Skip to content

Corrected Headline: Illegal Border Crossings By Families Increases Steeply

Yesterday, several news articles revealed that the Obama administration is eager to convince the public that its brutal raids and and subsequent deportations of women and children fleeing war in Central America have yielded a decrease in unaccompanied children and family unit apprehensions made this January. 

Julia Preston, who is one of rare journalists that Jeh Johnson provides direct quotes to, wrote an article in the New York Times titled “Illegal Border Crossings by Families Drop Sharply.”, in which she repeatedly emphasized a “steep drop” in crossings in January of 2016, as one can see here: 

A 65 percent drop from December to January in crossings by families — mostly women with their children from three violence-torn countries in Central America — came after widely publicized raids in the first days of this year in which 121 migrants were arrested for deportation. 

Here is the extraordinarily limited data that Preston cites to support her article: 

In January there were 3,145 apprehensions by the Border Patrol of migrants in families, down from 8,974 in December. Additionally, agents caught 3,113 children crossing without parents in January, a 54 percent decrease from 6,786 in December. Overall apprehensions at the southwest border declined 36 percent from December and were at the lowest levels since January 2015, according to the figures.

For family units, DHS’ month by month apprehension data from FY2013 to FY2015 show that the number of apprehensions in January of 2016–3,145–is the highest number in history for the month of January. 

Here is the breakdown for number of apprehensions family units in January from 2013, 2014, & 2015. 

In January of 2015, only 1,632 family units were apprehended. See this chart: 

Screen Shot 2016-02-04 at 7.19.04 AM

Screen Shot 2016-02-04 at 7.19.15 AM

Screen Shot 2016-02-04 at 7.19.27 AM

As you can see, there were 1,632; 2316; and 855 family unit apprehensions for 2015; 2014; and 2013, respectively. Which begs the question, why are January’s numbers being reported as a decline when in fact they are nearly twice as high as January of 2015? 

The complete and utter lack of context in reporting the numbers from which the supposed decline fell from–specifically, December of 2015–further illustrates how egregiously misleading the New York Times and other reports are.

In December of 2015, there were 8,974 family unit apprehensions.

As such, family unit apprehensions in December of 2015 were more than three times as much than December of FY 2015 and significantly higher than any month of FY 2015 and historically the highest number for the month of December. 

The statistics on unaccompanied children apprehensions for January of 2016 are also reported in grossly misleading light. 

Record High Numbers of Children Continue to Flee Central America for Asylum in the United States

In January of 2016, the 3113 unaccompanied children were apprehended at the border was the second highest recorded for the month of January, slightly less than  the 3,711 apprehensions in the “surge” year of 2014 yet significantly higher than the 2,123 apprehensions in the immediately previous January of 2015. 

The 6,786 unaccompanied kids apprehended in December of 2015 was a record high for the month of December, more than doubling the 2,862 apprehensions from December of 2014.

So, what do these numbers mean in light of how they have been reported in the mainstream media? 

That DHS is given VIP treatment in how stories are framed in order to further their agenda. Here, it is to create an inference that there is a plausible link between the January 2016 raids and what turns out to be an illusory decline in number of apprehensions. 

To have integrity, reporting on these numbers requires comparison to all previous years where data is available, not solely the immediately preceding month. 

Here are more accurate headline ideas, customized for the New York Times’ addiction to using the word illegal to describe anything relating to immigration. 

 “Illegal Border Crossings by Families Increases Steeply” or “Illegal Border Crossings by Families Is Record High for Month of January.” 

President Obama Covers Up Solitary Confinement of Immigrant Children

A brazen lie lingers deep within the details President Barack Obama’s op-ed  in the Washington Post today, in which he announces that he is banning the use of solitary confinement for juvenile offenders incarcerated in federal prisons.

In his article, President Obama cites to the Department of Justice’s “Report and Recommendations Concerning the Use of Restrictive Housing”, stating that he is “adopting its recommendations to reform the federal prison system.”

In the report, there is an entire section on the immigration detention system for “comparison purposes” which makes clear that its recommendations would only cover “restrictive housing within the criminal justice system.”

The report describes the various standards applied for the use of solitary confinement in immigration detention facilities, including the Performance Based national Detention Standards (PBNDS).

Here’s the lie:

PBNDS 2011 currently applies to facilities housing approximately 66% of ICE’s ADP [Adult Detained Population], excluding family residential facilities, which do not utilize segregated housing. All dedicated facilities (SPCs, CDFs, and dedicated IGSAs) are covered by PBNDS 2011. (emphasis added)

Family residential facilities utilize–and often require–segregated housing, according to the Department of Justice; ICE’s own family residential standards;  a whistleblower; and mothers and children who experienced being held in solitary confinement first hand.

Family residential facilities are jails located in Texas and Pennsylvania that detain mothers and their children seeking asylum from the war-torn countries of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. Obama has been clear from day one (July of 2014) that the purpose of detaining mothers and children was to deport them back home to send a message to future mothers and children that they will also be detained and deported if they seek asylum in the United States.  Most of those children detained are under 10 years of age, and the largest percentage of children are 5 years old and younger. Our youngest client was 1 year old when he was detained in the now-closed Artesia Detention Center.

In a 2015 memorandum, the Department of Justice endorsed the use of solitary confinement of children (even toddlers) as punishment for alleged offenses committed by their mothers while detained. The relevant excerpt from the memo is below:

The ICE disciplinary standards state that their purpose is to “provide a safe and orderly living environment” at ICE family residential facilities, and to “manage discipline and behavioral problems in a manner that ensures the safety and welfare of staff, residents, and visitors.” Exhibit O at 1. “Insurrection” is considered a major offense at ICE family residential facilities, and under the standards requires separation from the general population. Id. at 16-17. Medical observation rooms may be used to facilitate this separation. See Antkowiak Decl. ¶ 13. The standards provide guidance for the investigation of such incidents and the appropriate responses, and residents are provided with notice of prohibited acts, and the processes that the facility uses to manage and respond to rules violations through the resident handbook. Id. at 19. These ICE standards, which applied to Plaintiffs’ activities of protesting and engaging in a hunger strike, reflect reasonable determinations by ICE that necessarily balance any right the resident may have to protest or participate in a hunger strike against the health and safety of the resident participating in the strike, and the health and safety of others in the facility including that resident’s children. To the extent that Plaintiffs are challenging the Government’s actions in applying these standards to their alleged activities, Plaintiffs’ challenges must fail because these standards are reasonably related to the interests of order, safety, and security, at ICE family residential facilities. (emphasis added)

Indeed, Section 3.1 of ICE’s family residential standards, Discipline and Behavior Managementrequire the use of solitary confinement of children with their mothers when the mother is found to have committed any of the 19 enumerated “Major Offenses”, which include engaging in a protest the conditions of detention:

MAJOR OFFENSES: Suspicion of any of the following offenses reauires (sic) immediate notification of ICE and separation form (sic) the general population

Similarly, ICE is permitted to place a family unit in an “orientation and counseling unit” for the sole purpose of “assisting residents to properly conform to facility rules and to ensure the safe and orderly operation of the facility.”

The punitive use of solitary confinement against young children and their mothers was also laid out in great detail by Dr. Olivia Lopez, a whistleblower who previously worked as a licensed social worker at the Karnes Children jail.

Why did President Obama’s DOJ lie when it falsely stated that Family Residential Facilities do not utilize segregated housing? Perhaps to cover-up its own criminal actions torturing children to enable its continued and illegal jailing of immigrant children and their mothers seeking asylum and other relief under United States law.




End Illegal Expedited Deportation of Children

(Picture above is of Juan Osuna, the Director of EOIR who is unlawfully prioritizing the removal of Central American children)

We recently sent a request to the Director of the Executive Office For Immigration Review, Juan Osuna, to immediately cease the illegal expedited deportation policy of Central American children.

Below is an excerpt, followed by a copy of the entire letter:

“We write to demand that EOIR cease its unlawful prioritization of removal proceedings of all children who entered the United States after May 1, 2014…”

“The priority docket’s intent and effect is to speed-up the removal of children…it is the exact opposite of what is required by law because it is designed to ensure that as many children as possible are deprived of due process in their removal proceedings.

It’s intent and result is to suffocate legal support networks so that as many children as possible are not able to secure a lawyer to represent them. 

Obama: Deporting Families, Not Felons

On November 20, 2014, President Obama announced his long-awaited executive actions on immigration, promising to deport “Felons, Not Families” and “Criminals, not children.”

Recent statistics released by DHS on deportations, as well yesterday’s comments from DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson on his toddler deportation raids, belie the President’s claim: The new priorities are actually Obama’s promise to deport “Families, not Felons. Children, not criminals.”

In Fiscal Year (FY) 2015, the first year to reflect the results of DHS’ new deportation priorities, President Obama deported the fewest number (63529) of “criminals” (defined as anyone who has previously been convicted of a crime) from inside the United States than any previous year of his presidency.

In  2014; and 2013, ICE removed 86,923; and 110,115 “criminals”, respectively.

For 2015, Obama promised to deport on “felons, not families” and “criminals, not children” yet in 2015 he deported 23,384 less “criminals” than 2014.

Worse, he has intentionally eliminated due process for tens of thousands of children facing deportation to death or serious harm in Central America.

This is not the whole story, largely because ICE and DHS’s published statistics are generally selected to support its boss’ political goals. For example, 2013 was the first year that the Obama administration published data on the percentage of interior removals who were convicted of a crime. 

Yet one can read between the numbers:

2015 was an unprecedented year where even the previous years claims that removals were done to protect public safety by focusing on convicted criminals have been jettisoned in favor of focusing on Central Americans seeking asylum in the United States, with a particular emphasis on resources spent to remove vulnerable unaccompanied children as well as mothers accompanied by children.

2015 numbers are the first window into the results of President Obama’s new enforcement priorities, which are also crucial for its legal argument in defense of its hotly-contested DAPA program before the Supreme Court in 2016.

A related but more broad statistic that ICE has included in its statistics since 2009 is total removals where the individual was convicted of a crime. This includes individuals with previous criminal convictions, including immigration violations, who were apprehended at the border after trying to re-enter or enter the United States illegally.

Screen Shot 2016-01-05 at 8.20.23 AM.png

ICE removed the following number of criminals for as follows: FY 2009, 136,331; FY 2010, 196,431; FY 2011, 218,298; FY 2012, 225,416; FY 2013, 217, 499; FY 2014, 176,928; and FY 2015, 139,368.

Conversely, Obama removed following number of non-criminals (those not previously convicted of a crime) as follows: FY 2009, 253,503; FY 2010 196,431; FY 2011 178,608; FY 2012 184,433; FY 2013, 151, 145; FY 2014, 139,015; and FY 2015 96,045.

Obama removed less criminals in 2015 than all of his previous years in office with exception to 2009, when he removed 136,331 of the same.

In 2009, however, the vast majority of removals came from the interior of the United States: 237,941 individuals were apprehended in the United States’ interior and subsequently removed.

DHS did not release what percentage interior removals were convicted of crimes 2009, but a conservative estimate– 35 percent of 237,941, the percentage of total removals in 2009 that were convicted of crimes–comes to 83,279 individuals, close t0 20 thousand more than FY 2015.

Screen Shot 2016-01-05 at 8.40.48 AM

Obama’s DAPA: An Unconscionable Abuse of Prosecutorial Discretion to Prioritize the Deportation of children and adults protected by Asylum and Special Immigrant Juvenile Laws To Justify Deferred Action For Millions ineligible for any form of relied under United States Law

As the Obama administration has  stated time and time again, DAPA–the deferral of deportation of million of undocumented individuals who have resided in the United States since 2010 and have at least one U.S. citizen or permanent resident child– is a lawful executive action because it is simply an act of prosecutorial discretion, a shifting of its enforcement resources away from DAPA beneficiaries and towards its top priorities, which in reality fall three categories: 1. Unaccompanied Central American children; 2. Children accompanied with their mother; and 3. Central American adults unaccompanied by children seeking asylum.

The bulk of ICE’s 90,103 border removals of non-criminals in FY 2015 were in the third category, detained single adults who sought asylum after apprehension at the border and were denied. The evidence of aggressive enforcement strategy, such as no bond despite individuals already passing their credible fear asylum interviews, came out when women initiated hunger strikes in across the country, including in Texas and California.

The women were desperate because they continued to be detained and faced with imminent deportation to serious harm or death to Central America without the any due process such as neutral judges or having a lawyer help them.

But Obama’s most prized trophy is the removal of children because the vast majority of them are eligible for special immigrant juvenile status or asylum. Adults, on the other hand, cannot qualify for SIJS status because one must be under the age of 21 to even apply. To Obama, children represent the most serious risk to him: they make him look soft on border enforcement.   The hackneyed argument in Obama’s warped mind is more or less as follows:

If children continue to receive asylum and SIJS in the United States, both of which lead to lawful permanent residency, word from the beneficiaries will reach Central America, thus provoking another surge as seen in 2014, which in turn could allow Republicans to poach or inspire the nativism that lurks in voters across the political spectrum.

There is no reliable evidence that supports the above theory–that harsh enforcement actions against migrants in the U.S. will deter future similar migrants from coming to the United States–is almost besides the point.  Obama is singularly obsessed with his campaign to deport children even though his efforts have yielded few results, which is evident from the vehement and virtually uniform opposition from Congressional democrats against his attempts to weaken laws that protect children as well as to detain them in concentration camps in Texas and Pennsylvania.

His failure to put his henchmen’s hands on children to deport them to Central America is abundantly evident from the Immigration Court Statistics that span FY 2014 to through November of 2015. In reality, attorneys and advocates representing children have been extraordinarily effective in ensuring children are afforded due process, thus resulting in the dismissal of deportation and permanent residency in the United States for the children they represent.  Additionally, many immigration judges have refused to remove children until they are represented by an attorney.

56,026.00; 26532; 717. Here are the numbers from TRAC’s specialized tools for the two top deportation priorities of the Obama administration: Unaccompanied Children, and Mothers accompanied by at least one child;

FY-2014-2015: Unaccompanied Children Represented By A Lawyer

For Deportation cases DHS filed against unaccompanied children in FY 2014, 30,493 of a total 56,026 were represented by an attorney. In FY 2014 only 1,211 unaccompanied children were ordered removed.

Conversely, 6,389 cases were permanently dismissed, most of which are children who will soon be lawful permanent residents as SIJS beneficiaries or who were already granted asylum. 158 were granted asylum or other relief directly by an immigration judge.  16,860 remain pending

For Deportation cases DHS filed against unaccompanied children in FY 2015, 10572 of 26532 total were represented by an attorney. Only 414 were ordered removed by an immigration judge. 7,746 remain pending. 

Close to one thousand cases in FY 2015 (936) were permanently dismissed and 16 granted relief by an immigration judge.

FY2014-2015: Unaccompanied Children Without A Lawyer

For Deportation cases DHS filed against unaccompanied children in FY 2014, 25,533 did not have a lawyer. In FY 2014, 10,614 children were ordered removed by an immigration judge, 9918 of which were issued in absentia. 13,031 remain pending.

597 were permanently terminated and 13 granted relief by an immigration judge.

For Deportation cases DHS filed against unaccompanied children in FY 2015, 2763 children were ordered removed, 2598 of which were in absentia. 131 were permanently dismissed and one granted relief by an immigration judge.

FY2014-2015 Mothers With Children Represented By A Lawyer

For women with children, the second-top priority, numbers are similar:

13,571 of 28,505 mothers and children were represented by a lawyer. 1908 were ordered removed; 10,530 remained pending; and 772 were granted asylum or other relief by an immigration judge.

11,379 of 34,133 were represented by a lawyer. 594 were ordered removed; 251 were granted asylum or other relief; and 10,353 remained pending.

FY2014-2015 Mothers With Children Without A Lawyer

For FY 2014, 14,934 of 28,505 did not have a lawyer and the results were devastating: 10,043 were ordered removed by an immigration judge, 9465 of which were in absentia.

4391 remained pending and an immigration judge only permanently dismissed deportation in 74 individuals and asylum or other relief to 15 individuals.

In FY 2015, 22754 out of 34,133 were without a lawyer. 5029 were ordered removed by an immigration judge, 4776 of which were in absentia.

An immigration judge granted relief in either granted asylum or permanently dismissed deportation in a total of 153 cases. 17,139 remained pending.

Expediting Deportation of an Unprecedented Number of Children At Same Time  Guarantees Total Deprivation of Due Process For Tens of Thousands of Children

The more time that a child or family is provided to obtain either pro bono or a for-profit attorney the more likely they will get a lawyer to represent them and win their case.

As time has passed, so has the increase in number of families and unaccompanied children represented by an lawyer.

For cases started in 2014 and 2015, 47 (47.6)  and 33 percent of families were represented by an attorney, respectively.

The same applies to unaccompanied children, who are afforded significantly more legal aid for pro bono or low-cost attorneys, and whose cases are overall less time-consuming than family unit cases.

In FY 2014 and 2015, 54 percent (30,493) and 39.84 percent (10,572) of unaccompanied children were represented by a lawyer, respectively.

Starting in FY 2014 to November of 2015, Obama initiated a total of 83,275 deportation cases against unaccompanied children and 64,356 against families, for a total of 147,631 top priorities for removal in the span of only two fiscal years.

In total, Obama obtained removal orders against 32,218 unaccompanied children and families in the same period, combined, the vast majority of whom did not have a lawyer and were not even present when the judge ordered them removed.

 The number of those actually removed from the United States is likely very low given legal and logistical challenges of using the coercive force of arrest and detention to effect the removal of vulnerable children.

Obama’s End Game

The Supreme Court, in deciding whether DAPA may continue, will see that Obama squandered of hundreds of millions of dollars on an almost total failure to effect the removal of children protected by asylum and special immigrant juvenile status through family detention and specialized “rocket” dockets; and now highly costly raids. Despite this, Obama’s lawyers will brazenly argue that he is entitled to use prosecutorial discretion to defer the deportation of millions even if it means ‘consciously and expressly adopt[] a general policy’ that is so extreme as to amount to an abdication of its statutory responsibilities.” 470 U.S. at 833 n.4 (quoting Adams v. Richardson, 480 F.2d 1159, 1162 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (en banc)

In its current arguments, Obama claims that DAPA is a valid use of prosecutorial discretion because DHS needs to shift enforcement resources to its top “priorities” which are mostly children entitled to stay in the United States under Asylum and SIJS. Thus, Obama is consciously adopting a general policy that is so extreme policy (deporting toddlers without due process to apply for their legal right for protection in the United States is beyond extreme) that is an abdication of its statutory responsibilities.

The record low number of removals of “criminals” further demonstrates that Obama’s policy is going even further in abdicating its statutory responsibilities by deporting fewer criminals in favor of deporting children and mothers.

Literally, it is not hyperbole to say that the current policy of Obama is to deport “Children, not criminals. Families, Not Felons.” Let’s hope Obama continues to fail and the intervening litigants win it for everyone else.

LATimes’ Editorial Endorses Deporting Toddlers To Death

Screen Shot 2015-12-30 at 1.08.33 PM

Nicholas Goldberg, Editor of the LAtimes’ Editorial Pages, is responsible for its recent craven calls for deporting without due process of law toddlers to death or serious harm in war-zones of Central America.

The LAtimes editorial board wrote a horrific, incompetent, and hysterical opinion article titled “Why The Obama administration is right to deport migrants ordered to leave.”

Putting aside the cowardly premise, this article’s gravest flaw is that the basis for its conclusion is on its face a work of fiction. Bad fiction.

I will break it down, paragraph by excruciatingly bad parahraph, starting with its total failure to comprehend the most basic facts as they have played out in the real world.

From the start, it leaps to a conclusion based on pure fantasy.

To not deport those whom an immigration judge has ruled ineligible to remain in the country is to throw over any notion of enforceable immigration law. And that is an indefensible position

The LATimes imputed that ” immigration advocates” (without citing to one immigration advocate) are opposing ICE raids against against immigrant children, toddlers, babies and mothers because their “position” is open borders.

This is pure fantasy. Who  stated that no one should be deported after an immigration judge ordered them to leave? Please, enlighten us, Latimes editorial board.

The article then reveals in the immediate following paragraph that it has no idea what its talking about:

We share some of the concerns that have been raised about the fairness of the immigration court system. It is understaffed, and judges carry excessively high caseloads. Studies have found that petitioners who have a lawyer at their elbow stand a much better chance of winning permission to stay than those without lawyers, largely because of the arcane and confusing nature of immigration law itself…So those without means to hire an attorney are at the mercy of the pro bono immigration bar, which is just as overextended as the judges. In that scenario, it’s likely that some people who have a legitimate right to asylum wind up getting deported anyway, a regrettable turn of events.

Google is free, LAtimes Editorial Board, and would have shown you that the immigration courts–supposedly neutral arbiters of fact and law–started a specialized fast track to deportation on orders from the White House for  both families and unaccompanied children in response to the 2014 surge.

It is ongoing and its purpose has been clear from day one:  to maximize deportations of children and mothers by suffocating the supply of legal representation, thereby resulting in 61 percent of mother and children not being represented by a lawyer. 

Furthermore, 87 percent (15,306) of the women and children that the LAtimes courageously calls for being deported had no attorney to represent them in immigration court.

94 percent (14,294) of total (15,306) unrepresented families ordered deported by an immigration judge were in absentia, which means that they were not given a meaningful, if any, chance to plead their case for asylum or special immigrant juvenile status before an immigration judge.

The high rate of families ordered removed in their absence is impossible to fully explain without analyzing each individual family on a case by case basis. However, it is likely that a significant amount of families simply were not provided notice of the hearing date and time.

The more likely scenario, based on our own experience with hundreds of Central American families as well as unaccompanied children, is that the families received notice but did not appear because they were not able to obtain a lawyer. The location of where there are the vast majority of removal orders is telling. (See immigration courts with top number of removal orders against women and children)

Dallas’ immigration judges, particularly James Nugent and Dietrich Sims, are notorious bullies who routinely and with great frequency  have decisions overturned by the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Atlanta has a similar reputation. Recently, the BIA issued a reversed an Atlanta immigration judge’s deportation order because he engaged in “bullying and hostile” conduct towards a child asylum seeker.

Houston suffers from prosecutorial immigration judges as well; court observers saw one  judge give only one 3 week adjournment to a juvenile and then order the child removed at his second hearing when he appeared without a lawyer.

This same paragraph in LAtimes’ editorial lazily cites to the “pro bono immigration bar” thereby missing the relevant fact that for-profit attorneys like us and hundreds of others represent tens of thousands of Central American children and families.

We are only over-extended because of the fast track deportation policy. Without the expedited rush to deport, more families would be able to work and save up money to pay for private attorneys. Further, capacity for more representation of families private and pro bono lawyers would increase as our pending cases are completed.


The following is totally inane to its premise:

There is no doubt that the U.S. immigration system is in shambles. More than 11 million people are living here illegally, but most have been here for so long they are deeply entwined in our economy and our neighborhoods. To deport them all — a popular mantra from the nativist right during this presidential election cycle — would tear apart families and communities. It also would be prohibitively expensive, requiring billions of dollars in added enforcement capacity and causing billions of dollars in losses to the economy. The better approach would be for Congress to stop using illegal immigration as a boogeyman and start crafting meaningful reforms that would include a path to citizenship for those who have put down roots and been responsible members of society, while stiffening the government’s ability to enforce borders and track down people who overstay visas.

Why doesn’t the LAtimes stop using women and children fleeing war in Central America as boogmen first?

The shambles of the U.S. immigration system has close to nothing to do with the ongoing exodus from Central America, which in Honduras and El Salvador resemble a civil war: 2015 saw the latter displace the  the former as the murder capital of the world at 90 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants.

This paragraph is simply an attack on the Republican party and totally unrelated to the purported subject of why it’s so righteous to deport toddlers to death or harm.


The current wave of asylum-seekers raises some particularly vexing questions. The U.S. has a long and occasionally problematic history in Central America, and bears some moral culpability for the criminal gangs that relocated from U.S. cities, including Los Angeles, to thrive in urban neighborhoods of Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador. The U.S. also is the main market for the illicit drug trade that helps many of those gangs flourish.

This is hackneyed malarkey.  We are talking about human beings here. Many are really little and cute. I’ve seen them in my office. 12-month-olds. 2 year olds. 3 year olds. Get back to the point: do you send the children and moms back to death or harm or do you not?


The solution to those issues, though, isn’t to allow entry to the U.S. for anyone able to reach the U.S. border after fleeing a dangerous neighborhood in Tegucigalpa or San Salvador. Those who face legally articulated persecution — usually based on religion, political beliefs or other recognized classes of special victimization — should be granted asylum if U.S. immigration courts say they are eligible.

First off, “legally articulated persecution” is fiction. If one faces persecution, one faces persecution. Don’t quit your day job, LAtimes editorial writers. Leave the law to us.

Secondly, the editorial prejudges the asylum claims of all Central Americans by saying “dangerous neighborhood” in Tegucigalpa or San Salvador without any additional context. To its readers, presumably most who reside in the United States, there is no “neighborhood” that comes close to Tegucigalpa or San Salvador.

Government officials in El Salvador have have recently said that they are “at war” with the MS-13 and 18th street gangs that hundreds of gang members had infiltrated its armed forces and national police force.

The editorial’s description of conditions  in Central America as a crime-ridden neighborhood in the United States is a carefully manicured lie to suppress reality: well-armed MS-13 and 18th street “gangs” are in fact insurgent groups waging a bloody and ongoing war to challenge the power of the governments they operate in.

It may not even be that far of a reach to suggest that “dangerous neighborhood” was the suggested use from the Obama administration.


The government has both the right and the responsibility to determine who gets to enter the country, and who gets to stay as legal residents with the possibility of eventual naturalized citizenship. Openness to immigration has been a defining aspect of American history, and one of the nation’s strengths. Still, we have to expect the government to follow through on legal processes that have been completed. When the courts reject arguments that individual migrants have a right to stay, the government is correct in targeting them for removal. To do otherwise not only erodes the sense that we are a nation ruled by laws, but it also serves as an encouragement for others who think gaining entry to the U.S. is as simple as showing up and saying, “Let me in.” That only exacerbates our illegal immigration problem.

The LAtimes appears confused again: it concluded that both “the government” and “the courts” get to determine if a migrant has the right to stay in the United States. Who is it?

By government, perhaps they didn’t realize that it would provide a hint: that this opinion piece appears like cordial suggestion from the Obama administration–who, with its obsessive quest to deport children and mothers fleeing harm or death in Central America, gutted due process for their asylum and special immigrant juvenile claims and who authored the DAPA/DACA plan–believes it is the sole arbiter of what migrants have the right to stay in the United States.

The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the United States. The government does not get to selectively choose when to comply with the U.S. constitution and when it trash it.

The Obama administration is not correct  in targeting women and children who have been ordered removed in violation of their right to due process as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

The LAtimes editorial board should be embarassed and immediately rescind this article.

It is devoid of any evidence to support its conclusion–that the Obama administration is right to deport women and children ordered deported.

The Latimes’ full headline also promised to its readers that it would explain why it is right to deport women and children ordered deported.

It failed on this promise because it failed to check if even one out of the over 10 thousand families ordered removed was afforded due process of law.

Without erasing this craven attack on vulnerable children fleeing death and harm in Central America, the LAtimes’ has accomplished the inconceivable: a return to the dark era of World War II when its editorial board blindly and cowardly authored several editorials in favor of jailing Japanese-looking Americans and immigrants.





Obama’s Legacy: Deportation Raids Against Toddlers With No Lawyers

President Obama’s planned raids against Central American toddlers and their mothers has been a goal since the first border “surge” news broke in May of 2014. 

The 2014 birth of the two-tiered rocket deportation docket, which included individuals who entered USA after January of 2014 who were either 1. Unaccompanied Children; 2. Mothers and accompanying children, were the first seeds to be sown for today’s imminent raids.

To us on the ground, the purpose of the expedited docket was made clear immediately: to physically overload and overwhelm the existing  legal provider network (including for-profit and non profit lawyers) so that the maximum amount of children and/or mothers would not be able to hire or be appointed a lawyer.

With no lawyer, children and mothers are almost certain to be ordered deported by the immigration judge, according to TRAC.

Unsurprisingly, The Obama administration now plans to harvest the deportations seeds it planted from having intentionally cut out due process for children and mothers.

From 2014 to November of 2016, ICE has initiated deportation cases against 64,505 mothers and children.

61 percent, (40,391) of those moms and children do not have a lawyer.

86 percent (15,306 out of 17,625 total)  of mothers and children ordered deported had no lawyer while 14 percent of mothers and children ordered deported (2319) were represented by a lawyer.

Put differently, 90 percent (22,795) of mothers and children who entered the U.S. after 2014 and have a lawyer have not been ordered deported.

The severe deficiency in sufficient due process is evident as well in which immigration courts account for the high number of deportations.

Houston (3171 deportation orders), Dallas (2114), North Carolina (1690), Los Angeles (1305) Atlanta (1193), Baltimore (1098), and San Antonio (885) account for 58 percent (10,358) of total deportation orders yet only account for 37 percent of total cases (64,505).

Almost all of the removal orders at these courts were against children and mothers who had no lawyer. In the same immigration courts, the following percentage of removal orders were against mothers and children without lawyers: Houston (87 percent) , Dallas (97 percent), Charlotte (90 percent), Los Angeles (78 percent), Atlanta (60 percent), Baltimore (96 percent), and San Antonio(73 percent).

The Obama administration does not care about the rule of law, as it claims here:

“As Secretary Johnson has consistently said, our border is not open to illegal immigration, and if individuals come here illegally, do not qualify for asylum or other relief, they will be sent back consistent with our laws and our values,”

If it did, it would not try to intentionally deny thousands of vulnerable children and mothers their constitutional right to due process so that it could achieve their removal to deter other future vulnerable children and mothers from fleeing to the United States for political purposes. 

These raids are illegal because they are not consistent with our laws, specifically the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution’s due process clause.

The truth is that Obama’s sole concern is and always has been “to send the message to would-be crossers that they won’t be allowed to remain in the U.S.” even if they would qualify for asylum or other relief to remain in the U.S. 



ICE Leaders: We Will Bring Car Seats to Arrest Families

In light of the disturbing news that the Obama administration has planned ICE deportation raids against Central American mothers and their young children, here is an audio clip of a senior ICE official from a secret meeting in September of 2014:

For us, the next thing we would have to do is send fugitive teams with car seats to arrest families, and that’s the last thing we want to do…

Obama, it appears, is more bent on rounding up toddlers for deportation than his own henchmen.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 48 other followers