behind .
It has been widely covered in recent weeks that Covid-19 has overwhelmingly harmed Black , Indigenous , and Latinx communities—the country ’ s most overworked , underpaid , under- and unemployed , overcrowded , underinsured , and under-resourced populations .
These are the same people who are most likely to experience homelessness in Seattle , and encampment sweeps—in which their shelter and belongings are usually destroyed—only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had announced back in March that it would not remove encampments during the pandemic except under extreme circumstances .
By early May , that policy seemed to no longer be in effect .
I am an active organizer around homeless issues in Seattle , and when I found out that AAPI groups had requested the sweep , I was surprised and disappointed .
I thought a sweep this large should have been protested by the residents and businesses of the Chinatown–International District—not initiated by them .
How is it that our AAPI community @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of harm ?
But the truth is , Asian Americans have long been used as a tool by white supremacists to justify systemic racism against Black people .
Some Asian Americans have internalized those messages , too : For them , living the American dream has also meant being anti-Black .
I started dating my first real girlfriend when I was in the 10th grade .
She was Korean American and a couple years older than me ; she would bring me free sushi from the restaurant her parents owned and drive us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We dated for 11 months—until she abruptly dumped me .
Her parents had found out that the person her daughter was dating wasn ’ t a full-blooded Korean American , like they had assumed .
My legal name is Korean , so most people assume I ’ m full , especially before meeting me .
But my father is Korean and Black .
“ You can date anybody but Black , ” my girlfriend ’ s mother had told her .
“ We can not be around Black people.
” How Does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
At the time , I couldn ’ t comprehend that what I was experiencing was Asian anti-Blackness .
My father was born in South Korea right at the end of the Korean War , a Black Korean war baby .
His father was a 19-year-old Black American soldier from Decatur , Ga. , who went back to the United States when the war ended .
His mother decided to follow through with her pregnancy against her parent ’ s wishes .
My father used to tell me that growing up , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ escape Korean racism .
He dreamed of chasing the American dream that waited for him on the other side of the Pacific .
When my father arrived in the United States , he was met with the same -isms he had faced in South Korea .
Except now he was also an immigrant .
For AAPI immigrants like my father , the American dream starts with escape .
Upon arriving , immigrants may not learn the true history of how American prosperity was built on the backs of slavery , colonization , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stories of others who worked long hours to get themselves out of poverty , and believed in the mantra that if you work hard , you ’ ll succeed .
There was no time to dig into a flawed system that prevented Black and Indigenous communities from escaping oppression .
Asian Americans are taught not to make waves : The nail that sticks out gets pounded down .
The trauma of growing up in under-resourced countries and surviving by a thread has motivated many people to never look back .
To never think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ District ( CID ) is the historic home of the Chinese , Japanese , and Filipino immigrants who first settled in the city .
For more than a century , the people in this community—which now also includes Vietnamese refugees and immigrants—have worked tirelessly to rid themselves of stigma about their restaurants ’ being unhygienic , or the idea that their streets were unsafe .
This struggle became particularly acute during the onset of the pandemic .
Restaurants in the CID neighborhood experienced the negative impacts of the virus quickly ; by early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ business had already been cut in half .
Anti-Asian racism was surging due to fearmongering in right-wing and mainstream media , along with Donald Trump ’ s insistence on calling the global pandemic the “ Chinese virus ” and “ Kung flu.
” For neighborhood elders , the drastic decline in business revenue may have felt like a tragic loss of decades of emotional and physical toil , amplified by the weight of historic anti-Asian xenophobia and racism .
The pandemic had closed virtually all local shops and businesses .
Restaurants were only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ letter addressed to the Seattle City Council , Deputy Mayor Mike Fong used “ generational discrimination ” against Chinese and Japanese residents to justify the decision to sweep encampments in the CID .
He argued that anti-sweep legislation would do more harm to AAPI communities than good : “ Perhaps nowhere is this more true than [ in the ] Chinatown–International District .
Its restaurants and businesses were the first to feel the impacts of Covid-19 , even before we knew we had any cases , because of the stigmatization and misinformation about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ East Asian Americans , has long meant turning to assimilationism .
We are taught that success will come to those who portray themselves as “ model minorities ” —for which the chief metric is proximity to and simulation of traditional white-Americanness .
This can be achieved only by distinguishing , and distancing , oneself from other minorities : xenophobia and racism , enacted by victims of xenophobia and racism .
The Minneapolis police officer who stood between the crowd and Derek Chauvin as he murdered George Floyd was a Hmong American named Tou @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most impoverished Southeast Asian American ethnic groups : Sixty percent are low-income and more than one in four lives in poverty , according to a recent study from Asian Americans Advancing Justice .
Hmong Americans know what hardship is—and yet a Hmong police officer allowed himself to be used as a shield , as a white police officer killed an unarmed Black man .
Similarly , the AAPI organizations that requested the encampment sweep are well aware of Seattle ’ s housing crisis , which is now one of the worst in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ count funded by Seattle and King County found that there were 11,199 people who identified as homeless , including 5,264 who were unsheltered , living in the county .
Organizers and activists have fought for years to end the City of Seattle ’ s cruel practice of sweeping away homeless individuals and their belongings .
Unfortunately , white supremacy seems to have made some AAPI believe that the closer you get to whiteness and protecting whiteness , the further you are from suffering the same fate as other marginalized Americans .
Residents of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the city ’ s most well-resourced neighborhoods , such as the mostly white Ballard .
This results in the replication of NIMBYism and anti-homeless behavior , but CID residents ’ own material circumstances are also very different from Ballard residents ’ .
They themselves are also vulnerable .
Because the City of Seattle has refused to help so many people find permanent shelter , the CID ’ s survival has been pitted against the homeless community ’ s survival .
White supremacy , capitalism , and the model minority myth come together @ @ @ @ @ @ @ choice : their humanity , over the humanity of their neighbors experiencing homelessness .
Singularly focused on economic mobility , the AAPI organizations who requested encampment sweeps are losing sight of justice .
Earlier this month , I had struggles with my own parents , after I quit my full-time job in the middle of a pandemic .
Seattle had the country ’ s attention : The SPD had decided to perform crowd control using tear gas and pepper spray , leading protesters to occupy an area around the department ’ s East @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called the Capitol Hill Organized Protest zone .
I became consumed with organizing work and decided to dedicate my full energy toward this moment .
People were actually talking about abolishing the police , without scoffing .
My parents weren ’ t happy about my decision .
It ’ s not that they don ’ t care about Black lives—my father , after all , grew up not knowing how he ’ d survive the anti-Blackness of East Asia .
It would also be arrogant to think I had to convince my mother @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s social consciousness is without question .
So what was preventing them from understanding that it was our turn to stand up for justice ?
“ We don ’ t want you out there , ” said my mom .
“ You had such a good job—why do you want to throw it all away when nothing ’ s going to change ?
” I don ’ t believe that nothing will change .
I do believe that full liberation depends on the liberation of Black people .
So many of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ others have been able to achieve were possible only because Black people resisted oppression , paving the way for everyone .
They have paid the price for that resistance .
It is our duty to be in solidarity until we are all free .

Last month, in the middle of the Covid-19 pandemic, a group of Asian American/Pacific Islander (AAPI) nonprofits in Seattle asked the city to sweep large homeless encampments in the Chinatown–International District neighborhood.
“Our neighborhood’s density and vulnerability are not new, and so the city should have been very alert for any sign of an encampment forming and taken swift action to help the unhoused as well as our community,” wrote the organizations in a joint statement sent to the City. One week later, over 30 officers from the Seattle Police Department (SPD) showed up at the encampments. They forced unhoused residents to gather their belongings, then sent in a garbage truck to trash anything left behind.
It has been widely covered in recent weeks that Covid-19 has overwhelmingly harmed Black, Indigenous, and Latinx communities—the country’s most overworked, underpaid, under- and unemployed, overcrowded, underinsured, and under-resourced populations. These are the same people who are most likely to experience homelessness in Seattle, and encampment sweeps—in which their shelter and belongings are usually destroyed—only make their lives worse. The City had announced back in March that it would not remove encampments during the pandemic except under extreme circumstances. By early May, that policy seemed to no longer be in effect.
I am an active organizer around homeless issues in Seattle, and when I found out that AAPI groups had requested the sweep, I was surprised and disappointed. I thought a sweep this large should have been protested by the residents and businesses of the Chinatown–International District—not initiated by them. How is it that our AAPI community could be responsible for perpetuating this kind of harm?
But the truth is, Asian Americans have long been used as a tool by white supremacists to justify systemic racism against Black people. Some Asian Americans have internalized those messages, too: For them, living the American dream has also meant being anti-Black.
I started dating my first real girlfriend when I was in the 10th grade. She was Korean American and a couple years older than me; she would bring me free sushi from the restaurant her parents owned and drive us around in her mom’s Lexus. We dated for 11 months—until she abruptly dumped me.
Her parents had found out that the person her daughter was dating wasn’t a full-blooded Korean American, like they had assumed. My legal name is Korean, so most people assume I’m full, especially before meeting me. But my father is Korean and Black. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann
“You can date anybody but Black,” my girlfriend’s mother had told her. “We cannot be around Black people.” Related Article How Does One Tell the Story of Asian America? Jane Hu
At the time, I couldn’t comprehend that what I was experiencing was Asian anti-Blackness.
My father was born in South Korea right at the end of the Korean War, a Black Korean war baby. His father was a 19-year-old Black American soldier from Decatur, Ga., who went back to the United States when the war ended. His mother decided to follow through with her pregnancy against her parent’s wishes. My father used to tell me that growing up, he often dreamed of immigrating to the States—to escape Korean racism. He dreamed of chasing the American dream that waited for him on the other side of the Pacific.
When my father arrived in the United States, he was met with the same -isms he had faced in South Korea. Except now he was also an immigrant.
For AAPI immigrants like my father, the American dream starts with escape. Upon arriving, immigrants may not learn the true history of how American prosperity was built on the backs of slavery, colonization, and genocide. My father related to the stories of others who worked long hours to get themselves out of poverty, and believed in the mantra that if you work hard, you’ll succeed. There was no time to dig into a flawed system that prevented Black and Indigenous communities from escaping oppression. Asian Americans are taught not to make waves: The nail that sticks out gets pounded down. The trauma of growing up in under-resourced countries and surviving by a thread has motivated many people to never look back. To never think about oppression.
Seattle’s Chinatown–International District (CID) is the historic home of the Chinese, Japanese, and Filipino immigrants who first settled in the city. For more than a century, the people in this community—which now also includes Vietnamese refugees and immigrants—have worked tirelessly to rid themselves of stigma about their restaurants’ being unhygienic, or the idea that their streets were unsafe. This struggle became particularly acute during the onset of the pandemic. Restaurants in the CID neighborhood experienced the negative impacts of the virus quickly; by early March, some businesses reported that their business had already been cut in half. Anti-Asian racism was surging due to fearmongering in right-wing and mainstream media, along with Donald Trump’s insistence on calling the global pandemic the “Chinese virus” and “Kung flu.”
For neighborhood elders, the drastic decline in business revenue may have felt like a tragic loss of decades of emotional and physical toil, amplified by the weight of historic anti-Asian xenophobia and racism. The pandemic had closed virtually all local shops and businesses. Restaurants were only doing take-out.
In a May 19 letter addressed to the Seattle City Council, Deputy Mayor Mike Fong used “generational discrimination” against Chinese and Japanese residents to justify the decision to sweep encampments in the CID. He argued that anti-sweep legislation would do more harm to AAPI communities than good: “Perhaps nowhere is this more true than [in the] Chinatown–International District. Its restaurants and businesses were the first to feel the impacts of Covid-19, even before we knew we had any cases, because of the stigmatization and misinformation about the disease.”
Overcoming racism, for East Asian Americans, has long meant turning to assimilationism. We are taught that success will come to those who portray themselves as “model minorities”—for which the chief metric is proximity to and simulation of traditional white-Americanness. This can be achieved only by distinguishing, and distancing, oneself from other minorities: xenophobia and racism, enacted by victims of xenophobia and racism.
The Minneapolis police officer who stood between the crowd and Derek Chauvin as he murdered George Floyd was a Hmong American named Tou Thao. Hmong Americans rank among the most impoverished Southeast Asian American ethnic groups: Sixty percent are low-income and more than one in four lives in poverty, according to a recent study from Asian Americans Advancing Justice. Hmong Americans know what hardship is—and yet a Hmong police officer allowed himself to be used as a shield, as a white police officer killed an unarmed Black man. Related Article Seattle Destroyed Homeless Encampments as the Pandemic Raged Dae Shik Kim Jr. and Guy Oron
Similarly, the AAPI organizations that requested the encampment sweep are well aware of Seattle’s housing crisis, which is now one of the worst in the country. This past January, one count funded by Seattle and King County found that there were 11,199 people who identified as homeless, including 5,264 who were unsheltered, living in the county.
Organizers and activists have fought for years to end the City of Seattle’s cruel practice of sweeping away homeless individuals and their belongings. Unfortunately, white supremacy seems to have made some AAPI believe that the closer you get to whiteness and protecting whiteness, the further you are from suffering the same fate as other marginalized Americans.
Residents of the CID neighborhood want the same treatment as the city’s most well-resourced neighborhoods, such as the mostly white Ballard. This results in the replication of NIMBYism and anti-homeless behavior, but CID residents’ own material circumstances are also very different from Ballard residents’. They themselves are also vulnerable.
Because the City of Seattle has refused to help so many people find permanent shelter, the CID’s survival has been pitted against the homeless community’s survival. White supremacy, capitalism, and the model minority myth come together, forcing CID residents into a false choice: their humanity, over the humanity of their neighbors experiencing homelessness. Singularly focused on economic mobility, the AAPI organizations who requested encampment sweeps are losing sight of justice. Related Article Chinatowns Must Radicalize to Survive Promise Li and Esther K
Earlier this month, I had struggles with my own parents, after I quit my full-time job in the middle of a pandemic. Seattle had the country’s attention: The SPD had decided to perform crowd control using tear gas and pepper spray, leading protesters to occupy an area around the department’s East Precinct house that would come to be called the Capitol Hill Organized Protest zone. I became consumed with organizing work and decided to dedicate my full energy toward this moment. People were actually talking about abolishing the police, without scoffing.
My parents weren’t happy about my decision. It’s not that they don’t care about Black lives—my father, after all, grew up not knowing how he’d survive the anti-Blackness of East Asia. It would also be arrogant to think I had to convince my mother that injustices were real; my mother’s social consciousness is without question. So what was preventing them from understanding that it was our turn to stand up for justice?
“We don’t want you out there,” said my mom. “You had such a good job—why do you want to throw it all away when nothing’s going to change?”
I don’t believe that nothing will change. I do believe that full liberation depends on the liberation of Black people. So many of the victories that AAPI people and so many others have been able to achieve were possible only because Black people resisted oppression, paving the way for everyone. They have paid the price for that resistance. It is our duty to be in solidarity until we are all free.


thenation--2020-06-30--The Shadow Court Cementing Trump’s Immigration Policy

Just eight miles from the White House , the Trump administration has quietly opened a new front in its war against immigrants .
Inside a 26-story office tower next to a Target in Falls Church , Va. , the Board of Immigration Appeals has broken with any pretense of impartiality and appears to be working in lockstep with the administration to close the door on immigrants ’ ability to remain in the country .
Created in 1940 , when the immigration system was moved from the Department of Labor to the Justice Department , the BIA serves as the appellate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both ICE prosecutors and noncitizen respondents can appeal decisions by individual immigration court judges around the country .
It not only decides the fate of the migrants whose cases it reviews ; if it chooses to publish a decision , it sets precedent for immigration courts across the country .
Under previous administrations , the BIA was ostensibly impartial and bipartisan , though mainly out of a long-standing tradition of promoting judicial objectivity .
Since the entire immigration court system is contained in the Department of Justice—within an administrative agency known as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) —immigration judges , including those serving as board members on the BIA , are employees of the DOJ , and , by extension , are part of the executive branch .
Unlike their counterparts in the federal judiciary , immigration judges are not independent .
Since 2018 , the Trump administration has exploited its powers over the BIA by expanding the board from 17 to 23 members to accommodate additional anti-immigrant hard-liners .
Justice Department memos obtained by the American Immigration Council and the American Immigration Lawyers Association show that the EOIR @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used to bring on judges with more restrictionist records .
Now the court is stacked with members who have consistently ruled against immigrants , such as one judge who threatened to unleash a dog on a 2-year-old boy during a hearing .
Numbers obtained by a law firm through a Freedom of Information Act request show that the six BIA judges appointed by Attorney General William Barr had all granted asylum in less than 10 percent of cases in fiscal year 2019 .
( One never granted asylum , despite hearing 40 cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nation in an e-mail that “ EOIR does not choose Board members based on prohibited criteria such as race or politics ” and that “ Board members are selected through an open , competitive , merit-based process.
” The most notable example of the administration ’ s preference for ultraconservative judges came in late May , when Barr appointed David H. Wetmore as BIA chairman .
Wetmore , a former immigration adviser to the White House Domestic Policy Council , was around for some of the Trump administration ’ s most egregious policies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ separation policy .
Although only two decisions have been issued since Wetmore was appointed chair , he seems set to pick up where his predecessor , former Acting Chair Garry G. Malphrus , left off .
Malphrus , a George W. Bush holdover , became the face of the court ’ s lurch to curtail immigrants ’ legal protections since Trump took office .
He had the hawkish bona fides that made him an ideal chairman under the Trump DOJ : From 1997 to 2001 , he served as chief counsel to onetime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Judiciary Committee , and he was made associate director of the White House Domestic Policy Council after his role as a “ Brooks Brothers ” rioter during the 2000 Bush v. Gore recount in Florida—during which GOP operatives staged a protest that disrupted a recount and may have handed Bush the presidency .
Malphrus was made acting chair in 2019 , and authored 24 of the 78 BIA precedential decisions issued under the current administration .
Almost all of these precedential decisions have made it more difficult for immigrants to win their cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ victims of terrorism to win asylum and raised the bar of evidence needed for several types of protections .
“ It ’ s not a court anymore .
It ’ s an enforcement mechanism , ” said Paul Wickham Schmidt , who was himself chair of the BIA between 1995 and 2001 and now writes a popular immigration blog called Immigration Courtside .
“ They ’ re taking predetermined policy and just disguising it as judicial opinions , when the results have all been predetermined and it has nothing to do or little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases.
” Consider this : In a case decided in January , the BIA was considering whether an immigration judge had erred in refusing to postpone a removal decision for a person awaiting a decision on an application for a U visa—a type reserved for victims of certain crimes or those cooperating with authorities investigating a crime .
( ICE had recently changed its policies to make it easier to deport people in this situation . )
The BIA sided with the judge , acknowledging that the crime victim was “ eligible for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entitled to wait to receive it , in part because of his “ lack of diligence in pursuing ” one .
The decision signals that immigrants eligible for crime victim visas , and who are willing to cooperate with law enforcement , can still be deported .
While federal courts hear public oral arguments and largely deliberate openly , the BIA typically uses a paper review method , which means it receives briefs from opposing parties and hands down a decision some time later , with the whole intervening process being shrouded in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where unpublished decisions are still accessible by the public , and so you can track what judges are saying in decisions that do not make precedent , the [ BIA ] only sporadically releases those decisions , ” said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick , policy counsel at the American Immigration Council .
Unpublished decisions are not precedential and can not be cited in future cases .
Precedential decisions are typically decided by majority vote of the permanent board members , though recent changes also enable the attorney general to designate any decision as precedential .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ who has been tracking the BIA ’ s decisions , said that while he has seen unpublished wins for respondents , almost all published decisions sided with the government .
This threatens to impose long-standing rules to be followed by immigration judges for years .
“ These decisions aren ’ t things that go away just because there ’ s a new administration , ” Hall said .
If there is a change in administration , “ it ’ s not that everything turns on a dime to restore the jurisprudence to what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also appointed by the attorney general , and , as Schmidt put it , just as easily “ unappointed.
” They aren ’ t lifelong commissions .
“ Just because they were appointed by [ Attorney General WIlliam Barr ] doesn ’ t mean Barr couldn ’ t remove them if they didn ’ t perform to expectations , ” said Schmidt .
A recent memo reported by CQ Roll Call ’ s Tanvi Misra shows that the EOIR tried to convince pre-Trump judges to retire or take buyouts .
The EOIR has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appellate immigration judge ” last year to allow judges to simultaneously serve at both the immigration court and appellate court level , a potential conflict of interest .
In the latest two BIA decisions , the panelists—including former chair Malphrus—are described with the new designation .
While the BIA has always to an extent suffered from political pressure as part of bureaucracy of the executive branch , Schmidt believes things have shifted from his tenure , with the illusion of an impartial process having been shattered .
Though the attorney general can overrule @ @ @ @ @ @ @ precedent , the BIA issues many more decisions .
The board has authored 78 out of 87 precedent-setting decisions during the Trump administration , with the other nine having come down from the attorneys general .
According to Hall ’ s analysis , all but 10 of these precedential decisions have sided with the government .
Schmidt said he believes that the court is essentially going down a checklist , implementing administration policy rather than actually addressing unclear points of law .
“ It seems to me that rather than looking at important @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be resolved , they cherry-pick the precedents , ” he said .
In Matter of J-J-G- , decided in March , the BIA struck a blow to “ cancellation of removal , ” one of the few avenues of relief for immigrants who have otherwise lost their cases in court .
It requires them to prove that their deportation would result in exceptional hardship to a child or parent who is US citizen or resident .
In this case , the anonymous respondent , J.J.G.
, claimed that his daughter , a citizen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her hypothyroidism if he was deported to Guatemala .
Although Hall says the man would have qualified for cancellation under criteria that had been standard for about two decades , the immigration judge took the view that because treatment for hypothyroidism was available to some extent in Guatemala , the standard for “ exceptional and extremely unusual hardship ” had not been met .
The BIA upheld .
“ The danger is that it will give judges who might be inclined to deny these applications the language and the citation that they need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the circumstances of the case , said Hall .
The sense that the board is sometimes straining to interpret the law in the most anti-immigrant manner possible isn ’ t just coming from immigration attorneys or advocates .
BIA decisions can be appealed up to federal circuit courts ; on more than one recent occasion , federal judges have struck down BIA decisions with irritation .
In one case , Doe v. Attorney General , a 26-year-old , gay Ghanaian man had been beaten , covered in kerosene , and threatened with beheading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ father after he was discovered having sexual relations with another man .
He eventually arrived in the United States and petitioned for asylum , where an immigration judge found that he had been unable to establish persecution based on his sexual orientation .
The BIA upheld the decision , finding his account of the incident credible , but not enough for asylum protections .
In a decision earlier this year , a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit dismantled the government ’ s case .
Yes , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sexual orientation ; no , the government of Ghana would not protect him ; yes , of course the attack amounted to persecution .
In response to the contention that the threats weren ’ t menacing or concrete , with which the BIA agreed , the panel wrote , “ We find it odd for the Government to make this argument here considering that [ Doe ] was threatened with death by fire or decapitation while being assaulted , doused with fuel and exposed to a cutlass .
All that was left for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off his head or set him on fire.
” ( In individual circumstances , circuit courts have sent cases back to the BIA after it has refused appeals to continue the cases of crime victims awaiting U visas , even though the precedential decision as a whole still stands . )
The problem with this is that federal judges get to pull apart only the BIA cases that land on their desks , and the vast majority don ’ t .
“ For every one of those that are fortunate enough to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there ’ s dozens of people being railroaded out , either without getting a fair shake in immigration court or without ever getting to immigration court , ” said Schmidt .
Reichlin-Melnick ’ s theory is that the administration wants to make the BIA just another government agency .
“ [ James ] McHenry ” —the EOIR ’ s director and a former ICE employee— “ wants to turn the Board of Immigration Appeals into something a bit more like the Social Security Administration : an institution that doesn ’ t really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he said .
Instead , it will be focused on implementing the administration ’ s agenda .
For hundreds of thousands of immigrants , it doesn ’ t matter if the anti-immigrant paper pushers in this obscure administrative body are tossed out and all of the policy is slowly reversed by another administration ; for most , one shot is all they get .
Whether a case was winnable before or even after the Trump BIA is irrelevant .
The chance to stay in the United States will be lost forever .

Just eight miles from the White House, the Trump administration has quietly opened a new front in its war against immigrants. Inside a 26-story office tower next to a Target in Falls Church, Va., the Board of Immigration Appeals has broken with any pretense of impartiality and appears to be working in lockstep with the administration to close the door on immigrants’ ability to remain in the country.
Created in 1940, when the immigration system was moved from the Department of Labor to the Justice Department, the BIA serves as the appellate court within the immigration system, where both ICE prosecutors and noncitizen respondents can appeal decisions by individual immigration court judges around the country. It not only decides the fate of the migrants whose cases it reviews; if it chooses to publish a decision, it sets precedent for immigration courts across the country.
Under previous administrations, the BIA was ostensibly impartial and bipartisan, though mainly out of a long-standing tradition of promoting judicial objectivity. Since the entire immigration court system is contained in the Department of Justice—within an administrative agency known as the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)—immigration judges, including those serving as board members on the BIA, are employees of the DOJ, and, by extension, are part of the executive branch. Unlike their counterparts in the federal judiciary, immigration judges are not independent.
Since 2018, the Trump administration has exploited its powers over the BIA by expanding the board from 17 to 23 members to accommodate additional anti-immigrant hard-liners. Justice Department memos obtained by the American Immigration Council and the American Immigration Lawyers Association show that the EOIR pushed shorter hiring timelines, which were used to bring on judges with more restrictionist records.
Now the court is stacked with members who have consistently ruled against immigrants, such as one judge who threatened to unleash a dog on a 2-year-old boy during a hearing. Numbers obtained by a law firm through a Freedom of Information Act request show that the six BIA judges appointed by Attorney General William Barr had all granted asylum in less than 10 percent of cases in fiscal year 2019. (One never granted asylum, despite hearing 40 cases.) An EOIR spokesperson told The Nation in an e-mail that “EOIR does not choose Board members based on prohibited criteria such as race or politics” and that “Board members are selected through an open, competitive, merit-based process.” Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann
The most notable example of the administration’s preference for ultraconservative judges came in late May, when Barr appointed David H. Wetmore as BIA chairman. Wetmore, a former immigration adviser to the White House Domestic Policy Council, was around for some of the Trump administration’s most egregious policies, including the travel ban and family separation policy.
Although only two decisions have been issued since Wetmore was appointed chair, he seems set to pick up where his predecessor, former Acting Chair Garry G. Malphrus, left off. Malphrus, a George W. Bush holdover, became the face of the court’s lurch to curtail immigrants’ legal protections since Trump took office. He had the hawkish bona fides that made him an ideal chairman under the Trump DOJ: From 1997 to 2001, he served as chief counsel to onetime segregationist Senator Strom Thurmond on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he was made associate director of the White House Domestic Policy Council after his role as a “Brooks Brothers” rioter during the 2000 Bush v. Gore recount in Florida—during which GOP operatives staged a protest that disrupted a recount and may have handed Bush the presidency.
Malphrus was made acting chair in 2019, and authored 24 of the 78 BIA precedential decisions issued under the current administration. Almost all of these precedential decisions have made it more difficult for immigrants to win their cases. The board made it harder for victims of terrorism to win asylum and raised the bar of evidence needed for several types of protections.
“It’s not a court anymore. It’s an enforcement mechanism,” said Paul Wickham Schmidt, who was himself chair of the BIA between 1995 and 2001 and now writes a popular immigration blog called Immigration Courtside. “They’re taking predetermined policy and just disguising it as judicial opinions, when the results have all been predetermined and it has nothing to do or little to do with the merits of the cases.”
Consider this: In a case decided in January, the BIA was considering whether an immigration judge had erred in refusing to postpone a removal decision for a person awaiting a decision on an application for a U visa—a type reserved for victims of certain crimes or those cooperating with authorities investigating a crime. (ICE had recently changed its policies to make it easier to deport people in this situation.) The BIA sided with the judge, acknowledging that the crime victim was “eligible for a U visa” but was not entitled to wait to receive it, in part because of his “lack of diligence in pursuing” one. The decision signals that immigrants eligible for crime victim visas, and who are willing to cooperate with law enforcement, can still be deported.
While federal courts hear public oral arguments and largely deliberate openly, the BIA typically uses a paper review method, which means it receives briefs from opposing parties and hands down a decision some time later, with the whole intervening process being shrouded in secrecy. “Unlike federal courts, where unpublished decisions are still accessible by the public, and so you can track what judges are saying in decisions that do not make precedent, the [BIA] only sporadically releases those decisions,” said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy counsel at the American Immigration Council.
Unpublished decisions are not precedential and cannot be cited in future cases. Precedential decisions are typically decided by majority vote of the permanent board members, though recent changes also enable the attorney general to designate any decision as precedential.
Aaron Hall, a Denver immigration attorney who has been tracking the BIA’s decisions, said that while he has seen unpublished wins for respondents, almost all published decisions sided with the government. This threatens to impose long-standing rules to be followed by immigration judges for years. “These decisions aren’t things that go away just because there’s a new administration,” Hall said. If there is a change in administration, “it’s not that everything turns on a dime to restore the jurisprudence to what it was before.”
BIA members are also appointed by the attorney general, and, as Schmidt put it, just as easily “unappointed.” They aren’t lifelong commissions. “Just because they were appointed by [Attorney General WIlliam Barr] doesn’t mean Barr couldn’t remove them if they didn’t perform to expectations,” said Schmidt. A recent memo reported by CQ Roll Call’s Tanvi Misra shows that the EOIR tried to convince pre-Trump judges to retire or take buyouts. The EOIR has also created the new title of “appellate immigration judge” last year to allow judges to simultaneously serve at both the immigration court and appellate court level, a potential conflict of interest. In the latest two BIA decisions, the panelists—including former chair Malphrus—are described with the new designation.
While the BIA has always to an extent suffered from political pressure as part of bureaucracy of the executive branch, Schmidt believes things have shifted from his tenure, with the illusion of an impartial process having been shattered.
Though the attorney general can overrule the BIA as well as directly set precedent, the BIA issues many more decisions. The board has authored 78 out of 87 precedent-setting decisions during the Trump administration, with the other nine having come down from the attorneys general. According to Hall’s analysis, all but 10 of these precedential decisions have sided with the government.
Schmidt said he believes that the court is essentially going down a checklist, implementing administration policy rather than actually addressing unclear points of law. “It seems to me that rather than looking at important issues or cases that really need to be resolved, they cherry-pick the precedents,” he said.
In Matter of J-J-G-, decided in March, the BIA struck a blow to “cancellation of removal,” one of the few avenues of relief for immigrants who have otherwise lost their cases in court. It requires them to prove that their deportation would result in exceptional hardship to a child or parent who is US citizen or resident. In this case, the anonymous respondent, J.J.G., claimed that his daughter, a citizen, would face medical hardship due to her hypothyroidism if he was deported to Guatemala. Although Hall says the man would have qualified for cancellation under criteria that had been standard for about two decades, the immigration judge took the view that because treatment for hypothyroidism was available to some extent in Guatemala, the standard for “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” had not been met. The BIA upheld.
“The danger is that it will give judges who might be inclined to deny these applications the language and the citation that they need” without doing a full evaluation of the circumstances of the case, said Hall.
The sense that the board is sometimes straining to interpret the law in the most anti-immigrant manner possible isn’t just coming from immigration attorneys or advocates. BIA decisions can be appealed up to federal circuit courts; on more than one recent occasion, federal judges have struck down BIA decisions with irritation. In one case, Doe v. Attorney General, a 26-year-old, gay Ghanaian man had been beaten, covered in kerosene, and threatened with beheading by a mob that included his own father after he was discovered having sexual relations with another man. He eventually arrived in the United States and petitioned for asylum, where an immigration judge found that he had been unable to establish persecution based on his sexual orientation. The BIA upheld the decision, finding his account of the incident credible, but not enough for asylum protections.
In a decision earlier this year, a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit dismantled the government’s case. Yes, he was beaten and threatened because of his sexual orientation; no, the government of Ghana would not protect him; yes, of course the attack amounted to persecution. In response to the contention that the threats weren’t menacing or concrete, with which the BIA agreed, the panel wrote, “We find it odd for the Government to make this argument here considering that [Doe] was threatened with death by fire or decapitation while being assaulted, doused with fuel and exposed to a cutlass. All that was left for the mob to do was to cut off his head or set him on fire.” (In individual circumstances, circuit courts have sent cases back to the BIA after it has refused appeals to continue the cases of crime victims awaiting U visas, even though the precedential decision as a whole still stands.)
The problem with this is that federal judges get to pull apart only the BIA cases that land on their desks, and the vast majority don’t. “For every one of those that are fortunate enough to be able to get to the appellate courts, there’s dozens of people being railroaded out, either without getting a fair shake in immigration court or without ever getting to immigration court,” said Schmidt.
Reichlin-Melnick’s theory is that the administration wants to make the BIA just another government agency. “[James] McHenry”—the EOIR’s director and a former ICE employee—“wants to turn the Board of Immigration Appeals into something a bit more like the Social Security Administration: an institution that doesn’t really function as a court functions,” he said. Instead, it will be focused on implementing the administration’s agenda.
For hundreds of thousands of immigrants, it doesn’t matter if the anti-immigrant paper pushers in this obscure administrative body are tossed out and all of the policy is slowly reversed by another administration; for most, one shot is all they get. Whether a case was winnable before or even after the Trump BIA is irrelevant. The chance to stay in the United States will be lost forever.


Temper, Temper

With SCOTUS rulings seen as Trump defeats , Trump answered with a burst of angry tweets .
At West Point @ @ @ @ @ like Caesar .
Instead his ramp walk showed a fragile geezer .
His rage at @ @ @ @ @ .
And then his Tulsa rally was a flop .
By then the tell-all book @ @ @ @ @ this anger—hot now , nearly molten .
Red-faced with rage ?
That judgment can ’ @ @ @ @ @ orange close to red ’ s his normal shade .

This article appears in the July 13/20, 2020 issue.
With SCOTUS rulings seen as Trump defeats,
Trump answered with a burst of angry tweets.
At West Point, he prepared to look like Caesar.
Instead his ramp walk showed a fragile geezer.
His rage at that will probably never stop.
And then his Tulsa rally was a flop.
By then the tell-all book released by Bolton
Had stoked this anger—hot now, nearly molten.
Red-faced with rage? That judgment can’t be made,
Since orange close to red’s his normal shade.


thenation--2020-06-30--Letters From the July 13/20, 2020, Issue

Bill Fletcher Jr. ’ s wish list for the reinvention of organized labor [ “ Labor : More Perfect Unions , ” June 15/22 ] is , as usual with him , insightful and incisive .
But his prescription for the crisis in health care costs is just plain wrong .
To say that “ unions should , of course , defend the health plans that they have ” is saying that union leadership should continue to oppose the most sensible and cost-effective way to deal with that crisis : single-payer ( otherwise known as Medicare for All ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ taxes required .
But they would be far lower than the “ taxes ” taken by employers from wages to support employer-provided coverage or the costs to workers of foregone improvements in other benefits that employers use the increased health coverage costs to justify .
Employer-linked health care is always tenuous , as we are seeing tragically during the current pandemic , when masses of union workers are being laid off and are losing their medical coverage just when they need it the most .
For large unions with contracts that include comprehensive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it may seem like a big gamble to support proposals that would effectively switch from employer to public funding .
But it ’ s a bigger gamble for them to continue to obstruct the revolution that single-payer would mean for all working people .
Re “ On Tara Reade ’ s Allegations ” [ Katha Pollitt , June 15/22 ] : I am very disappointed by what seems to be an all-out effort in The Nation to discredit and humiliate Tara Reade and bolster Joe Biden ’ s reputation .
I have no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump and Mike Pence in the fall .
I will overcome my nausea and put aside my principles and vote for Biden , shaming myself for the greater good .
Because no one denies Biden ’ s long history of “ handsiness ” ( what a convenient euphemism ! )
, which has made numerous women uncomfortable for decades .
It is repetitious to point out what the situation would be if Biden were a Republican .
Reade may behave in ways that are suspicious and incomprehensible today , but that doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well have been sexually harassed by Biden back then in a way that was genuinely disruptive to her emotionally .
It is discouraging to see The Nation go after Reade in this way in the frantic drive to protect Old Joe , to whitewash his past and his overall record to ensure his election .
There were other , much more principled ways of doing this without giving more fodder to the misogynistic pack of male media mavens reveling in this opportunity to undermine Me Too and the legitimacy of women ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Katha Pollitt writes that Reade is a strong supporter of Bernie Sanders , and it may be relevant that her story came out in the pro-Sanders media just as Biden was emerging as the presumptive Democratic nominee .
It is an insult to Amy Goodwin to dismiss Democracy Now !
as “ pro-Sanders media , ” when her journalistic standards are impeccable and she is for most progressive causes , some of which overlap with the Sanders campaign ’ s , some of which don ’ t .
The Nation , too , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to label this publication “ pro-Sanders media ” and dismiss the very column Pollitt writes ?
Of course not .
Even in the time of Trump , some of us see things in more subtle shades than media belonging exclusively to one camp .
Pollitt throws in that it is “ possibly relevant ” that Reade lied or timed her allegations to help Sanders , when in fact the charges came out too late to make a difference and , not surprisingly , didn ’ t help Sanders in the slightest .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nation .
Joan Walsh [ “ The Murder That Threatened to Divide the Two Harlems , ” June 1/8 ] touched on but did not examine how children are treated by the criminal justice system .
She mentions that the two accused boys have been charged with murder as adults but makes no comment about it .
The context is crucial .
There is no mention that two troubled 14-year-olds from well-known difficult circumstances ( including one who was cared for by an uncle because he lost his parents ) were indicted by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would rather cater to the monetary concerns and hysteria of Columbia University and some white residents than to act on what he knows well : that the Supreme Court has acknowledged that children who do terrible things are still children .
How does the commission of a crime—albeit a terrible one that left a young woman dead—turn two troubled children into adults ?
The impact of that legal choice is devastating : They will be tried in an adult criminal court rather than in family court , and if convicted , they can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convicted even of crimes involving violence face shorter sentences , with the understanding that the brains of children are malleable and , given better circumstances , they can mature and change .
Beyond the consequences to these youngsters , it is a terrible precedent that sets back the national struggle for justice for youths .
The failure of the community to speak out for justice and for treating children—even those who might have done something so terrible—as children and its failure to take into account the toll of their experiences will leave a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ city , and the cause of children ’ s justice .

This article appears in the July 13/20, 2020 issue.
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
A Gamble Worth Taking
Bill Fletcher Jr.’s wish list for the reinvention of organized labor [“Labor: More Perfect Unions,” June 15/22] is, as usual with him, insightful and incisive.
But his prescription for the crisis in health care costs is just plain wrong. To say that “unions should, of course, defend the health plans that they have” is saying that union leadership should continue to oppose the most sensible and cost-effective way to deal with that crisis: single-payer (otherwise known as Medicare for All).
Yes, there would be additional payroll taxes required. But they would be far lower than the “taxes” taken by employers from wages to support employer-provided coverage or the costs to workers of foregone improvements in other benefits that employers use the increased health coverage costs to justify.
Employer-linked health care is always tenuous, as we are seeing tragically during the current pandemic, when masses of union workers are being laid off and are losing their medical coverage just when they need it the most.
For large unions with contracts that include comprehensive health care insurance for their workers, it may seem like a big gamble to support proposals that would effectively switch from employer to public funding. But it’s a bigger gamble for them to continue to obstruct the revolution that single-payer would mean for all working people.
B rent K ramer
brooklyn Current Issue View our current issue
Protect Old Joe?
Re “On Tara Reade’s Allegations” [Katha Pollitt, June 15/22]: I am very disappointed by what seems to be an all-out effort in The Nation to discredit and humiliate Tara Reade and bolster Joe Biden’s reputation. I have no illusions about the absolute necessity of beating Donald Trump and Mike Pence in the fall. I will overcome my nausea and put aside my principles and vote for Biden, shaming myself for the greater good. Because no one denies Biden’s long history of “handsiness” (what a convenient euphemism!), which has made numerous women uncomfortable for decades. It is repetitious to point out what the situation would be if Biden were a Republican.
Reade may behave in ways that are suspicious and incomprehensible today, but that doesn’t mean she couldn’t well have been sexually harassed by Biden back then in a way that was genuinely disruptive to her emotionally. It is discouraging to see The Nation go after Reade in this way in the frantic drive to protect Old Joe, to whitewash his past and his overall record to ensure his election. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann
There were other, much more principled ways of doing this without giving more fodder to the misogynistic pack of male media mavens reveling in this opportunity to undermine Me Too and the legitimacy of women’s experiences of sexual harassment and abuse.
L in K aatz C hary
gary, ind.
Katha Pollitt writes that Reade is a strong supporter of Bernie Sanders, and it may be relevant that her story came out in the pro-Sanders media just as Biden was emerging as the presumptive Democratic nominee.
It is an insult to Amy Goodwin to dismiss Democracy Now! as “pro-Sanders media,” when her journalistic standards are impeccable and she is for most progressive causes, some of which overlap with the Sanders campaign’s, some of which don’t. The Nation, too, endorsed Sanders, so is it fair to label this publication “pro-Sanders media” and dismiss the very column Pollitt writes? Of course not. Even in the time of Trump, some of us see things in more subtle shades than media belonging exclusively to one camp.
Pollitt throws in that it is “possibly relevant” that Reade lied or timed her allegations to help Sanders, when in fact the charges came out too late to make a difference and, not surprisingly, didn’t help Sanders in the slightest.
I expect better from both Pollitt and The Nation.
M ichael C ohen
los angeles
A Terrible Precedent
Joan Walsh [“The Murder That Threatened to Divide the Two Harlems,” June 1/8] touched on but did not examine how children are treated by the criminal justice system. She mentions that the two accused boys have been charged with murder as adults but makes no comment about it. The context is crucial. There is no mention that two troubled 14-year-olds from well-known difficult circumstances (including one who was cared for by an uncle because he lost his parents) were indicted by a publicity-conscious, so-called reform DA who would rather cater to the monetary concerns and hysteria of Columbia University and some white residents than to act on what he knows well: that the Supreme Court has acknowledged that children who do terrible things are still children. How does the commission of a crime—albeit a terrible one that left a young woman dead—turn two troubled children into adults?
The impact of that legal choice is devastating: They will be tried in an adult criminal court rather than in family court, and if convicted, they can be given life sentences, whereas youths convicted even of crimes involving violence face shorter sentences, with the understanding that the brains of children are malleable and, given better circumstances, they can mature and change. Beyond the consequences to these youngsters, it is a terrible precedent that sets back the national struggle for justice for youths.
The failure of the community to speak out for justice and for treating children—even those who might have done something so terrible—as children and its failure to take into account the toll of their experiences will leave a deep wound within the neighborhood, our city, and the cause of children’s justice.