Podcasts about immigrant responsibility act

A weekly magazine-style radio show featuring the voices and stories of Asians and Pacific Islanders from all corners of our community. The show is produced by a collective of media makers, deejays, and activists. Tonight Producer Swati Rayasam showcases a community panel of how discriminatory exclusion policies during times of heightened fears of national security and safety have threatened our communities in the past, and how the activities of the current administration threaten our core constitutional rights, raising the specter of politicization and polarization of citizenship, immigration visas, naturalization rights, and the right to free speech.   Deport. Exclude. Revoke. Imprison – “Wong Kim Ark is for All of Us” SHOW TRANSCRIPT Swati Rayasam: You are tuned in to APEX Express on KPFA. My name is Swati Rayasam and I'm back as your special producer for this episode. Tonight we have an incredible community panel titled Deport. Exclude. Revoke. Imprison. This panel explores the history of how discriminatory exclusion policies during times of heightened fears of national security and [00:01:00] safety have threatened our communities in the past, and how the activities of the current administration threaten our core constitutional rights, raising the specter of politicization and polarization of citizenship, immigration visas, naturalization rights, and the right to free speech. I'll pass it on to UC Berkeley Ethnic Studies Professor Mike Chang to kick us off. Mike and Harvey: We're starting on Berkeley time, right on time at three 10, and I want to introduce Harvey Dong. Harvey Dong: Okay. The sponsors for today's event include, AADS- Asian American and Diaspora studies program, uc, Berkeley, Asian American Research Center, the Center for Race and Gender Department of Ethnic Studies- all part of uc, Berkeley. Off campus, we have the following community groups. Chinese for Affirmative Action, Asian Law Caucus, [00:02:00] Asian Prisoners Support Committee, and East Wind Books. Okay, so that's, quite a few in terms of coalition people coming together. My name is Harvey Dong and I'm also a lecturer in the AADS program and part of the ethnic studies department. I can say that I exist here as the result of birthright citizenship won by Ancestor Wong Kim Ark in 1898. Otherwise, I would not be here. We want to welcome everyone here today, for this important panel discussion titled: Deport, Exclude, Revoke, Imprison – Immigration and citizenship rights during crisis. Yes, we are in a deep crisis today. The Chinese characters for crisis is way G in Mandarin or way gay in [00:03:00] Cantonese, which means danger and opportunity. We are in a moment of danger and at the same time in a moment of opportunity. Our communities are under attack from undocumented, documented, and those with citizenship. We see urgency in coming together. In 1898, the US Supreme Court case, US versus Wong Kim Ark held that under the 14th Amendment birthright, citizenship applies to all people born in the United States. Regardless of their race or their parents' national origin or immigration status. On May 15th this year, the Supreme Court will hear a President Donald Trump's request to implement an executive order that will end birthright citizenship already before May 15th, [00:04:00] deportations of US citizen children are taking place. Recently, three US citizen children, one 2-year-old with cancer have been deported with their undocumented parents. The numbers of US citizen children are much higher being deported because it's less covered in the press. Unconstitutional. Yes, definitely. And it's taking place now. Also today, more than 2.7 million southeast Asian Americans live in the US but at least 16,000 community members have received final orders of deportation, placing their lives and families in limbo. This presents a mental health challenge and extreme economic hardship for individuals and families who do not know whether their next day in the US will be their last. Wong Kim Ark's [00:05:00] struggle and the lessons of Wong Kim Ark, continue today. His resistance provides us with a grounding for our resistance. So they say deport, exclude, revoke, imprison. We say cease and desist. You can say that every day it just seems like the system's gone amuk. There's constant attacks on people of color, on immigrants and so forth. And our only solution, or the most important solution is to resist, legally resist, but also to protest, to demand cease and desist. Today brings together campus and community people. We want you all to be informed because if you're uninformed , you can't do anything. Okay? You have to know where things are at. It's nothing new. What they're trying to do, in 1882, [00:06:00] during times of economic crisis, they scapegoated Asian Americans. Today there's economic, political crisis. And the scapegoating continues. They're not doing anything new. You know, it's old stuff, but we have to realize that, and we have to look at the past in terms of what was done to fight it and also build new solidarities today. Wong Kim Ark did not take his situation sitting down. He went through, lots of obstacles. He spent three months in Angel Island he was arrested after he won his case because he was constantly being harassed wherever he went. His kids when they came over were also, spotted as being Wong Kim Ark's, children, and they too had to spend months at Angel Island. So Wong Kim Ark did not take his situation sitting down. We need to learn from him today. Our [00:07:00] next, special guest is Mr. Norman Wong, a good friend of mine. He was active here in the third world Liberation Front strike that led to ethnic studies. He did a lots of work for the development of Asian American studies and we've been out in touch for about, what, 40 years? So I'm really happy that he's able to come back to Berkeley and to talk about yourself, if you wish, maybe during the Q and a, but to talk about , the significance of your great-grandfather's case. Okay, so Norman Wong, let's give him a hand. Norman Wong: Hello, my name's Norman Wong. I'm the great grandson, Wong Kim Ark. Wong Kim Ark was [00:08:00] born in the USA, like my great-grandfather. I, too was born American in the same city, San Francisco, more than 75 years after him. We are both Americans, but unlike him, my citizenship has never been challenged. His willingness to stand up and fight made the difference for his struggles, my humble thanks. Wong Kim Ark however, was challenged more than once. In late 1889 as an American, he traveled to China in July, 1890. He returned to his birth city. He had his papers and had no problems with reentry. In 1895, after a similar trip, he was stopped from disembarking and was placed into custody for five months aboard ship in port. [00:09:00] Citizenship denied, the reason the Chinese exclusion Act 1882. He had to win this case in district court, provide $250 bail and then win again in the United States Supreme Court, March 28th, 1898. Only from these efforts, he was able to claim his citizenship granted by birthright from the 14th Amendment and gain his freedom. That would not be the last challenge to his being American. My mother suffered similar treatment. She like my great-grandfather, was born in America. In 1942, she was forced with her family and thousands of other Japanese Americans to relocation camps an experience unspoken by her family. [00:10:00] I first learned about Japanese American internment from history books. Executive order 9066 was the command. No due process, citizenship's rights stripped. She was not American enough. Now we have executive order 14160. It is an attack on birthright citizenship. We cannot let this happen. We must stand together. We are a nation of immigrants. What kind of nation are we to be with stateless children? Born to no country. To this, I say no. We as Americans need to embrace each other and [00:11:00] cherish each new life. Born in the USA. Thank you. Harvey Dong: Thank you, Norman. And Annie Lee, will moderate, the following panel, involving campus and community representatives who will be sharing their knowledge and experience. Annie Lee, Esquire is an attorney. She's also the, managing director of policy for Chinese Affirmative Action, and she's also, heavily involved in the birthright citizenship issue. Annie Lee: Thank you so much Harvey for that very warm welcome and thank you again to Norman for your remarks. I think it's incredible that you're speaking up at this moment, to preserve your ancestors' legacy because it impacts not just you and him, but all of us [00:12:00] here. So thank you. As Harvey said, my name is Annie Lee and I have this honor of working with this amazing panel of esteemed guest we have today. So I will ask each of them to introduce themselves. And I will start, because I would love to hear your name, pronouns. Title and organization as well as your personal or professional relationship with the US Immigration System. So my name's Annie. I use she her pronouns. I'm the managing Director of policy at Chinese for Affirmative Action, which is a non-profit based in San Francisco Chinatown. We provide direct services to the monolingual working class Chinese community, and also advocate for policies to benefit all Asian Americans. My relationship with the immigration system is I am the child of two Chinese immigrants who did not speak English. And so I just remember lots of time spent on the phone when I was a kid with INS, and then it became U-S-C-I-S just trying to ask them what happened to [00:13:00] a family member's application for naturalization, for visas so I was the interpreter for them growing up and even today. I will pass it to Letty. Leti Volpp: Hi everybody. Thank you so much, Annie. Thank you Harvey. Thank you, Norman. That was profoundly moving to hear your remarks and I love the way that you framed our conversation, Harvey. I'm Leti Volpp. I am the Robert d and Leslie k Raven, professor of Law and Access to Justice at the Berkeley Law, school. I'm also the director of the campus wide , center for Race and Gender, which is a legacy of the Third World Liberation Front, and the 1999, student movement, that led to the creation of the center. I work on immigration law and citizenship theory, and I am the daughter, second of four, children of my mother who was an immigrant from China, and my father who was an immigrant [00:14:00] from Germany. So I'll pass it. Thank you. Ke Lam: Thank you. Thank you all for being here. Thank you, Norman. So my name's Key. I go by he, him pronouns or Nghiep “Ke” Lam, is my full name. I work for an organization called Asian Prison Support Committee. It's been around for like over two decades now, and it started behind three guys advocating for ethics study, Asian and Pacific Islander history. And then it was starting in San Quent State Prison. All three of them pushed for ethics study, hard and the result is they all was put into solitary confinement. And many years later, after all three got out, was Eddie Zang, Mike Romero and Mike no. And when they got out, Eddie came back and we pushed for ethics study again, and we actually got it started in 2013. And it's been going on to today. Then the programs is called Roots, restoring our Original True Self. So reconnecting with who we are. And one of Eddie's main, mottos that really stuck with me. He said, we need to all connect to our chi, right? And I'm like, okay, I understand what chi is, and he said no. He [00:15:00] said, you need to connect to your culture, your history, which result to equal your identity, who you are as a person. So, the more we study about our history and our culture, like, birthright citizen, it empower us to know, who we are today. Right? And also part of that is to how do we take down the veil of shame in our community, the veil of trauma that's impacting our community as well. We don't talk about issue that impact us like immigration. So I'm a 1.5 generation. So I was born in Vietnam from Chinese family that migrant from China to Vietnam started business after the fall of Vietnam War. We all got kicked out but more than that, I am directly impacted because I am a stranded deportee, somebody that got their, legal status taken away because of criminal conviction. And as of any moment now, I could actually be taken away. So I live in that, right at that threshold of like uncertainty right now. And the people I work with, which are hundreds of people, are fixing that same uncertainty.[00:16:00] Annie Lee: Thank you, Ke. I'm gonna pass it to our panelists who are joining us virtually, including Bun. Can you start and then we'll pass it to Chris after. Bun: Hey everybody, thank you for having me. My name is Bun. I'm the co-director of Asian Prison Support Committee. I'm also, 1.5 generation former incarcerated and under, direct impact of immigration. Christopher Lapinig: Hi everyone. My name is Christopher Lapinig, my pronouns are he, him and Sha. I am a senior staff attorney on the Democracy and National Initiatives Team at Asian Law Caucus, which you may know is the country's first and oldest legal aid in civil rights organization, dedicated to serving, low income immigrant and underserved AAPI communities. In terms of my connection to the immigration system, I am, I also am a beneficiary of a birthright citizenship, and my parents are both immigrants from the Philippines. I was born in New York City. My [00:17:00] extended family spans both in the US and the Philippines. After graduating law school and clerking, my fellowship project was focused on providing litigation and immigration services to, survivors of labor trafficking in the Filipino community. While working at Asian Americans Advancing Justice Los Angeles, I also was engaged in, class action litigation, challenging the first Trump administration's practices, detaining immigrants in the Vietnamese and Cambodian communities. Annie Lee: Thank you, Chris. Thank you Bun. Let's start off by talking about birthright citizenship since it's a big topic these days. On the very, very first day of Trump's administration, he issued a flurry of executive orders, including one that would alter birthright citizenship. But I wanna take us back to the beginning because why do we have this right? It is a very broad right? If you were born in the United States, you are an American citizen. Where does that come from? So I wanna pose the first question to Letty to talk about the [00:18:00] origins of birthright citizenship., Leti Volpp: Very happy to. So what's being fought about is a particular clause in the Constitution and the 14th Amendment, which says, all persons born are naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. Okay, so that's the text. There's been a very long understanding of what this text means, which says that regardless of the immigration status of one's parents, all children born here are entitled to birthright citizenship with three narrow exceptions, which I will explain. So the Trump administration executive order, wants to exclude from birthright citizenship, the children of undocumented immigrants, and the children of people who are here on lawful temporary visas. So for example, somebody here on an [00:19:00] F1 student visa, somebody on a H one B worker visa, somebody here is a tourist, right? And basically they're saying we've been getting this clause wrong for over a hundred years. And I will explain to you why I think they're making this very dubious argument. Essentially when you think about where the 14th amendment came from, in the United States, in the Antebellum era, about 20% of people were enslaved and there were lots of debates about citizenship. Who should be a citizen? Who could be a citizen? And in 1857, the Supreme Court issued a decision in a case called Dread Scott, where they said that no person who was black, whether free or enslaved, could ever be a citizen. The Civil War gets fought, they end slavery. And then the question arose, well, what does this mean for citizenship? Who's a citizen of the United States? And in 1866, Congress [00:20:00] enacts a law called the Civil Rights Act, which basically gave rights to people that were previously denied and said that everybody born in the United States is a birthright citizen. This gets repeated in the 14th Amendment with the very important interpretation of this clause in Norman's great-grandfather's case, the case of Wong Kim Ark. So this came before the Supreme Court in 1898. If you think about the timing of this, the federal government had basically abandoned the reconstruction project, which was the project of trying to newly enfranchised, African Americans in the United States. The Supreme Court had just issued the decision, Plessy versus Ferguson, which basically legitimated the idea that, we can have separate, but equal, as a doctrine of rights. So it was a nation that was newly hostile to the goals of the Reconstruction Congress, and so they had this case come before them, whereas we heard [00:21:00] from Norman, we have his great-grandfather born in San Francisco, Chinatown, traveling back and forth to China. His parents having actually left the United States. And this was basically presented as a test case to the Supreme Court. Where the government tried to argue, similar to what the Trump administration is arguing today, that birthright citizenship, that clause does not guarantee universal birthright citizenship saying that children of immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because their parents are also not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The Supreme Court took over a year to decide the case. They knew that it would be controversial, and the majority of the court said, this provision is clear. It uses universal language. It's intended to apply to children of all immigrants. One of the things that's interesting about [00:22:00] what the, well I'll let Chris actually talk about what the Trump administration, is trying to do, but let me just say that in the Wong Kim Ark decision, the Supreme Court makes very clear there only three narrow exceptions to who is covered by the 14th Amendment. They're children of diplomats. So for example, if the Ambassador of Germany is in the United States, and, she has a daughter, like her daughter should not become a birthright citizen, right? This is why there's diplomatic immunity. Why, for example, in New York City, there are millions of dollars apparently owed to the city, in parking tickets by ambassadors who don't bother to pay them because they're not actually subject to the jurisdiction in the United States. Okay? Second category, children of Native Americans who are seen as having a sovereign relationship of their own, where it's like a nation within a nation, kind of dynamic, a country within a country. And there were detailed conversations in the congressional debate about the [00:23:00] 14th Amendment, about both of these categories of people. The third category, were children born to a hostile invading army. Okay? So one argument you may have heard people talk about is oh, I think of undocumented immigrants as an invading army. Okay? If you look at the Wong Kim Ark decision, it is very clear that what was intended, by this category of people were a context where the hostile invading army is actually in control of that jurisdiction, right? So that the United States government is not actually governing that space so that the people living in it don't have to be obedient, to the United States. They're obedient to this foreign power. Okay? So the thread between all three of these exceptions is about are you having to be obedient to the laws of the United States? So for example, if you're an undocumented immigrant, you are subject to being criminally prosecuted if you commit a crime, right? Or [00:24:00] you are potentially subjected to deportation, right? You have to obey the law of the United States, right? You are still subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Okay? But the Trump administration, as we're about to hear, is making different arguments. Annie Lee: Thank you so much, Leti for that historical context, which I think is so important because, so many different communities of color have contributed to the rights that we have today. And so what Leti is saying here is that birthright citizenship is a direct result of black liberation and fighting for freedom in the Civil War and making sure that they were then recognized as full citizens. And then reinforced, expanded, by Wong Kim Ark. And now we are all beneficiaries and the vast majority of Americans get our citizenship through birth. Okay? That is true for white people, black people. If you're born here, you get your ci. You don't have to do anything. You don't have to go to court. You don't have to say anything. You are a US citizen. And now as Leti referenced, there's this fringe legal theory that, thankfully we've got lawyers like [00:25:00] Chris who are fighting this. So Chris, you're on the ALC team, one of many lawsuits against the Trump administration regarding this unlawful executive order. Can you tell us a little bit about the litigation and the arguments, but I actually really want you to focus on what are the harms of this executive order? Sometimes I think particularly if you are a citizen, and I am one, sometimes we take what we have for granted and you don't even realize what citizenship means or confers. So Chris, can you talk about the harms if this executive order were to go through? Christopher Lapinig: Yeah. As Professor Volpp sort of explained this executive order really is an assault on a fundamental constitutional right that has existed for more than a hundred years at this point, or, well, about 125 years. And if it is allowed to be implemented, the harms would really be devastating and far reach. So first, you know, children born in the us, the [00:26:00] parents without permanent status, as permissible said, would be rendered effectively stateless, in many cases. And these are of course, children, babies who have never known any other home, yet they would be denied the basic rights of citizen. And so the order targets a vast range of families, and not just undocument immigrants, but also those with work visas, student visas, humanitarian productions like TPS, asylum seekers, fleeing persecution, DACA recipients as well. And a lot of these communities have deep ties to Asian American community. To our history, and of course are, essential part, of our social fabric. In practical terms, children born without birthright citizenship would be denied access to healthcare through Medicaid, through denied access to snap nutritional assistance, even basic IDs like social security numbers, passports. And then as they grow older, they'd be barred from voting, serving on juries and even [00:27:00] working. And then later on in life, they might be, if they, are convicted of a crime and make them deportable, they could face deportation to countries that they never stepped, foot off basically. And so this basically is this executive order threatened at risk, creating exactly what the drafters of the 14th Amendment wanted to prevent the creation of a permanent underclass of people in the United States. It'll just get amplified over time. If you can imagine if there's one generation of people born without citizenship, there will be a second generation born and a third and fourth, and it'll just get amplified over time. And so it truly is just, hard to get your mind around exactly what the impact of this EO would be. Annie Lee: Thanks, Chris. And where are we in the litigation right now? Harvey referenced, a hearing at the Supreme Court on May 15th, but, tell us a little bit about the injunction and the arguments on the merits and when that can, when we can expect [00:28:00] that. Christopher Lapinig: Yeah, so there were a number of lawsuits filed immediately after, the administration issued its exec order on January 20th. Asian Law Caucus we filed with the ACLU Immigrant Rights Project. Literally we were the first lawsuit, literally hours after the executive order was issued. By early February, federal judges across the country had issued nationwide preliminary injunctions blocking implementation of the order. Our case is actually not a nationwide injunction. And so there're basically, I believe three cases that are going up to the Supreme Court. And, the Trump administration appealed to various circuit courts to try to undo these injunctions. But all circuit courts upheld the injunctive relief and and so now the Supreme Court is going to be hearing arguments on May 15th. And so it has not actually ruled on whether or not the executive order is constitutional, but it's going to. I mean, it remains to be seen exactly what they're going to decide but may [00:29:00] 15th is the next date is the big date on our calendar. Annie Lee: Yeah. So the Trump administration is arguing that these judges in a particular district, it's not fair if they get to say that the entire country, is barred from receiving this executive order. Is that procedurally correct. Judges, in order to consider whether to grants an injunction, they have a whole battery of factors that they look at, including one, which is like likelihood of winning on the merits. Because if something is unconstitutional, it's not really great to say, yeah, you can let this executive order go through. And then like later when the court cases finally worked their way, like a year later, pull back from that. And so that's, it's very frustrating to see this argument. And it's also unfair and would be very messy if the states that had republican Attorneys General who did not litigate, why would you allow the executive order to go forward in those red states and not in these blue state? It really, I would say federalism run terribly amuck. Swati Rayasam: [00:30:00] You are tuned in to APEX Express on 94.1 KPFA, 89.3 KPFB in Berkeley,. 88.1. KFCF in Fresno and online@kpfa.org. Annie Lee: But anyway, let's see back off from the actual case because I think what we're really talking about and what Chris has alluded to is, these cases about birthright citizenship, all the immigration policy is essentially determining who belongs here. Who belongs here. That's what immigration policy is at its heart. And we see that the right wing is weaponizing that question, who belongs here? And they are going after very vulnerable populations, undocumented people, people who are formerly incarcerated. So Bun if you can talk about how, is the formerly incarcerated community, like targeted immigrants, targeted for deportation? What is going on with this community that I feel like most people might not know about? Thank [00:31:00] you. Bun: Yes. For our folks that are incarcerated and former incarcerated, we are the easiest target for deportation because we are in custody and in California, CDCR colludes with ICE and on the day that we are to be paroled they're at the door, cuffing us up and taking us to detention. I'm glad to hear Harvey say, this is a time of fear for us and also opportunity. Right now, our whole community, the Southeast Asian community, mainly are very effective with immigration. In the past 25 years, mostly it was the Cambodian community that was being targeted and deported. At this moment, they are targeting, all of the Southeast Asian community, which historically was never deported because of the politics and agreements, of the Vietnamese community. And now the Laos community thats more concerning, that are being targeted for deportation. Trump have opened a new opportunity for us as a community to join [00:32:00] together and understand each other's story, and understand each other's fear. Understand where we're going about immigration. From birthright to crimmagration. A lot of times folks that are under crimmigration are often not spoken about because of our cultural shame, within our own family and also some of our community member felt safe because the political agreements. Now that everybody's in danger, we could stand together and understand each other's issue and support each other because now we could see that history has repeated itself. Again, we are the scapegoat. We are here together fighting the same issue in different circumstances, but the same issue. Annie Lee: But let me follow up. What are these, historical agreements that you're talking about that used to feel like used to at least shield the community that now aren't in place anymore? Bun: Yeah. After the Clinton administration, uh, passed the IRA [immigration reform act] a lot of Southeast Asian nations were asked to [00:33:00] take their nationals back. Even though we as 1.5 generation, which are the one that's mostly impacted by this, had never even stepped into the country. Most of us were born in a refugee camp or we're too young to even remember where they came from. Countries like Cambodian folded right away because they needed the financial aid and whatever, was offering them and immediately a three with a MOU that they will take their citizens since the early two thousands. Vietnam had a stronger agreement, which, they would agree to only take folks that immigrated here after 1995 and anybody before 1995, they would not take, and Laos have just said no until just a few months ago. Laos has said no from when the, uh, the act was passed in 1995, the IRRIRA. Mm-hmm. So the big change we have now is Vietnam had signed a new MOU saying that they will take folks after 1995 [00:34:00] in the first administration and more recently, something that we never thought, happened so fast, was Laos agreeing to take their citizen back. And then the bigger issue about our Laos community is, it's not just Laos folks. It's the Hmong folks, the Myan folks, folks, folks that are still in danger of being returned back 'cause in the Vietnam War, they colluded and supported the Americans in the Vietnam War and were exiled out and kicked out, and were hunted down because of that. So, at this moment, our folks are very in fear, especially our loud folks, not knowing what's gonna happen to 'em. Ke Lam: So for folks that don't know what IRR means it means, illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. It actually happened after the Oklahoma bombing, which was caused by a US citizen, a white US citizen. Yeah. But immigration law came out of it. That's what's crazy about it. Annie Lee: Can you tell us, how is APSC advocating to protect the community right now because you [00:35:00] are vulnerable? Ke Lam: So we had to censor a lot of our strategies. At first we used to use social media as a platform to show our work and then to support our community. But the government use that as a target to capture our people. So we stopped using social media. So we've been doing a lot of on the ground movement, such as trying to get local officials to do resolutions to push Governor Newsom to party more of our community members. The other thing is we hold pardon workshops, so try and get folks to get, either get a pardon or vacate their sentence. So commute their sentence to where it become misdemeanor is not deportable anymore. Support letters for our folks writing support letters to send to the governor and also to city official, to say, Hey, please help pardon our community. I think the other thing we are actually doing is solidarity work with other organizations, African American community as well as Latin communities because we've been siloed for so long and we've been banned against each other, where people kept saying like, they've taken all our job when I grew up. That's what they told us, right? [00:36:00] But we, reality that's not even true. It was just a wedge against our community. And then so it became the good versus bad narrative. So our advocacy is trying to change it it's called re-storying you know, so retelling our story from people that are impacted, not from people, not from the one percenters in our own community. Let's say like we're all good, do you, are there's parts of our community that like that's the bad people, right? But in reality, it affects us all. And so advocacy work is a lot of different, it comes in a lot of different shapes and forms, but definitely it comes from the community. Annie Lee: Thanks, Ke. You teed me up perfectly because there is such a good versus bad immigrant narrative that takes root and is really hard to fight against. And that's why this administration is targeting incarcerated and formerly incarcerated folks and another group that, are being targeted as people who are accused of crimes, including Venezuelan immigrants who are allegedly part of a gang. So, Leti how is the government deporting [00:37:00] people by simply accusing them of being a part of a gang? Like how is that even possible? Leti Volpp: Yeah, so one thing to think about is there is this thing called due process, right? It's guaranteed under the constitution to all persons. It's not just guaranteed to citizens. What does it mean? Procedural due process means there should be notice, there should be a hearing, there should be an impartial judge. You should have the opportunity to present evidence. You should have the opportunity to cross examinee. You should have the opportunity to provide witnesses. Right? And basically Trump and his advisors are in real time actively trying to completely eviscerate due process for everybody, right? So Trump recently said, I'm doing what I was elected to do, remove criminals from our country. But the courts don't seem to want me to do that. We cannot give everyone a trial because to do so would take without exaggeration, 200 years. And then Stephen Miller said the judicial process is for Americans. [00:38:00] Immediate deportation is for illegal aliens. Okay. Quote unquote. Right. So I think one thing to notice is, as we're hearing from all of our speakers are like the boxes, the categories into which people are put. And what's really disturbing is to witness how once somebody's put in the box of being quote unquote criminal gang banger terrorists, like the American public seems to be like, oh, okay you can do what you want to this person. There's a whole history of due process, which exists in the laws which was created. And all of these early cases actually involved Asian immigrants, right? And so first they were saying there's no due process. And then in a case called Yata versus Fisher, they said actually there is due process in deportation cases, there's regular immigration court proceedings, which accord with all of these measures of due process. There's also a procedure called expedited removal, [00:39:00] which Congress invented in the nineties where they wanted to come up with some kind of very quick way to summarily exclude people. It was motivated by a 60 Minutes episode where they showed people coming to Kennedy Airport, who didn't have any ID or visa or they had what seemed to be fake visas and they were let into the United States. And then they disappeared, right? According to the 60 Minutes episode. So basically Congress invented this procedure of, if you appear in the United States and you have no documents, or you have what an immigration inspector thinks are false documents, they can basically tell you, you can leave without this court hearing. And the only fail safe is what's called a credible fear screening. Where if you say, I want asylum, I fear persecution, I'm worried I might be tortured, then they're supposed to have the screening. And if you pass that screening, you get put in regular removal [00:40:00] proceedings. So before the Trump administration took office, these expedited removal proceedings were happening within a hundred miles of the border against people who could not show that they had been in the United States for more than two weeks. In one of his first executive orders. Trump extended this anywhere in the United States against people who cannot show they've been in the United States for more than two years. So people are recommending that people who potentially are in this situation to carry documentation, showing they've been physically in the United States for over two years. Trump is also using this Alien Enemies Act, which was basically a law Congress passed in 1798. It's only been used three times in US history it's a wartime law, right? So it was used in 1812, World War I, and World War II, and there's supposed to be a declared war between the United States and a foreign nation or government, or [00:41:00] there's an incursion threatened by a foreign nation or government, and the president makes public proclamation that all natives of this hostile nation, 14 and up shall be liable to be restrained and removed as alien enemies. Okay? So we're obviously not at war with the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, right? They have not engaged in some kind of invasion or predatory incursion into the United States, but the Trump administration is claiming that they have and saying things like, oh, they're secretly a paramilitary wing of the Venezuelan government, even as the Venezuelan government is like cracking down on them. It's not a quasi sovereign, entity. There's no diplomatic relationships between Tren de Aragua and any other government. So these are legally and factually baseless arguments. Nonetheless, the administration has been basically taking people from Venezuela on the basis of tattoos. A tattoo of a crown of a [00:42:00] rose, right? Even when experts have said there's no relationship between what Tren de Aragua does and tattoos, right? And basically just kidnapping people and shipping them to the torture prison in El Salvador. As I'm sure you know of the case of Kimber Abrego Garcia, I'm sure we'll hear more about this from Christopher. There's a very small fraction of the persons that have been sent to this prison in El Salvador who actually have any criminal history. And I will say, even if they had a criminal history, nobody should be treated in this manner and sent to this prison, right? I mean, it's unbelievable that they've been sent to this prison allegedly indefinitely. They're paying $6 million a year to hold people there. And then the United States government is saying, oh, we don't have any power to facilitate or effectuate their return. And I think there's a struggle as to what to call this. It's not just deportation. This is like kidnapping. It's rendition. And there are people, there's like a particular person like who's completely [00:43:00] disappeared. Nobody knows if they're alive or dead. There are many people in that prison. People don't know if they're alive or dead. And I'm sure you've heard the stories of people who are gay asylum seekers, right? Who are now in this situation. There are also people that have been sent to Guantanamo, people were sent to Panama, right? And so I think there questions for us to think about like, what is this administration doing? How are they trying to do this in a spectacular fashion to instill fear? As we know as well, Trump had said oh, like I think it would be great when he met with Bukele if you build four more or five more facilities. I wanna house homegrown people in El Salvador, right? So this is all the more importance that we stick together, fight together, don't, as key was saying, don't let ourselves be split apart. Like we need a big mass coalition right? Of people working together on this. Annie Lee: So thank you leti and I think you're absolutely right. These Venezuelans were kidnapped [00:44:00] in the middle of the night. I mean, 2:00 AM 3:00 AM pulled out of bed, forced to sign documents they did not understand because these documents were only available in English and they speak Spanish, put on planes sent to El Salvador, a country they've never been to. The government didn't even have to prove anything. They did not have to prove anything, and they just snatch these people and now they're disappeared. We do have, for now the rule of law. And so Chris, there are judges saying that, Kimber Abrego Garcia has to be returned. And despite these court orders, the administration is not complying. So where does that leave us, Chris, in terms of rule of law and law in general? Christopher Lapinig: Yeah. So, I'm gonna make a little personal. So I graduated from Yale Law School in 2013, and you might know some of my classmates. One of my classmates is actually now the Vice President of the United States. Oh man. [00:45:00] Bless you. As well as the second lady, Usha Vance. And a classmate of mine, a good friend Sophia Nelson, who's a trans and queer, was recently on, I believe CNN answering a question about, I believe JD Vice President Vance, was asked about the administration's sort of refusal to comply with usual orders. Yeah. As we're talking about here and JD had said something like, well, courts, judges can't tell the president what he can't do, and sophia, to their credit, said, you know, I took constitutional law with JD, and, we definitely read Marbury Versus Madison together, and that is the semial sort of Supreme Court case that established that the US Supreme Court is the ultimate decider, arbiter, interpreter, of the US Constitution. And so is basically saying, I know JD knows better. He's lying essentially, in all of his [00:46:00] communications about, judicial orders and whether or not a presidential administration has to comply , with these orders. So, to get to your question though, it is of course unprecedented. Really. It is essentially, you know, it's not, if we not already reached. The point of a constitutional crisis. It is a constitutional crisis. I think it's become clear to many of us that, democracy in the US has operated in large part, and has relied on, on, on the good faith in norms, that people are operating good faith and that presidents will comply when, a federal judge issues an injunction or a decision. It kind of leaves us in an interesting, unprecedented situation. And it means that, lawyers, we will continue to litigate and, go to court, but we can't, lawyers will not save the country or, immigrants or communities. We need to think extensively and creatively. [00:47:00] About how to ensure, that the rule of law is preserved because, this administration is not, abiding by the longstanding norms of compliance and so we have to think about, protests, advocacy, legislatively. I don't have the answers necessarily, but we can't rely on the courts to fix these problems really. Annie Lee: Oof. That was very real, Chris. Thank you. But I will say that when there is resistance, and we've seen it from students who are speaking up and advocating for what they believe is right and just including Palestinian Liberation, that there is swift retaliation. And I think that's partly because they are scared of student speech and movement and organizing. But this is a question to all of you. So if not the courts and if the administration is being incredibly retaliatory, and discriminatory in terms of viewpoint discrimination, in people and what people are saying and they're scouring our social [00:48:00] media like, Ke warns, like what can everyday people do to fight back? That's for all of you. So I don't know who, which of you wants to take it first? Ke Lam: Oh man. I say look at history, right? Even while this new president, I wanna say like, this dude is a convicted felon, right? Don't be surprised at why we country is in the way it is, because this dude's a convicted felon, a bad business person, right? And only care about the billionaires, you know? So I'm not surprised how this country's ending up the way it is 'cause it is all about money. One way that we can stand up is definitely band together, marched on the streets. It's been effective. You look at the civil right movement, that's the greatest example. Now you don't have to look too far. We can actually, when we come together, they can't fight us all. Right? It is, and this, it's like you look at even nature in the cell. When things band together, the predators cannot attack everyone. Right? They probably could hit a few of us, but in the [00:49:00] long run, we could change the law. I think another thing is we, we, as the people can march to the courts and push the courts to do the job right, despite what's going on., We had judges that been arrested for doing the right thing, right? And so, no matter what, we have to stand strong just despite the pressure and just push back. Annie Lee: Thanks, Ke. Chris? Christopher Lapinig: What this administration is doing is you know, straight out of the fascist playbook. They're working to, as we all know, shock and awe everyone, and make Americans feel powerless. Make them feel like they have no control, make them feel overwhelmed. And so I think first and foremost, take care of yourself , in terms of your health, in terms of your physical health, your mental health. Do what you can to keep yourself safe and healthy and happy. And do the same for your community, for your loved ones, your friends and family. And then once you've done that do what you can in terms of your time, treasure, [00:50:00] talent to, to fight back. Everyone has different talents, different levels of time that they can afford. But recognize that this is a marathon and not necessarily a sprint because we need everyone, in this resistance that we can get. Annie Lee: Thank you, Chris. Leti Volpp: There was a New Yorker article called, I think it was How to Be a Dissident which said, before recently many Americans, when you ask them about dissidents, they would think of far off countries. But they interviewed a lot of people who'd been dissidents in authoritarian regimes. And there were two, two things in that article that I'm taking with me among others. One of them said that in surveying like how authoritarian regimes are broken apart, like only 3.5% of the population has to oppose what's going on. The other thing was that you should find yourself a political home where you can return to frequently. It's almost like a religious or [00:51:00] spiritual practice where you go and you get refreshed and you're with like-minded people. And so I see this event, for example as doing that, and that we all need to find and nurture and foster spaces like this. Thank you. Annie Lee: Bun, do you have any parting words? Bun: Yeah. Like Ke said, to fight back, getting together, understanding issues and really uplifting, supporting, urging our own communities, to speak Up. You know, there's folks that can't speak out right now because of fear and danger, but there are folks here that can speak out and coming here learning all our situation really give the knowledge and the power to speak out for folks that can't speak down [unclear] right now. So I appreciate y'all Annie Lee: love that bun. I was gonna say the same thing. I feel like there is a special obligation for those of us who are citizens, citizens cannot be deported. Okay? Citizens have special rights based [00:52:00] on that status. And so there's a special responsibility on those of us who can speak, and not be afraid of retaliation from this government. I would also urge you all even though it's bleak at the federal level, we have state governments, we have local governments. You have a university here who is very powerful. And you have seen, we've seen that the uni that the administration backs down, sometimes when Harvard hit back, they back down and that means that there is a way to push the administration, but it does require you all putting pressure on your schools, on your local leaders, on your state leaders to fight back. My boss actually, Vin taught me this. You know, you think that politicians, lead, politicians do not lead politicians follow. Politicians follow and you all lead when you go out further, you give them cover to do the right thing. And so the farther you push and the more you speak out against this administration, the more you give them courage to do the right thing. And so you absolutely have to do that. A pardon [00:53:00] is critical. It is critical for people who are formerly incarcerated to avoid the immigration system and deportation. And so do that. Talk to your family, talk to your friends. My parents, despite being immigrants, they're kinda old school. Okay guys, they're like, you know, birthright citizenship does seem kind of like a loophole. Why should people like get like citizenship? I'm like, mom, we, I am a birthright citizen. Like, um, And I think for Asian Americans in particular, there is such a rich history of Asian American civil rights activism that we don't talk about enough, and maybe you do at Berkeley with ethnic studies and professors like Mike Chang. But, this is totally an interracial solidarity movement. We helped bring about Wong Kim Ark and there are beneficiaries of every shade of person. There's Yik wo, and I think about this all the time, which is another part of the 14th Amendment equal protection. Which black Americans fought for that in San Francisco. [00:54:00] Chinatown made real what? What does equal protection of the laws even mean? And that case was Seminole. You've got Lao versus Nichols. Another case coming out of San Francisco. Chinatown about English learner rights, the greatest beneficiary of Lao v Nichols, our Spanish speakers, they're Spanish speaking children in schools who get access to their education regardless of the language they speak. And so there are so many moments in Asian American history that we should be talking about, that we should educate our parents and our families about, because this is our moment. Now, this is another one of those times I wanna pass it to Mike and Harvey for questions, and I'm so excited to hear about them. Mike and Harvey: Wow, thank you so much. That's a amazing, panel and thank you for facilitating annie's wanna give it of a great value in terms of that spiritual home aspect. Norm how does your great grandfather's , experience in resistance, provide help for us [00:55:00] today? Norman Wong: Well, I think he was willing to do it. It only took one, if no one did it, this, we wouldn't be having the discussion because most of us would've never been here. And we need to come together on our common interests and put aside our differences because we all have differences. And if we tried, to have it our way for everything, we'll have it no way for us. We really need to, to bond and bind together and become strong as a people. And I don't mean as a racial or a national group. Mm-hmm. I mean, we're Americans now. We're Americans here think of us as joining with all Americans to make this country the way it's supposed to be. The way [00:56:00] we grew up, the one that we remember, this is not the America I grew up believing in. I'm glad he stood up. I'm proud that he did that. He did that. Him doing that gave me something that I've never had before. A validation of my own life. And so yes, I'm proud of him. Wong Kim Ark is for all of us. It's not for me to own. Yeah. Wow. Really not. Thank you so much. Wong Kim Ark is for all of us. And, and , talking about the good , that we have here and, the optimism that Harvey spoke about, the opportunity, even in a moment of substantial danger. Thank you so much everybody. Mike and Harvey: This was amazing and really appreciate sharing this space with you and, building community and solidarity. Ke Lam: But is there any, can I leave with a chant before we close off? Oh yeah. Oh yeah. Yeah. Thank you so much. So this is a chant that we use on the ground all the time. You guys probably heard it. When I said when we fight, you guys said we [00:57:00] win when we fight. We win when we fight, we win. When we fight, we win up. Swati Rayasam: Thanks so much for tuning into APEX Express. Please check out our website at kpfa.org/program/apexexpress to find out more about the show tonight and to find out how you can take direct action. We thank all of you listeners out there. Keep resisting, keep organizing, keep creating, and sharing your visions with the world. Your voices are important. APEX Express is produced by Miko Lee, along with Jalena Keene-Lee, Ayame Keene-Lee, Preeti Mangala Shekar, Anuj Vaida, Cheryl Truong, Isabel Li, Ravi Grover, and me Swati Rayasam. Thank you so much to the team at KPFA for their support, and have a good [00:58:00] night.   The post APEX Express – 6.26.25-Deport. Exclude. Revoke. Imprison – Wong Kim Ark is for All of Us appeared first on KPFA.

On today's show, LIVE on Thunderous Radio (Stream 2) https://thunderousradio.com at 4:30 pm CT, 5:30 pm ET: Not So Quiet Riot: Legacy Media go from ‘Don't believe Biden videos' to ‘Don't believe riot videos' - History.com posts 7 times Presidents have activated US Troops on American soil - military.com posts 6 times the US Military was used for riot control in the US - Anti-ICE protest in San Antonio, TX hosted by Socialist Party involved in Los Angeles Riots - Twin daughters of top Los Angeles politician arrested in ICE riots for allegedly assaulting police officer with deadly weapon - Lists of NGO's getting Fed money inciting riots - pallets of bricks show up near riot locations - Rodney King riots officer says LA mayor acted ‘too late' - Previously deported illegal facing attempted murder charge for L.A. riots - Poll shows Majority of voters back deploying National Guard to L.A. - What does the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 say about short form due process? - Immigrant shelter whistleblower asking DOJ to investigate ‘disturbing pattern' at taxpayer-funded hotels - and much more! - we'll analyze. Plus, Keeping The Faith: Supreme Court decides 9-0 Catholic Charities is religious organization - School rips down Christian student's posters, orders her to give up 'Good News' club name. And, You're No Longer Needed: Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei warns AI could eliminate 50% of entry-level office jobs. http://www.spreaker.com/show/christian-talk-that-rocks https://christiantalkthatrocks.net or http://christiantalkthatrocks.com #Trump #nationalguard #Christianpersecution #msm #terrorism #INGO's #CNN #Fox News #FBI #ICE #Socialists #Al-Qaida #illegalalien #ChineseNationals #GovernorNewsom #MayorBass #LAPDChief #LAriots #federaldeportationorders #federalmoney

The show follows a little different in light of President Trump hitting his first 100 days in office. I decided to use just one interview as the main through-line of the episode and intersperse other related news items, sound bites and comments along the way. I also felt I need some time to just talk without slogging through one news story after the other. I share how my wife do a weekly show called, “The Marriage Fit Podcast.” I also discuss how we continuously set a high-bar for our kids and how I believe Donald Trump is trying to do that for our country and, in turn, the rest of the world. The interview was conducted by Terry Moran of ABC News in the Oval Office. It allows me to weigh-in on tariffs, the cost of China's exports, how the Democrat Party is fighting so hard to keep all the illegals inside our borders, how much they keep fighting for the return of an MS-13 gang member and more. I tie-in a moment from the Detroit rally with the latest attempt by yet another radical, activist judge who says CBP has to have arrest warrants before they arrest any illegal inside our country. It's ludicrous. In fact, it let's me spend time on Bill Clinton's Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). This law, still in effect, is what allows Trump's agenda to be enacted, yet Judges are literally ruling against the rule of law. We also look at a newly leaked memo from the Biden/Harris days regarding DNA testing to make sure children were with their real family members. It's a crime what Mayorkas and the Biden Administration put in place! Next we tackle the fraud, waste and abuse thus far discovered by DOGE. Throughout the interview, Terry Moran kept interjecting opinion as fact and wanted to push the Democrat narrative with each topic, to include whether or not DOJ investigations are underway. Finally, we close with the recent win by the Liberal party in Canada and what does it mean for Trump? Please take a moment to rate and review the show and then share the episode on social media. You can find me on Facebook, X, Instagram, GETTR,  TRUTH Social and YouTube by searching for The Alan Sanders Show. And, consider becoming a sponsor of the show by visiting my Patreon page!!

The American Democracy Minute Radio Report & Podcast for April 16, 2024Doesn't U.S. Law Already Prohibit Non-Citizens from Voting in Federal Elections?  Yes, it Does.In an announcement April 11th heralded as a major “election integrity” policy proposal, former President Donald Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson announced their intention to require proof of citizenship to vote.  Spoiler alert:  It's already required.To view the whole script of today's report, please go to our website.Today's LinksArticles & Resources:States Newsroom/Nebraska Examiner - GOP, Trump build on immigration fears to push voting restrictions in statesBipartisan Policy Center - Four Things to Know about Noncitizen VotingBrennan Center for Justice - Noncitizens Are Not Voting in Federal or State Elections — Here's WhyNPR - Republicans aim to stop noncitizen voting in federal elections. It's already illegalBallotPedia - Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United StatesCato Institute - (2020) Noncitizens Don't Illegally Vote in Detectable NumbersU.S. Code via Cornell Law - 18 U.S. Code § 611 - Voting by aliensU.S. Congress via Cornell Law - Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996,Heritage Foundation - Voter Fraud DatabaseGroups Taking ActionBrennan Center for Justice, Immigration Policy Center Please follow us on Facebook and Twitter and SHARE!  Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgWant ADM sent to your email?  Sign up here!Are you a radio station?  Find our broadcast files at Pacifica Radio Network's Audioport and PRX#Democracy  #DemocracyNews #Misinformation #Disinformation #2024Election

Almost 30 years ago, President Bill Clinton signed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act into law. This policy would have far-reaching implications and ripple effects that are still present today. Here to explain are two beloved Weeds alumni: Dara Lind and Dylan Matthews.  References: (2016) The disastrous, forgotten 1996 law that created today's immigration problem  (2016) "If the goal was to get rid of poverty, we failed": the legacy of the 1996 welfare reform  (2021) Time Machine: Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 One Mighty and Irresistible Tide: The Epic Struggle Over American Immigration, 1924-1965 by Jia Lynn Yang  Credits: Jonquilyn Hill, host Sofi LaLonde, producer Cristian Ayala, engineer A.M. Hall, editorial director of talk podcasts Want to support The Weeds? Please consider making a donation to Vox: bit.ly/givepodcasts Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this episode...I speak with Kevin Gregg, a partner at Kurzban, Kurzban,  Tetzeli and Pratt about his experience practicing Immigration Law.  We cover a host of issues including the origins of modern immigration law practice, key entree jobs into the practice area and some ideal first jobs, including internships and government programs.  Mr. Gregg shares information about some little known terrific job opportunities and shares some great insights into growing as a lawyer during the first years of practice.Some key takeaways...1. modern immigration law began with The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.2. The Attorney General's Honors Program is a great way to break into the area of law3. You don't have to be in the top of your class to get a federal internship, nor do you have to secure that internship right out of law school.About our guest...Kevin A. Gregg is a partner with KKTP, practicing in all areas of immigration law, including removal defense, appellate advocacy, federal court litigation, and USCIS representation. Kevin has practiced in the realm of immigration law and litigation for nearly a decade and, due to his years working “behind the bench” for judges, he is uniquely qualified to represent clients in court.  Prior to joining KKTP, he served a one-year Judicial Clerkship with the Honorable Beth F. Bloom in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  Before that, he served for two years as a Judicial Law Clerk and Attorney Advisor in the San Diego Immigration Court, Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), through the Attorney General's Honors Program.  Kevin now applies the skills he developed working for judges to represent clients at all stages of immigration proceedings.Kevin is a graduate of Boston University School of Law and the University of Florida.  He is the host of the weekly immigration case law podcast: Immigration Review, available on the KKTP website and all podcast platforms, including Apple Podcasts and Spotify.   You can find a list of immigration cases he discusses here.  You can reach Mr. Gregg  kgregg@kktplaw.comFollow him on social media at Facebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreview

April 1, 1997. The day that IIRAIRA (the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act) went into effect. The day we entered the Age of Immigration Darkness. Those of us involved in immigration battles at that time had an inkling what the future held. We knew immigration law was entering unchartered territory. We knew we were in for a long term fight. We have yet to recover. Recommended Links For More Information: https://www.bataraimmigrationlaw.com/immigration-april-fools-day (Immigration Fools' Day: The Age Of Immigration Darkness Begins) https://www.bataraimmigrationlaw.com/congress-against-immigrant-deportation-defense-rights (The Congressional War Against Due Process At Immigration Court)

A case in which the Court held that to trigger the stop-time rule under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, a notice to appear must be a single document containing all the information about an individual's removal hearing.

Hawk Newsome, the head of Black Lives Matter for Greater New York, told Fox News that “if this country doesn’t give us what we want, then we will burn down the system.” When is the mainstream media going to take BLM seriously? Sad news coming from the CHOP in Seattle: Looks like the CHOP leaders are urging participants to continue the protest online. Is CHOP going to be effective as virtual activism? President Trump scores a win after SCOTUS rules the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act does not violate the U.S. Constitution. Texas is pausing the state's reopening because of the COVID-19 spike. Is Texas going back on lockdown? NASCAR releases the photo of the "noose" that started another racial talk in America. Today’s Sponsors: You didn’t start your business because you wanted to spend time on HR compliance. Let Bambee help, get your FREE HR audit today! Go to https://Bambee.com/matters RIGHT NOW to schedule your FREE HR audit. If you’re suffering with aches and pains and stiffness – you need to try OMEGA XL. Let’s get you started. Order Omega XL now and get a second bottle FREE. Visit https://OMEGAXL.com/news Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, Current Affairs' resident immigration lawyers, Oren Nimni and Brianna Rennix, roll up their sleeves and delve into all the details of Bernie Sanders' plan for immigration policy, which was released November 7th. A few immigration terms that may be useful to know while listening to this episode: metering - limiting the number of people per day who can request asylum at points of entry, resulting in long waitlists and large numbers of people trapped in dangerous border cities. TPS - temporary protected status. This status allows people present in the U.S. who cannot safely return home due to a natural disaster, armed conflict, or other emergency to receive permission to live and work in the United States. Although the window of time to receive TPS is narrow (for example, if there’s a devastating earthquake in your country in 2010, the window to apply for TPS might close in 2011), once people have TPS, they can apply to continue renewing that status for as long as the government continues to extend it. (This means that TPS holders from some countries, like El Salvador or Honduras, have been legally living in the U.S. for decades.) 'safe third country' principle – a vague term for an agreement between two or more countries that purports to state that all the countries in the agreement are “safe” for asylum-seekers, and therefore that asylum-seekers should seek protection in whatever country they arrive in first. For example, the U.S. has had a safe third country agreement with Canada since 2004. The U.S. is now allegedly attempting to broker safe third country agreements with countries like Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico, even though refugees are fleeing these countries in large numbers. Matter of A-B - an asylum case decided by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions in June 2018, which overturned a favorable precedent that had allowed many domestic violence survivors to qualify for asylum, and stated that “generally, claims by aliens pertaining to domestic violence or gang violence perpetrated by non-governmental actors will not qualify for asylum." IIRIRA - The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which greatly expanded the scope of detention, punishment and deportation for undocumented immigrants. You can read Bernie's plan here: https://berniesanders.com/en/issues/welcoming-and-safe-america-all/ You can find our previous episodes on immigration here: https://www.patreon.com/posts/30632925 https://www.patreon.com/posts/24173901 Brianna Rennix writes regularly on immigration here: https://www.currentaffairs.org/author/brianna-rennix And is interviewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5GCjTqhOqI

IT IS INTERESTING POLITICAL HISTORY TO NOTE THAT THE 3/10 YEAR BAR WAS IMPLEMENTED INTO THE U.S. IMMIGRATION LAW DURING PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON'S WATCH.: Hillary Clinton on Thursday pledged to repeal an immigration provision that blocks undocumented immigrant from returning to the United States legally for a wait period of either three or ten years. The provision, which was included in the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, prevented undocumented immigrants who had overstayed their visas or crossed the border illegally from returning to the U.S. legally after an extended wait period, depending on the length of time that they had been in the country illegally. For more information on this subject, visit our website https://visaserve.com/lawyer/U.S.-Immigration-Policies-under-the-New-Administration_cp17957.htm

Under the Trump administration, the United States has pushed aggressively to deport Southeast Asian Americans with criminal records. Hurt that members of the Vietnamese community would support this action, guest producer Thanh Tan (creator of the podcast “Second Wave”) seeks out the people at risk of deportation — and the organizers fighting to keep them in the only home they’ve known. Along the way, she learns to embrace a new direction for Vietnamese Americans confronting the deeply rooted narrative of “the good refugee.” We need your help! Please take this 1-minute survey, so we can have better conversations with partners and sponsors and keep this show growing. It’s fast, easy, and anonymous. Resources and Recommended Reading Suicide Prevention Lifeline: 1-800-273-8255. The Lifeline provides 24/7, free and confidential support for people in distress and prevention and crisis resources for you or your loved ones. "Know Your Rights" resources to prepare for ICE raids written in Arabic, Bangla, Burmese, Chinese, Dar/Farsi, Gujarati, Hindi, Karen, Khemer, Korean, Nepali, Punjabi, Tagalog, Urdu, and Vietnamese, compiled by the Asian American Federation in NY. Primary sources: The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which laid much groundwork for today’s deportations The 2008 Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. and Vietnam President Trump’s Jan 25, 2017 Executive Order on Border Security and Immigration Enforcement President Trump’s Jan 25, 2017 Executive Order declaring that the presence of “removable aliens” from “foreign nations that refuse the repatriation of their nationals” is “contrary to the national interest” Text of President Trump’s Jan 27, 2017 Executive Order temporarily ceasing admission of refugees to the United States (a.k.a. “the travel ban”) Migration Policy Institute dataset on U.S. annual refugee resettlement ceilings and refugee admissions, starting from 1980 ICE datasets on deportations from FY 2011 through FY 2018 Reporting and analysis on the federal government’s role in detention and deportation of immigrants: “City of Fear” by New York Magazine and The Marshall Project “The Disastrous, Forgotten 1996 Law That Created Today’s Immigration Problem” by Dara Lind, for Vox “ICE and the Banality of Spin” by Eileen Guo, for Topic “U.S.: 20 Years of Immigrant Abuses,” a summary of reports by Human Rights Watch on harm caused by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act Reporting and analysis on the detention and deportation of Vietnamese Americans and Cambodian Americans: “As Cambodian Deportations Resume, Community Looks for Ways to Cope” by Agnes Constante, for NBC Asian America “Deported: A Grassroots Movement” (5-part docuseries) by Sahra V. Nguyen, for NBC Asian America “Fear Grips Immigrants Who Fled Here to Escape Genocide” by Matt Driscoll, for The News Tribune of Tacoma, Washington “A State of Captivity: Immigrants Detained Repeatedly for Old Crimes” by Anjali Enjeti, for Guernica Magazine “Trump Is Pushing Vietnam to Accept Deportees Who Have Lived in the US for Over 20 years” by Dara Lind, for Vox “Trump Moves to Deport Vietnam War Refugees” by Charles Dunst and Krishnadev Calamur, for The Atlantic “The U.S. Ambassador Who Crossed Trump on Immigration” by Mike Ives, for the New York Times Shout Outs John Woo and Kerry Donahue voiced the English translations of Thanh’s parents. Thanks to Julia Preston and Willoughby Mariano for their advice on reporting this story. Credits Produced by Thanh Tan and James Boo Edited by Julia Shu and Cheryl Devall Production support by Austin Jenkins, Jamala Henderson, Kevin Rinker, and Merk Nguyen Sound engineering by Timothy Lou Ly Theme music by Dorian Love Music by Blue Dot Sessions and Epidemic Sound Self Evident is a Studiotobe production. Season 1 is presented by the Center for Asian American Media (CAAM), the Ford Foundation, and our listener community. Our show was incubated at the Made in New York Media Center by IFP. About CAAM: CAAM (Center for Asian American Media) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to presenting stories that convey the richness and diversity of Asian American experiences to the broadest audience possible. CAAM does this by funding, producing, distributing, and exhibiting works in film, television, and digital media. For more information on CAAM, please visit www.caamedia.org. With support from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, CAAM provides production funding to independent producers who make engaging Asian American works for public media.

www.RKTNN.com President Trump signed a presidential memorandum on Thursday cracking down on welfare-dependent legal immigration to the United States in an effort to protect American taxpayers. The order signed by Trump will enforce existing 1996 laws known as the “Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act” and “Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act” which were signed by then-President Bill Clinton. The order ensures that federal agencies will enforce the existing 1996 laws which seek to save American taxpayers by having their public welfare funding benefits reimbursed when they are used by a legal immigrant.

To conclude the podcast series “Indefensible”, we created this podcast extra for listeners. It’s a conversation between Will Coley, the independent radio producer who created the series, and Mizue Aizeki, the Immigrant Defense Project’s Deputy Director. Will and Mizue talk about the larger context for the series. It’s been twenty years since the U.S. Congress made changes to the nation’s immigration system with the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act and and how you as a listener can get involved. To get the most out of the discussion, we recommend listening to the previous episodes.

We continue our discussion of the rights of non-citizens, this time with immigration scholar and award-winning fiddle player Jason Cade. We discuss Jason’s latest research into the judicial and administrative responses to of deportation. (Note that we recorded this a few hours before the 9th Circuit released its decision in Washington v. Trump.) This show’s links: Jason Cade’s faculty profile (http://www.law.uga.edu/profile/jason-cade) and writing (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1690889) Jason Cade, Judging Immigration Equity: Deportation and Proportionality in the Supreme Court (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2834088) About IIRIRA (the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_Immigration_Reform_and_Immigrant_Responsibility_Act_of_1996) About AEDPA (the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiterrorism_and_Effective_Death_Penalty_Act_of_1996) James Fallows, Washington and the Contract with America (http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/jfnpr/jfreview.htm) The White House’s summary of the Constitution and Bill of Rights (https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/constitution) Yamataya v. Fisher (The Japanese Immigrant Case) (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18003046466828127036) Arizona v. United States (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17891750818453472454) Fifth Circuit, Texas v. United States (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11729216214209225109) Padilla v. Kentucky (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16837631125059475725) Fernanda Santos, She Showed Up Yearly to Meet Immigration Agents. Now They’ve Deported Her. (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/us/phoenix-guadalupe-garcia-de-rayos.html) Michael Wishnie, Immigration Law and the Proportionality Requirement (http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/4138/) Oral Argument 125: The Elephant (http://oralargument.org/125) Washington v. Trump (http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf) (released a few hours after this recording) Hog-eyed Man (https://www.hogeyedman.com) Special Guest: Jason Cade.

A big brother program resulting from a draconian policy. The program was authorized by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 designed to drive away these illegal workers but employed illegal immigrants are net contributors and they help subsidize our largest social program…. Social Security. Here is how the federal government sells…

Mexican border residents and members of the Border Network for Human Rights (BNHR) march on a road towards a detention center for migrants at the border between the U.S and Mexico in El Paso, Texas, August 24, 2014. REUTERS/Jose Luis Gonzalez In the 1990 romantic comedy Green Card, an American girl played by Andie MacDowell marries French guy Gérard Depardieu. It’s a win-win. He gets citizenship. She gets to put “married” on an application for a fabulous Manhattan apartment that weirdly requires she not be single. » Subscribe in iTunes » Subscribe using RSS Marriage and citizenship often go hand in hand in the U.S. Our immigration system privileges people with family ties to this country. But there’s an exception to the rule. And this exception has affected about half a million people, according to immigration experts. It’s a law, known as the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which says that anyone who enters the U.S. illegally, stays for more than a year and then returns to their native country, is barred from entering the U.S. for 10 years. And if they’ve entered the U.S. illegally more than once, it’s a lifetime bar. For this week’s Shortwave, P.J. Tobia interviews a family that’s been barred for years under this act from returning to the United States. Last month we reported on deported veterans of the U.S. military. You can listen to that episode here. The post When marriage and citizenship don’t go hand in hand appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

A case in which the Court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(C)(v) cannot be applied retroactively to a lawful permanent resident who pleads guilty to a crime prior to the effective date of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act.