LiveWire

A post by Pat

If you’re wondering where Congress and the White House get their ideas on back door amnesty, the ABA (“American Bar Association”) is the prime suspect. The ABA established a commission to “study” Hispanic legal issues. Incoming ABA President Stephen N. Zack is dedicated to so-called Hispanic issues.

“We need to find out the facts and we need to see how the system is working or not working to make sure that Hispanics are fully integrated and treated equally within our justice system,” said Zack, who will make the announcement when he officially becomes the ABA’s first Hispanic president at the group’s annual convention in San Francisco.

Earlier this year the ABA House of Delegates voted to support Retooling the Immigration System.

The proposal supported by the House of Delegates would restructure the current system to remove immigration courts from the Department of Justice and create independent courts pursuant to Article I of the Constitution. Such a proposal would remove control of the immigration court system from the Attorney General.

The ABA wants to see immigration cases under the auspices of an Article I Court. These courts are basically tribunals created by Congress. Judges are appointed by the President subject to Senate confirmation. The process that, with the help of Saint Lindsey, gave us Sotomayor and Kagan. The judges would have terms ranging from eight to fifteen years. The ABA would like these courts to replace many discretionary immigration decision which are now within the authority of DHS and ICE agents. Currently, immigration judges are appointed by DOJ and have no fixed terms. The ABA points out that a judge can be entirely independent but nevertheless biased and close-minded. That, of course, means the judge rules in ways the ABA disapproves of. The libs complained Bush was stacking the immigration courts. So the ABA proposal appointing Article I Court judges recommended by a committee with input from “academic and immigration bar groups” isn’t stacking the court?

In the name of relieving stress on a burdened immigration court system and to make it more “fair”, the ABA advocates leniency in a number of circumstances including aggravated felonies and for the mentally ill. They want to make it more difficult to deport an illegal for “moral turpitude”. They also think illegals should be entitled to taxpayer provided legal counsel. This goes beyond a jobs program for lawyers. It is part and parcel of the liberal agenda to bring in poor minorities who will be both the recipients and supporters of big government.

Reforming the Immigration System
Proposals to Promote Independence, Fairness, Efficiency, and Professionalism in the Adjudication of Removal Cases

An Article I court for the entire immigration adjudication system would include an Appeals Division and a Trial Division. The leadership of the court would include a Chief Appellate Judge and Chief Trial Judge. The President would appoint the Chief Appellate Judge and the other appellate judges, the Chief Trial Judge, and possibly Assistant Chief Trial Judges, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The other trial judges would be appointed by the Chief Trial Judge or by the Assistant Chief Trial Judge responsible for the cour in which the vacancy exists (subject to approval of the Chief Trial Judge).

The appellate and trial judges would be selected from among persons screened and recommended by a Standing Referral Committee. The Committee would include the Chief Appellate Judge, the Chief Trial Judge, the two most senior ranking members of the Appellate Division, and the three most senior ranking Assistant Chief Trial Judges. Other stakeholders (e.g., DHS, DOJ, and academic and immigration bar groups) would be represented on the Committee or have an opportunity to comment on candidates before they were recommended for appointment.

As Article I judges, neither the trial nor appellate judges would be subject to comprehensive performance review of the type used for civil service employees.

The judges on the Article I court would be subject to a code of ethics and conduct based on the ABA Model Code of Judical Conduct, tailored as necessary to take into account any unique requirements for the immigration judiciary [Whatever that means? –p]. For alleged violations, they would be subject to a complaint and disciplinary procedure similar to what is used for other federal judges. Under this procedure, all complaints would be made directly to a reviewing body established specifically for this purpose. The complaints would bypass persons in the chain of supervision.

Summary of Key Recommendations Requiring Legislation [pg 11]

1. Request additional immigration judges

2. Permit all eligible noncitizens to adjust to lawful permanent resident status while in the United States, or eliminate bars to reentry

Generally undocumented noncitizens who are otherwise eligible to become lawful permanent residents can adjust their status only by applying for an immigrant visa at a U.S. consulate outside the United States. However, if a noncitizen leaves the country in order to do this after being unlawfully present…he or she is subject to bars on returning to the United States. To encourage eligible noncitizens to legalize their status, they should be allowed to do this while remaining in the United States.….The legislative change would reduce the number of noncitizens who are subject to removal and … ease the burden on the … adjudication system.

3. Amend the definition of “aggravated felony” and eliminate the retroactive application of the aggravated felony provisions in our immigration law.

4. Curtail the use of the administrative removal process by which DHS officers may order the removal of noncitizens who have been convicted of “aggravated felonies” and are not lawful permanent residents.

Refers to DHS removals which do not go through the courts. Would establish protected categories and the right to review by the courts.

…such proceedings should be eliminated at least for minors, the mentally ill, noncitizens who claim a fear of persecution or torture…,and noncitzens with significant ties to the United States. [married to U.S. citizens, have children who are U.S. citizens, served in U.S. military]

Again, more leniency allowed using the excuse of easing the burden on the judicial system. The ABA is unhappy the term “aggravated felony” was extended to include offenses such as shoplifting. They also think it is unfair to apply the rule retroactively to crimes committed before there were deportation consequences attached. You mean there was a time when we didn’t care about that?

…the retroactive application of the aggravated felony provisions should be eliminated.

5. Curtail the use of expedited removal for noncitizens apprehended at the border or within the United States by: (1) eliminating expedited removal for individuals who are already in the United States, unaccompanied minors, and the mentally ill; (2) permitting DHS officers to issue expedited removal orders only if they determine than an individual lacks proper travel documentation; and (3) expanding judicial review of expedited removal orders.

Isn’t expanding judicial review adding to the burden on the system?

6. Amend the definition of “crime involving moral turpitude”

“The Immigration and Nationality Act “INA”) should be amended to require that a single conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude is a basis for deportabilty only if a sentence of more than one year is actually imposed.

Or that the offense carries a potential sentence of more than one year.

7. Eliminate or narrow the mandatory detention provisions to target persons who are clearly flight risks or pose a threat to national security, public safety, or other persons.

Now we’re back to saving money and resources.

“Since the implementation of the mandatory detention provisions in 1996, an enormous and growing system of detention has emerged, which is costly, unmanageable, and overburdened. ….The mandatory detention provisions are too broad and require the inefficient expenditure of resources. They should, therefore, be eliminated or narrowed…

8. Restore judicial review of discretionary decisions under an abuse-of-discretion standard.

Now they’re back to burdening of the system.

…These decisions, however, have an enormous impact on the lives of noncitizens, and “discretion” need not entail absolute absence of oversight.

Second guess every decision made by a DHS agent.

9. Amend the INA to permit the courts of appeals to remand cases to the BIA for further fact finding.

This largely undoes the 2005 decision to eliminate habeas corpus jurisdiction in removal cases.

10. Extend the deadline for filing a petition for review of BIA decision by the courst of appeals.

1996 legislation reduce the period of time for petition of review from 90 to 30 days.

The shorter deadline poses significant problems for noncitiznes in getting a copy of the full record and securing appellate counsel.

These people are here because they don’t give a damn about documentation.

11. Establish a right to representation in adversarial removal proceedings and for individuals in groups with special needs.

Congress should enact a statute recognizing a right to representation at government expense in adversarial proceedings where an indigent noncitizen [Aren’t they all? –p] faces the possibility of removal, is potentially eligible for relief from removal

With a packed immigration court system who wouldn’t be potentially eligible for relief from removal?

…and cannot otherwise obtain representation. […] For individuals in groups with special needs, including unaccompanied minors and noncitizens with mental disabilities and illnesses, the right to government-funded counsel should extend to all immigration proceedings, whether or not such proceedings may lead to removal. In order to limit controversy over whether the provision of government-funded representation is permitted under current law, legislative action should eliminate the “no expense to the government” limitation of section 292 of the INA.

In other words, it is currently against the law for the government to pay legal expenses for illegals. It isn’t “limiting controversy”, it’s changing the law so taxpayers will pick up the tab for illegals to sue us to stay in the country.

The ABA says many of these changes can be made under existing law. DHS agents should be encouraged not to do their jobs for one thing. Immigration judges should be required to put their decisions in writing because, according to the ABA, “the issuance of oral decisions…can have a significant negative impact on the quality of decisions.” Judges should get more training including training in “cultural sensitivity and awareness”. When illegals are issued removal orders they should be notified of their right to appeal. Naturally the ABA thinks outreach to illegals needing legal assistance should be enhanced.

Arizona and other states can make enforcement laws all day every day to no avail. If a stacked monolithic court in charge of immigration proceedings takes over, no one will ever be deported.