Source: https://ielrblog.com/index.php/category/immigration/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 19:05:17+00:00

Document:
On Friday, July 13, the United Nations took steps towards completing an agreement focused on improving human rights for global migrants. The agreement, known as the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, was first adopted as an initiative at the United Nations General Assembly in New York in September 2016, and at the time was heavily favored by all 193 members. The first major goal was to protect the rights of refugees and migrants in ways such as assuring safe resettlement and helping them get access to employment and education. Since then, it has grown into a global compact that promises to improve the way governments handle migration, focusing in particular on the human rights of migrants. The agreement has been in development since April 2017 and was completed last Friday. It is expected to be formally adopted this December at a meeting in Marrakesh, Morocco.
The pact has garnered attention not only because it addresses an important global issue, but also because the United States is no longer involved in its negotiations. Although the U.S. had been part of the talks since the beginning and President Obama had been a strong supporter of the initial declaration, the Trump administration abruptly ended the United States’ involvement last December, indicating that the agreement would hinder its power to control its borders. Migrants rights advocates noted that the decision to withdraw appeared to reinforce the image of the Trump administration as isolationist. They cautioned that the refusal to participate was “shortsighted and counterproductive”. However, administration officials countered that its decision was merely a defense of American sovereignty and national security, not an unwillingness to cooperate with other countries. Still, the decision was celebrated by President Trump’s base as well as several conservative websites, many of whom have demanded stricter laws against immigration since the campaign trail.
The completion of the Global Compact comes in the midst of a major immigration crisis in the United States. The Trump administration has faced bipartisan uproar due to a policy set forth by the government in May 2018 that required DHS officials to separate asylum seekers from their children at the border. The policy was vehemently decried and has now been effectively ended by a federal judge. This lack of regard for the basic rights of migrants seems to confirm the initial fears of migrants rights advocates when the U.S. pulled out of the decision-making process. Back in December when the decision was first announced, Bill Frelick, an official at Human Rights Watch, said that the United States had demonstrated “a callous disregard for the lives of migrants and jaw-dropping irresponsibility toward the community of nations”. This comment was echoed by Kevin Appleby, the international migration policy direction at an immigration rights advocacy group, who observed that the Trump administration seemed to care more about the whims of its base “than working with the world on a pressing global issue”.
On June 26, 2018, the United States Supreme Court ended the great debate by ruling that President Trump’s travel ban is constitutional and within his power to implement. In September 2017, President Trump issued Proclamation No. 9645 after the first two versions of the travel ban were ruled unconstitutional for multiple reasons, most importantly being racial discrimination. Speculation is mounting as to the effects this decision will have on U.S. national security and foreign policy.
The current version suspends entry from certain individuals from Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen. Each country has varying degrees of suspension, meaning some countries are banned as immigrants and nonimmigrants, while others are just banned as immigrants but with multiple exceptions.
In a 5-4 decision, Chief Justice Roberts reasoned that the President lawfully exercised his power under §1182(f) of the Aliens and Nationality Act because the act conveys a large degree of deference to the President in such matters. It gives the President the power to decide whether and when to suspend entry whenever he finds that the entry of aliens would be detrimental to the national interest. In addressing the plaintiff’s racial animus argument, the majority stated that the issue they dealt with was the significance of the President’s alleged racial statements in reviewing a Presidential directive, neutral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility. The majority held that there is persuasive evidence that the ban has a legitimate grounding in national security concerns, apart from any religious hostility, and is therefore justified.
The U.S. judiciary already grants the U.S. government a large degree of deference in national security matters, but that appears to have increased even more. The case sets the precedent that public and political statements made by the President shall not outweigh the language and structure of the proclamation itself. While this principle exemplifies the judiciary’s responsibility to remain politically neutral, it could have national security and foreign policy ramifications. According to an amicus brief approved by 26 retired generals and admirals, the ban harms U.S. national security because it perpetuates hostility towards Muslims and Muslim majority countries. It could help increase anti-U.S. propaganda by terrorists within the countries on the list and undermine relationships with locals. Former national security and foreign policy officials wrote a separate amicus brief stating that the government has failed to produce any national security reason for the ban. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, as Congress designated these countries as posing national security threats in the past.
A major issue that has yet to be fully addressed is the impact this decision will have on refugees attempting to enter the U.S. Under the U.N. Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, signatory countries cannot turn away refugees who have a legitimate fear of persecution within their home country. According to Chris Boian, a spokesman for the U.N. refugee agency in the U.S., “refugees will still be admitted under the vigorous vetting requirements,” including those from countries on the travel ban list. So the decision itself will not affect the inflow of refugees, but combining it with the reduction in the number of refugees the U.S. will accept, the backlog of refugee cases, and the four month suspension of the U.S. refugee program, it appears there could be a moderate to severe effect.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions stated that this decision will allow the current President, and future ones, to protect the American people. Given the amount of deference granted to the President in matters such as this, the Attorney General’s statement appears true. But Justice Sotomayor foresees a darker result. In her dissent she equated this decision to the decision in Korematsu to detain Japanese-American citizens during WWII, implying that the amount of deference provides Presidents with ways to enact morally repugnant acts such as Korematsu. The exact effects remain to be seen, but this decision will either be celebrated in years to come, or haunt the U.S. Supreme Court.
 Trump v. Hawaii, No. 17-965, 2018 WL 3116337, slip op. at 2 (U.S. June 26, 2018).
 Griffiths, What it’s Like in the 7 Countries on Trump’s Travel Ban List, CNN Politics (June 27, 2018 6:32 A.M.) https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/27/politics/trump-travel-ban-countries-intl/index.html.
 Stottlemyer, Ex-Military, Intelligence, and Foreign Policy Officials: Travel Ban Harms National Security, JUST SECURITY (Apr. 4, 2018) https://www.justsecurity.org/54506/ex-military-intelligence-foreign-policy-officials-travel-ban-harms-national-security/.
 Trump v. Hawaii, No. 17-965, 2018 WL 3116337, slip op. at 3 (U.S. June 26, 2018).
 Amman, Supreme Court’s Nod to Travel Ban Heightens Refugee Worries, abcNEWS (June 27, 2018, 12:06 P.M.) https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/supreme-court-nod-travel-ban-crushes-syria-refugees-56197209.
 Stohr, Supreme Court Upholds Trump Travel Ban, Giving President Win on Signature Issue, Bloomberg (June 26, 2018, 10:17 A.M.) https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-26/trump-travel-ban-upheld-by-u-s-supreme-court-jivrzei4.
Family Separation at the Border: Running Afoul of International Law?
In April, the New York Times reported that U.S. immigration officials had separated more than 700 migrant children from adults claiming to be their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border. The policy was met with widespread criticism once revealed, with critics denouncing it as immoral, inhumane, and even unconstitutional. “It’s hard to conceive of a policy more horrific than intentionally separating children from their parents as a form of punishment,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said in a statement. “This is not what the United States of America should be.” In yet another rebuke of the policy, a district judge in San Diego denied a motion last week to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement over the child separations.
Of these international agreements, the United States has only signed and ratified the ICCPR. However, the extent to which the principle of family unity features in international human rights documents suggests that the principle may be considered part of the canon of customary international law. While states have a legitimate authority to control the flow of immigrants and asylum-seekers over their borders, they also have a duty to honor their international human rights commitments.
“Governing Rule 8: Respect for Family Unity,” in Sohn, L. B., & Buergenthal, T. (Eds.). (1992, October). The movement of persons across borders. American Society of International Law.
Hathaway, James C. The rights of refugees under international law. Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Starr, S., & Brilmayer, L. (2003). Family separation as a violation of international law. Berkeley J. Int’l L., 21, 213.
Van Bueren, Geraldine. The international law on the rights of the child. Vol. 35. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1998.
On June 11, Attorney General Jeff Sessions vacated a 2016 decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals that could have significant consequences for victims of domestic abuse and gang violence who are applying for asylum in the United States. The board had ruled in favor of a woman from El Salvador who had applied for asylum in order to seek refuge from her abusive husband. Typically a decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals is binding as the board is considered the highest government authority on immigration law. However, since all immigration courts are part of the Department of Justice, the attorney general has the power to assign himself cases. Cases vacated by the attorney general usually end up back in the federal appeals court. In the case of this particular Salvadoran woman, it will return to the immigration judge who initially denied her application. If the judge denies her again, she will be able to appeal once more.
In order to successfully appeal for asylum in the United States, applicants have to demonstrate that they suffered from persecution in their home countries on the basis of “race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or their particular social group”. Victims of domestic violence usually claim persecution under the last category, a particular social group. If so, they must “share a common immutable characteristic” with other members of their group, and their group must be “socially distinct within the society in question”. Furthermore, if their persecutor is not affiliated with the government, the asylum seeker must prove their government is unwilling or unable to protect them from said persecutor. After the 2016 decision granting asylum to the Salvadoran woman fleeing domestic violence, judges in the Obama administration followed the precedent that allowed other woman to claim similar fears of domestic abuse. Attorney General Sessions’ decision to vacate this ruling will make it significantly harder for those sorts of arguments to prevail in immigration court.
As a reason for his decision, Jeff Sessions emphasized that “the asylum statute does not provide redress for all misfortune” and that although he sympathized with the woman involved, the original language did not intend for “membership in a particular social group” to become a catch-all for unfortunate situations. Furthermore, he believes that the criteria for granting asylum has become too broad and that narrowing the scope of what constitutes a credible fear would help with the growing backlog of 700,000 cases currently making their way through the courts. Critics of the Trump administration, on the other hand, suggest that this is just another effort to deter illegal immigrants from coming to the United States by making the process of applying for asylum more difficult. Furthermore, they complain that this decision has overturned years of work towards providing abused women better protection under the law. Others suggest that Sessions’ intervention in this case was an abuse of power, and that immigration courts need to be independent from the Department of Justice.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled that part of a federal law used to deport immigrants who have been convicted of aggravated felonies is unconstitutionally vague, and thus violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The case, Sessions v. Dimaya, concerns the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
The respondent in the case, James Dimaya, is a lawful permanent resident with two convictions of first-degree burglary under California law. The DOJ determined that burglaries constituted “crimes of violence,” and that Dimaya was thus subject to deportation under the INA. The immigration court had ruled that Dimaya was deportable based on the crime of violence grounds.
Dimaya appealed. While his appeal was pending, the Supreme Court ruled in Johnson v. United States. the residual clause of another law, the Armed Career Criminals Act (ACCA), unconstitutionally vague, and thus in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The Ninth Circuit, citing the Johnson decision as precedent, ruled the residual clause of the INA unconstitutionally vague as well.
Now, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision that has Justice Neil Gorsuch siding with the liberal wing of the Court, has affirmed the Ninth Circuit’s ruling.
I[n sum, §16(b) has the same “[t]wo features” that “conspire[d] to make [ACCA’s residual clause] unconstitutionally vague.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 5). It too “requires a court to picture the kind of conduct that the crime involves in ‘the ordinary case,’ and to judge whether that abstraction presents” some not-well-specified-yet-sufficiently-large degree of risk. Id., at ___ (slip op., at 4). The result is that §16(b) produces, just as ACCA’s residual clause did, “more unpredictability and arbitrariness than the Due Process Clause tolerates.
16(b), much like the ACCA, requires still an even further degree of abstraction – it requires the judge to determine whether the imagined “ordinary case” presented a sufficient – but still undefined — degree of risk.
Kagan’s opinion was joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Neil Gorsuch, in part.
Roberts was joined by Justices Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito.
While Gorsuch’s alignment with the liberal wing of the Court may seem surprising, it is consistent with his originalist philosophy, as well as that of his predecessor, Justice Antonin Scalia. Click To Tweet Justice Scalia also sided with the liberal wing of the Court in Johnson v. United States. Writing for the majority In Johnson, Scalia argues: “We are convinced that the indeterminacy of the wide-ranging inquiry required by the residual clause both denies fair notice to defendants and invites arbitrary enforcement by judges. Increasing a defendant’s sentence under the clause denies due process of law.” Gorsuch, in his concurring judgement in Dimaya, echoes his originalist counterpart.
The Trump administration’s focus on immigration enforcement means the Court will likely intervene in more criminal removal cases in the near future. The Roberts Court immigration record has been mixed thus far, with the narrow majority ruling to curb immigrants’ rights in some cases, such as Jennings v. Rodrieguez, and expanding immigrants’ rights in others, as they did this week in Dimaya.

References: §1182
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §16
 §16
 v. 
 v.