Speaker 1: All media. Hi everyone, and welcome to the show. It's
Speaker 1: me James today and I'm joined once again by Kirsten Zitlau.
Speaker 1: We've heard from her before. She's an immigration lawyer who
Speaker 1: takes asylum cases, and we're going to talk about the
Speaker 1: asylum system or I guess what's left of it today.
Speaker 1: Kirsten is representing somebody I met, the Darien gap Primrose,
Speaker 1: who you've heard from before. So we're going to talk
Speaker 1: about that case and then we're going to talk a
Speaker 1: little bit about ice detentions inside immigration court. Welcome to
Speaker 1: the show, Kristin.
Speaker 2: Thank you, James, it's good to be here.
Speaker 1: Yeah, thanks for thanks for coming. I know you're extremely busy.
Speaker 1: Can you explain to us, like the asylum system is
Speaker 1: essentially coming to an end, right, we are not getting
Speaker 1: new asylum cases, Like what is the situation for people
Speaker 1: in the asylum system right now?
Speaker 3: Yes, that's a correct statement, James. So there are no
Speaker 3: new asylum cases. In other words, people who cross at
Speaker 3: the Southern Order are now detained only to be removed
Speaker 3: immediately basically or as soon as possible, under what's called
Speaker 3: two twelve F authority. It's under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Speaker 3: Trump has used this authority, which basically broadly says that
Speaker 3: if the President finds a certain class of immigrants or
Speaker 3: the entry of immigrants would be detrimental to the interests
Speaker 3: of the United States, they made by proclamation, you know,
Speaker 3: suspend all entry have said immigrants. So that was the
Speaker 3: purpose and the effect of the executive order discussing the
Speaker 3: invasion at the border, and all the other executive orders
Speaker 3: discussing invasions and criminal aspects such as cartels and trender ragua,
Speaker 3: which we all know now is you know, is the
Speaker 3: justification for alleged justification for just shutting it down at
Speaker 3: the border. So whereas people used to get credible fear
Speaker 3: interviews or were parolled into the United States to be
Speaker 3: allowed to fight an asylum case, none of that is
Speaker 3: happening anymore. And people are, if anything, only screened for
Speaker 3: what's called Convention against Torture screenings to just determine like, hey,
Speaker 3: are they going to be portrayed by their government or
Speaker 3: with the acquiescence of their government if they returned to
Speaker 3: their home country. But even then they are not allowed
Speaker 3: to remain in the United States or fight any relief
Speaker 3: in the United States. That just means that they will
Speaker 3: be deported to a third country. So that was a
Speaker 3: situation like when we saw the Iranians sitting in the
Speaker 3: hotel room in Panama, That's what happened there most likely.
Speaker 3: So that's the situation at the southern border. Whoever is
Speaker 3: still in the United States, you know, who came in
Speaker 3: before in Operation Day, is still allowed to fight their
Speaker 3: case as of now, but there are no new asylum
Speaker 3: cases essentially, right.
Speaker 1: So for those people fighting their case, the asylum system
Speaker 1: was already an uphill battle, right, and it became hot
Speaker 1: after Biden's asylum ban. It's already had after title forty two.
Speaker 1: Like people who listen to the show will have known
Speaker 1: about the people who crushed in twenty twenty three, and
Speaker 1: of course they would have followed those people who I'm
Speaker 1: in the drying gap, some of whom very few of
Speaker 1: whom crushed before January. I literally one I believe that
Speaker 1: I'm aware of. Can you explain what the asylum system
Speaker 1: is like for those people now?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 3: So I think the biggest two factors affecting asylum cases
Speaker 3: these days is what you just referred to, which is
Speaker 3: the asylum ban called the circumvention against lawful pathways that
Speaker 3: barred people essentially from asylum if they did not use
Speaker 3: CBP one the application to apply for an appointment, which
Speaker 3: of course only allowed I think fifteen hundred a day
Speaker 3: or something absurd, forcing most people to cross unlawfully. So
Speaker 3: that's still very much in place. The litigation has been
Speaker 3: stalled forever. There's no hope of you know, I don't
Speaker 3: think there's no movement on that. I haven't seen or
Speaker 3: heard anything. Yeah, most likely intentionally because when Trump did
Speaker 3: a similar ban, it was overturned immediately. So this is
Speaker 3: like a new strategy that we're seeing where things are
Speaker 3: just lagging in court right. You know, for example, just
Speaker 3: a quick side detour the birthright citizenship issue got up
Speaker 3: to the Supreme Court real quick, whereas the asylum issue,
Speaker 3: meaning the border shut down to asylum, is still languishing
Speaker 3: somewhere before. I think even just a federal district judge
Speaker 3: is not even in any appeal court yet. So this
Speaker 3: is all I think, it's strategic, so that circumventioning as
Speaker 3: lawful pathways ban is still very much an impediment. You know,
Speaker 3: we all of course argue that every migrant in Mexico
Speaker 3: was in danger and thus qualifies for the exception to
Speaker 3: the CLP that their life was in danger and they
Speaker 3: couldn't afford to wait the many many months for the
Speaker 3: CBP one appointment. But judges it's been met with mixed reviews.
Speaker 3: They generally like to see like somebody basically near death
Speaker 3: for the exception to apply. And of course the immigration
Speaker 3: bar argues that all migrants are basically under threat of death.
Speaker 3: Any cartel or even immigration official contact in Mexico could
Speaker 3: have been a death sentence very easily, as we all know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so that's a big thing affecting.
Speaker 3: The latest thing that's also being implemented as a result
Speaker 3: of this cartel terrorist organization designation is you know where
Speaker 3: it's not just the cartels is MS thirteen and ten
Speaker 3: dew Ragua is that there's a what's called a trig
Speaker 3: bar that's applied then also to asylum and the bar
Speaker 3: is basically about material support of any of these groups,
Speaker 3: but it's construed to an absurd degree where even if
Speaker 3: you made a bowl of food for Samaras under duress,
Speaker 3: or you made payment because your kid was about to
Speaker 3: be killed, right, that's considered material support in your barred
Speaker 3: from asylum.
Speaker 1: I wondered if they would do that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so we're seeing that too.
Speaker 3: Other than that, I mean, I have been fortunate to
Speaker 3: win asylum for folks under Trump two point zero. I mean,
Speaker 3: I don't know how long that'll still last, but judges
Speaker 3: are still you know, granting cases. So I'm glad to
Speaker 3: see that.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: So that's generally what it's looked like these past four
Speaker 3: months for Assil's Okay.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think it's really important that we do. There
Speaker 1: are still possible, like victories to be had within the
Speaker 1: court system, and asylum is one of the places where,
Speaker 1: like there's no more getting me on the train. I
Speaker 1: guess like the people who are on the train now
Speaker 1: we can and people should if they have the financial means,
Speaker 1: and we'll talk about how they can do that later.
Speaker 1: People should support those people because there's no one else
Speaker 1: who can go through that system, and like, there are
Speaker 1: people who have gone through horrific things to get here,
Speaker 1: and horrific things in the places that they came from.
Speaker 1: And even if it's not everyone we would like to
Speaker 1: keep safe, we should do everything we can to keep
Speaker 1: those people safe.
Speaker 3: One hundred percent, you know, just to say I mean
Speaker 3: and funding somebody's legal fees. I mean, an attorney makes
Speaker 3: all the difference in navigating these types of issues that
Speaker 3: I just talked about and other issues and presenting your case.
Speaker 3: I mean, asylum cases are still incredibly difficult to win,
Speaker 3: and so representation of counsel is of than key.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that the rates of success people who
Speaker 1: don't have counsel are dramatically lower. I haven't looked on
Speaker 1: Track recently, but you can normally find that on the
Speaker 1: I think Track is no longer the University of Syracuse,
Speaker 1: but it did. It did some place where you can
Speaker 1: find information statistics. Let's talk about one of those cases,
Speaker 1: if that's okay, And obviously you know we won't intervening
Speaker 1: anyone's perhaps any more than we have to. But like
Speaker 1: I want to talk about Primrose. Primrose is Zimbabwean woman
Speaker 1: who I met in Bajaji Gito when I was in
Speaker 1: the Darien Gap reporting on my series. People heard from
Speaker 1: her in the series.
Speaker 4: Even me. I was crying myself. I was like, I
Speaker 4: want to just put myself in the water. Then again,
Speaker 4: just or the gain was tough, really really tough, the mountain,
Speaker 4: the stones, the river. It's not easy at all. It's
Speaker 4: not a very I don't even recommended someone to say, yeah,
Speaker 4: you lose that and give no. And even myself, I
Speaker 4: did know about it. Yeah, I was regretting myself. I
Speaker 4: was crying. I was like, good, I don't know my
Speaker 4: family and my family they don't know where I am
Speaker 4: right now.
Speaker 1: But I make it. Yeah, make it You're safe. Yeah,
Speaker 1: she is now in the asylum process, right, can you
Speaker 1: explain a little bit about like where she is in
Speaker 1: the process. And I will eventually do a scripted series
Speaker 1: on this, but like I guess, can we get an
Speaker 1: update on her situation and how it's progressing.
Speaker 2: Absolutely so.
Speaker 3: I came into the case about I want to say,
Speaker 3: a month or two ago, she had somebody supporting her,
Speaker 3: a friend living in Texas, and that situation, a living situation,
Speaker 3: has changed, I believe, which is also not the worst
Speaker 3: thing she's but she will be moving with a friend
Speaker 3: to southern California or moving in with a friend rather,
Speaker 3: But just this situation is very different in Texas and
Speaker 3: Louisiana and Mississippi and those types of states markedly so.
Speaker 3: And her case is a good example of that. And
Speaker 3: there's a reason that people like Mamu Khalil and many
Speaker 3: others are sent to detention centers in that area because
Speaker 3: it's in the Fifth Circuit, first of all, which is
Speaker 3: widely renowned to be not a favorable circuit court of
Speaker 3: appeals to immigrants.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: But more so than that, even the judges themselves are
Speaker 3: very different from what we would encounter in California, for example.
Speaker 3: So my first encounter with the judge was, you know,
Speaker 3: and this is all virtual. I submitted a motion to
Speaker 3: appear for her.
Speaker 2: She had a master calendar hearing in June.
Speaker 3: I submitted amotion to appear for that telephonically, explaining I
Speaker 3: was representing her at lower no cost, you know, whatever
Speaker 3: funds could be raised, and could I please appear for
Speaker 3: as it's a status type conference telephonically. And that motion
Speaker 3: was met with a really strange response. I don't to
Speaker 3: this day, I don't really know exactly. It was sort
Speaker 3: of approved, but then moot because eventually a final court
Speaker 3: hearing was set. So that's where we're right now. She
Speaker 3: has a final court next year and about a year
Speaker 3: and a couple months. But in ruling on my WebEx motion,
Speaker 3: I was emailed the order of the judge along with
Speaker 3: a notice.
Speaker 2: That premiers should self deport.
Speaker 3: So judges are sending out these notices with routine other
Speaker 3: orders in cases where the immigrant has council is fighting
Speaker 3: their case. It's obvious they're fighting their case Jesus. And yeah,
Speaker 3: so it's one of the things where you just feel
Speaker 3: very strongly this administration's influence.
Speaker 1: Are they obliged to do that or is that a
Speaker 1: choice that the judge is making.
Speaker 3: Not at all, And in fact it's completely inappropriate. So
Speaker 3: all of us are the immigration bar is taking a
Speaker 3: different approach to it. You know, some are filing motions
Speaker 3: to recuse, telling the judges, hey, you need to recuse yourself.
Speaker 3: You're a non neutral judge. To send this out in
Speaker 3: the middle of the case is absurd. It's a due
Speaker 3: process violation. They're entitled to a neutral judge. Yeah, I
Speaker 3: think my approach would be more one of playing dumb,
Speaker 3: because often this has happened. The system, if you will,
Speaker 3: of ecass the electronics system that we use for court
Speaker 3: immigration filing systems that Elon Musk briefly had access to
Speaker 3: or whatever was going on there. But anyways, I digress.
Speaker 3: You know, will send out automatic notices with the emails
Speaker 3: with the judges orders. So my approach, I think will
Speaker 3: be to give the judges the benefit of the doubt
Speaker 3: and ask them if this was an electronic notice and
Speaker 3: if they say no, then I've gotten it on the record,
Speaker 3: and if they deny the case, I have that in
Speaker 3: there for the appeal. But yeah, it's happening all over
Speaker 3: the country with all sorts of different judges, and it's
Speaker 3: definitely something that we're grappling with right now.
Speaker 2: And it's just it's.
Speaker 3: Very ballsy for a judge to say, hey, leave the
Speaker 3: country and oh, by the way, I'm a neutral arbiter.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, what's the point of having the judge,
Speaker 1: you having the whole process right if then they're going
Speaker 1: to declare this clear bias.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's a third I mean, it's you know, I mean,
Speaker 3: it's such a violation of due process rights. And I
Speaker 3: think I know everybody in this country now knows the
Speaker 3: importance of due process, whereas before only attorneys through that
Speaker 3: term around. But no, I mean, this stuff really matters,
Speaker 3: you know.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: And then also another thing that happened in Primrose's case
Speaker 3: is that when you have a work permit clock right,
Speaker 3: which is another absurd thing for assiles that once they
Speaker 3: file their asylum application, they have to wait one hundred
Speaker 3: and fifty days before they can.
Speaker 2: Apply for a work permit.
Speaker 3: And of course they're expected to be independently wealthy during
Speaker 3: those five months or you know, or star or I
Speaker 3: don't know what they're expected to do.
Speaker 1: Yeah, rely on the generosity of others, like exactly.
Speaker 3: So if you do something like try to change venue
Speaker 3: or a motion to continue, if you do something in
Speaker 3: your case that the judge perceives as not moving the
Speaker 3: case along and rather like kind of trying to stall
Speaker 3: it or possibly pausing it or slow it down, the
Speaker 3: judge will stop the work permit clock the days and
Speaker 3: it's a whole thing. So Primroses was stopped because the
Speaker 3: judge wanted her to get an attorney. So usually when
Speaker 3: the case is set for a final hearing, that code
Speaker 3: adjournment code they call it, I know for we have.
Speaker 2: The access to the codes and what stops the clock
Speaker 2: and what.
Speaker 3: Doesn't, And it always restarts the clock because you moved
Speaker 3: your case along because you're setting it for trial.
Speaker 2: It's it's you know, obviously moving your case along.
Speaker 3: Hers was not restarted for whatever reason, yea, And my
Speaker 3: only remedy would be to write some court administrator who
Speaker 3: may or may not ever respond.
Speaker 2: I can't even go to the judge about this. You know,
Speaker 2: it's it's absurd.
Speaker 3: So that's just the situation that one assilie is one
Speaker 3: asylum seeker is dealing with in Texas. So you can
Speaker 3: only imagine what goes on in detentions that you know,
Speaker 3: detained cases in those states.
Speaker 1: Yeah, people who don't have counsel, like getting that self deportation.
Speaker 1: If you don't have counsel, like you could assume that
Speaker 1: you are just obliged to leave, like yeah, that your
Speaker 1: your process is.
Speaker 3: Over one hundred percent, And there's no legal basis for
Speaker 3: the judge to be issuing that. In fact, it's completely
Speaker 3: unlawful to be issuing something like that at the beginning
Speaker 3: of the case, at the end of the case, and
Speaker 3: at the beginning. The judges have to give certain advisals,
Speaker 3: but telling somebody to self deport is number an advisor
Speaker 3: that should be given under the law.
Speaker 1: Ever, right, Yeah, like it kind of nullifies the whole system.
Speaker 3: And plus I should mention real quick that it's disingenuous
Speaker 3: and harmful and that with these you know, this administration
Speaker 3: on purpose isn't telling people with one thousand dollars, take
Speaker 3: a thousand dollars in self deport and you know, will
Speaker 3: pay for your flight and all this stuff. But they're
Speaker 3: not telling people is that when you leave, you are
Speaker 3: then subject to a deportation order and that comes with
Speaker 3: a ten year bar This is not mentioned, and that's
Speaker 3: a big deal.
Speaker 1: Yes, yeah, I mean it seems even like I think
Speaker 1: the executive order said permanently leave the United States, right.
Speaker 3: Well it did, and then but then they switch tactics
Speaker 3: a little bit with the app to self deport saying like,
Speaker 3: you know, leave now, leave now so you have a
Speaker 3: chance to come back later or something like that, right,
Speaker 3: but you know without mentioning that, hey you no, you're
Speaker 3: barred from the United States for ten years and if
Speaker 3: you ever return unlawfully, then you're a subject to a
Speaker 3: whole series of you know. Yeah, I mean, it's just
Speaker 3: there's all these warnings that need to come with the
Speaker 3: deportation order that are strategically left out of all the
Speaker 3: administration's latest messaging on this topic.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's pretty bad. Let's take a break for advertisements
Speaker 1: here and it will come back all right, we are back,
Speaker 1: and so we've spoken about these like self deportation orders,
Speaker 1: right for other people who have entered more recently, right,
Speaker 1: entered within the last two years. This has been happening
Speaker 1: we're recording on the twenty second for the last two
Speaker 1: days now. It seems like ICE is dismissing the cases
Speaker 1: against them and then detaining them directly in court, if
Speaker 1: I'm correctly informed.
Speaker 3: Yes, So this has been happening periodically throughout the past
Speaker 3: four months, but in the past few days, like this week,
Speaker 3: it's been dramatically ramped up, Like right now as we're
Speaker 3: recording this, ICE is arresting people in the downtown San
Speaker 3: Diego court and also courts throughout the country. It's been
Speaker 3: reported everywhere, happening widely this week. And this is another
Speaker 3: thing the administration said they were going to do and
Speaker 3: is doing. I mean, you know, they're doing what they
Speaker 3: said they were going to do.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And it's.
Speaker 3: To use what's called two thirty five authority. More broadly
Speaker 3: so Ina Section two thirty five applies to people who
Speaker 3: entered within less than two years, like you said, and
Speaker 3: they can be then subject to what's called expedited removal.
Speaker 3: That means that they have to take a credible fear
Speaker 3: interview and be detained, and that they only get to
Speaker 3: fight a case if they pass their credible fear interview,
Speaker 3: and then they do not qualify for an immigration judge bond,
Speaker 3: So they only get out if Ice lets them out,
Speaker 3: which of course I is letting nobody out. So the
Speaker 3: administration wants to have people detained under this authority, this
Speaker 3: two thirty five authority, as much as possible, to have
Speaker 3: them have to fight their case detained and either lose
Speaker 3: the will to do so and or not be able
Speaker 3: to afford an attorney, because detained cases move along a
Speaker 3: lot quicker and are very costly as well for that reason.
Speaker 3: So what they're doing is anybody who was here two
Speaker 3: years or less but was parolled in so they're in
Speaker 3: the regular immigration court proceedings they got out there under
Speaker 3: two forty proceedings, that's called so DHS attorneys in court
Speaker 3: are terminating those proceedings. They're asking the judge to terminate
Speaker 3: the two forty proceedings, so then that case is closed
Speaker 3: and then they immediately restart a case under section two
Speaker 3: thirty five. And at the second they do that, the
Speaker 3: person is subject to mandatory detention, and ICE is right
Speaker 3: there in the courthouse to arrest them and detain them.
Speaker 1: Jesus, Yeah, I thought ICE couldn't arrest people in California's
Speaker 1: at California state courts, no federal courts which were in California.
Speaker 3: I believe so, and colleagues and I have been talking
Speaker 3: about this. I haven't researched it thoroughly, but I think
Speaker 3: also the nature of these proceedings, like the two thirty
Speaker 3: five proceeding, like you are mandatory detention, like you okay,
Speaker 3: you were taken into custody. It's as if you just
Speaker 3: cross the border and you know, are taken into custody.
Speaker 3: It's treated like like that type of situation, like no
Speaker 3: warrant is necessary.
Speaker 2: I don't believe you know.
Speaker 1: Oh okay, right, yeah, so they could they have very
Speaker 1: broad authority to detain people any way. That makes sense exactly.
Speaker 3: So the real issue here is the ethical I mean
Speaker 3: a lot of us are grappling with this and of
Speaker 3: course fiercely opposing these motions in that the justification that
Speaker 3: the DHS attorneys are attempting to use is that circumstances
Speaker 3: have materially changed since the issuance of their initial case
Speaker 3: that they're in now, which of course is not the.
Speaker 1: Case, right, Like whose circumstances.
Speaker 3: Exactly exactly, Like the rise of fascism doesn't constitute a
Speaker 3: change circumstance. Yeah, So it's just there's no there's no
Speaker 3: basis for this motion. And secondly, the only basis, like,
Speaker 3: there's zero justification for this other than filling detention centers,
Speaker 3: lining cour Civic and Geogroup's pockets. Yeah, and in ten
Speaker 3: prejudicing an immigrant to have to fight their case attained.
Speaker 3: I mean right, there's no there's no good or legitimate
Speaker 3: justification for this period the end, you know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and fighting it detained will be a lot harder.
Speaker 1: They will be obviously in like terrible situation they are,
Speaker 1: as we've covered before, often moved to a different state
Speaker 1: from their council. Will make it a lot harder for
Speaker 1: them if they choose to go that route. I'm guessing
Speaker 1: that ICE is hoping that people won't fight and will
Speaker 1: just or DHS it is hoping that people will just
Speaker 1: choose not to fight.
Speaker 3: That's the whole point is this whole administration's the messaging
Speaker 3: and their actions are all about forcing people breaking people's
Speaker 3: spirits and forcing them into a situation where they feel
Speaker 3: their only option is to self deport. Yeah, it is heartbreaking,
Speaker 3: it's very sick. Yeah, it's it's very disturbing. It's very
Speaker 3: very different from Trump one point zero.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I think that's worth sort of focusing in on
Speaker 1: that this is a complete, distinct and much more radical
Speaker 1: disassembling of the asylum system as we know it.
Speaker 2: Absolutely.
Speaker 3: I mean, I think we can all agree or disagree
Speaker 3: as far as how we feel about the past four
Speaker 3: months and what has happened, but I think everybody can
Speaker 3: agree that the pace at which it has happened is
Speaker 3: extremely concerning.
Speaker 1: Right, we are four months into four years, and we
Speaker 1: have seen at constitutional crisis, like a full blown defiance
Speaker 1: of the courts. We at the day we're recording, the
Speaker 1: Trump administration is attempting to deport people to South Sudan,
Speaker 1: many of whom eleven of twelve of whom are not
Speaker 1: seuth Sudanese.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: I guess from what I understand, their attempt at giving
Speaker 1: those people a credible fear screening was that they didn't
Speaker 1: hear them shouting from the cells they were detained in,
Speaker 1: that they were afraid of being tortured.
Speaker 3: Yeah, they're supposed to give them opportunity to be heard
Speaker 3: essentially and give notice of this country that they're going
Speaker 3: to be deported to. That nobody and no judge is
Speaker 3: ever considered whether they have a fear or if they
Speaker 3: would be in danger deported.
Speaker 2: To this country.
Speaker 3: Right, So again, this is a due process situation where hey,
Speaker 3: before you can be sent to some random country, especially
Speaker 3: South Sudan, maybe you should be given an opportunity to
Speaker 3: present why you have a fear or that something bad
Speaker 3: might happen to you over there to a judge. And
Speaker 3: so this was recently ordered. I believe the case is
Speaker 3: called DBD versus DHS. Was what stopped the Libya situation
Speaker 3: from happening, where yeah, judge said, this is exactly what
Speaker 3: needs to occur. These people need to be given real notice,
Speaker 3: not this whatever has been had, you know, and and
Speaker 3: an opportunity to be heard.
Speaker 2: And then yeah, they immediately.
Speaker 3: Thereafter attempted to as you said, or I think I
Speaker 3: don't know if they actually accomplished it with South Sudan.
Speaker 1: Yeah, my understanding is they are in a country which
Speaker 1: is neither the United States nor South Sudan. On an
Speaker 1: aircraft at this time, and DHS is arguing that they
Speaker 1: can do their credible fear screenings there on the aircraft.
Speaker 1: I don't know how they've planned together people privacy, translation,
Speaker 1: and access to council. I just looked on Court listener
Speaker 1: right before we recorded, and Judge Murphy clarified Massachusetts District
Speaker 1: Court judge that ten days would be the amount of
Speaker 1: time that they would need to assert a credible fear
Speaker 1: and then if DHS determined that they didn't have credible fear,
Speaker 1: they would then have fifteen days to ask the reopening
Speaker 1: of their case. TBD. Is the United States going to
Speaker 1: like somehow accommodate them in where they are. People are
Speaker 1: speculating they're in Djibouti, which is the largest US military
Speaker 1: base in the continent of Africa and close to South Sudan,
Speaker 1: And so if that's the case, Yeah, I don't know
Speaker 1: how they will get due process. We will find out
Speaker 1: if they will get due process.
Speaker 3: I guess yeah, they probably won't, but will be told
Speaker 3: that they did, or will be or will be told
Speaker 3: that they were criminals in the first place, which is
Speaker 3: the other theme of this administration, right with the Alien
Speaker 3: Enemies Act, which has basically been put on pause by
Speaker 3: a number of Satan judges who have said there's no invasion,
Speaker 3: there's no war.
Speaker 2: This is absurd, This just flat out doesn't apply.
Speaker 3: And I have to say that the immigration bar is
Speaker 3: very I think not just the immigration bar, I think
Speaker 3: all of us are very frustrated that the Supreme Court
Speaker 3: has not yet come out with a definitive substance of
Speaker 3: ruling on this because, for the people who don't know,
Speaker 3: the Alien Enemies Act allows the administration to circumvent the
Speaker 3: i NA, which is the whole immigration court system, and
Speaker 3: immediately to port supposed criminals who were invading the country.
Speaker 3: I mean, we all know this with the Venezuelans who
Speaker 3: are accused of being trend Aragua just for having tattoos.
Speaker 3: And so that is to me and I think all
Speaker 3: of us the biggest threat to just be able to
Speaker 3: put somebody on a plane to another country and in
Speaker 3: a prison in another country, as we've seen the sea
Speaker 3: cot in El Salvador. I mean, we need our Supreme
Speaker 3: Court to speak on this, then we need it quickly.
Speaker 1: Yeah, like if we no longer have habeas a frontal
Speaker 1: assault on the Bill of rights like most of them.
Speaker 3: And there's so many assaults on the Bill of Rights,
Speaker 3: and then we need our Supreme Court to really to
Speaker 3: step up. And I think I'm not the only one
Speaker 3: who's extremely frustrated by that, because we're in crisis and
Speaker 3: as we've seen, it's fallen on courts and lawyers and
Speaker 3: judges to try to defend the semblance of democracy in
Speaker 3: this country.
Speaker 2: But the highest court in the land needs to help
Speaker 2: out soon. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and like this is where like the rover meets
Speaker 1: the road, right for like maintaining people's basic rights, dignity
Speaker 1: and yeah, the right not to be sent to a
Speaker 1: labor camp in El Salvador or you know, seuth Sudana country,
Speaker 1: which is rapidly descending into conflict. Again, I thought the
Speaker 1: government was barrel bombing this week.
Speaker 3: Well, and just real quick, another note on the Supreme
Speaker 3: Court is that they're they're also concerning I mean, as
Speaker 3: we know, there's a lot of Trump appointees there and
Speaker 3: so I mean it's not even that that's the answer.
Speaker 3: It's just we're you know, but we need answers more
Speaker 3: quickly than what they're they're giving us. And it's just
Speaker 3: when given the rate that this administration is working at
Speaker 3: I don't know that they will if they ever get
Speaker 3: the case or the asylum ban at the border would
Speaker 3: even overturn that because historically they've sort of supported his
Speaker 3: two twelve F powers. So I'm not saying that's the
Speaker 3: answer to everything, but it's definitely frustrating to not have
Speaker 3: basic things yeah already decided, like the use of the
Speaker 3: alien enemies that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, like just not to know where we're at, Like
Speaker 1: when you know people are trying a good faith to
Speaker 1: move forward with the legal processes that they have spent
Speaker 1: their entire life savings on to get here and do
Speaker 1: the right quote unquote the right way. You're still fighting
Speaker 1: a number of asylum cases, as we said before the call,
Speaker 1: like you probably won't be forever, right Like, at some
Speaker 1: point there's just not going to be any more asylum cases.
Speaker 1: I know that you're accepting donations. I think through venmo
Speaker 1: On behalf of Primrose, that will be sure to link
Speaker 1: to that woman account in the description of this show,
Speaker 1: so people can donate if they'd like to. Now it's
Speaker 1: the time to do it, right, It's not like this
Speaker 1: is going to be an ongoing thing. Like if people
Speaker 1: don't help now, then there won't be migrants to support
Speaker 1: or assylies to support later, So like, how can people
Speaker 1: materially support maybe in other ways, right if they're like
Speaker 1: on hard times and have the financial resources, what else
Speaker 1: can people do to just to make this a little
Speaker 1: bit less cruel to some people who are among the
Speaker 1: most unfortunate people on the planet.
Speaker 3: Often, I think even mental and emotional support for the
Speaker 3: immigrants in your life, I think is something that is
Speaker 3: underestimated because speaking as a very privileged white woman attorney
Speaker 3: US citizen, this has taken a tremendous toll on me,
Speaker 3: and the mental toll that has taken on the actual
Speaker 3: undocumented community and a SI les this messaging is so
Speaker 3: harmful and so disgusting that I think I would just
Speaker 3: caution people to not underestimate the power of human kindness
Speaker 3: to those already in your life and just empowering them
Speaker 3: distributing Know your Rights cards and information that still matters.
Speaker 3: But also I think the people who are, as we've
Speaker 3: been discussing, going to be at the most disadvantaged in
Speaker 3: terms of being able to keep up morale are these
Speaker 3: people who are going to be mandatorily detained. So in
Speaker 3: terms of what we were talking about I believe before
Speaker 3: we started recording, reaching out to any organizations I know
Speaker 3: in San Diego there's detention resistance, or even reaching out
Speaker 3: to the detention center that's near you to be able
Speaker 3: to determine how you can send a letter, how you
Speaker 3: can put money on somebody's books so that they can
Speaker 3: have phone calls with their family or phone calls with you.
Speaker 3: Even I think these types of things are are key
Speaker 3: in light of the administration's clear messaging that immigrants are
Speaker 3: very much unwanted and criminals. So I think I think
Speaker 3: that that's where I would come at this from. If
Speaker 3: you cannot donate again, like we were talking, if you
Speaker 3: have a few dollars to spare, I mean, if everybody
Speaker 3: has a few dollars to spare, there is a finite number,
Speaker 3: like we were saying of asylum cases love ye, like
Speaker 3: for roses. So if people can spare a few dollars
Speaker 3: here or there whenever they can, it doesn't make the difference.
Speaker 1: Yeah, no, it does, and it shows that like even
Speaker 1: if the government doesn't want you to hear, a lot
Speaker 1: of people want you to be protected. We want you
Speaker 1: to be safe, Like, yeah, the mental damage it does,
Speaker 1: I think it's hard to overstate. Like I was talking,
Speaker 1: I remember to a young woman Ino and like she
Speaker 1: was the only surviving member of her pamently the government
Speaker 1: had killed everyone, and so she came to the US
Speaker 1: right to be safe, and like, now the government is
Speaker 1: coming after her in addition to the trauma she already
Speaker 1: has from watching her entire family die. Like, now the
Speaker 1: most powerful government in the world is coming after you.
Speaker 1: I can't imagine how that feels.
Speaker 2: That's a very good point.
Speaker 3: I mean, yeah, people are coming already traumatized, only to
Speaker 3: be further traumatized by this administration in the system. And yes,
Speaker 3: I mean emotional and mental and any kind of support
Speaker 3: is not to be underestimated in the slightest during these times.
Speaker 1: Yeah, like have people over for dinner if you can,
Speaker 1: or yeah, like call the detention center and put money
Speaker 1: on someone's commisary. Like just showing people that they're welcome
Speaker 1: is important. Like I know a lot of the migrants,
Speaker 1: Like if I look at my phone right now, in
Speaker 1: the time we've been recording, one of the migrants I
Speaker 1: met that Darien Gat will probably have texted me. They're
Speaker 1: in Mexico right, and they just want the world to
Speaker 1: know about the situation, they know they can't come to
Speaker 1: the US anymore. But sometimes people will say, I guess
Speaker 1: the Americans don't want s anymore, And like that breaks
Speaker 1: my heart because I think most people, if they knew
Speaker 1: these people circumstances right to people have reached out to
Speaker 1: me since the Darien Gap stuff to ask how they
Speaker 1: can help, and like, most people do want those people
Speaker 1: to be their neighbors. And it breaks my heart that
Speaker 1: they think that we don't want them, that we would
Speaker 1: rather leave them to die wherever they're at. Like it's
Speaker 1: genuinely really horrible for me to think of that. So yeah,
Speaker 1: I would really encourage anyone listening if you can, to
Speaker 1: do what you.
Speaker 3: Can absolutely in just remembering that again, these asylum cases
Speaker 3: are finite. So if you know any asylum seeker or
Speaker 3: can support any asylum seeker right now, they made it
Speaker 3: in Let's give them their best shot.
Speaker 1: Yeah yeah, yeah, like we can still help those people,
Speaker 1: and while we can, we should absolutely Yeah, Well, thank
Speaker 1: you so much for joining us. We do appreciate it.
Speaker 1: I know that your time is very valuable and you're
Speaker 1: really busy right now, so we really appreciate your time.
Speaker 1: You're always welcome back, and if there's anything else you'd
Speaker 1: like to say before we finish up.
Speaker 2: Yeah, thank you, James.
Speaker 3: I think the only thing I just want to emphasize
Speaker 3: is that, you know, from the standpoint of immigration attorneys
Speaker 3: like I feel that we're obviously a subject of an
Speaker 3: executive order, and you know, big law firms are being
Speaker 3: extorted by the administration to represent causes that the administration
Speaker 3: believes in and not robono immigration work and so forth
Speaker 3: and so on. So it's not like too many of
Speaker 3: us have been personally attacked, although you know, judges have
Speaker 3: been arrested, even judges for just hiring an immigrant to
Speaker 3: do work around the house. So it is a scary
Speaker 3: time to be practicing immigration law. But unfortunately, I do
Speaker 3: see there being a time when it won't happen. I mean,
Speaker 3: I see the writing on the wall where I will
Speaker 3: not be able to continue mentally and or economically, because
Speaker 3: a side effect of all this, and a very intentional
Speaker 3: side effect, is to make it so that we can't
Speaker 3: do much for people anymore, and or they can afford us,
Speaker 3: or there's not people here to do anything for because
Speaker 3: their spirit was broken or their finances or all of
Speaker 3: the above and they had to leave. So it is
Speaker 3: a very intense time. But I came from different areas
Speaker 3: of life. I've only been in immigration seven years and
Speaker 3: it's the first time I've thought of, Okay, where am
Speaker 3: I going to go to next in these seven years,
Speaker 3: And it's a very real thing. So, like I said,
Speaker 3: it feels very different than Trump one point zero.
Speaker 1: So no, yeah, this is considerably more severe.
Speaker 3: So in other words, take care of yourself if you
Speaker 3: are an ally, because you know the attack is on
Speaker 3: immigrants and anybody who advocates, supports and so forth, and
Speaker 3: it's a very targeted, direct attack and it's very easy
Speaker 3: to get run down and consumed by it. And so
Speaker 3: definitely do what you need to do to take care
Speaker 3: of yourself. And if that means stepping back, then you know,
Speaker 3: I mean, I want to keep my foot in the
Speaker 3: door as much as possible these next four years on
Speaker 3: something immigration and recite asylum related. But there's also economic
Speaker 3: and other realities that are happening intentionally, So.
Speaker 1: Yeah, definitely, and I think it is important for people
Speaker 1: to do whatever they need to do to self preserve
Speaker 1: and take care of themselves as well. I think that's
Speaker 1: a good place to end, thank you so much for
Speaker 1: your time, and again, like if you're listening, please check
Speaker 1: the description of the show and we will have a
Speaker 1: link to primises go fund Me if you'd like to help.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much, James, thank you. It Could Happen
Speaker 2: Here is a production of cool Zone Media.
Speaker 3: For more podcasts from cool Zone Media, visit our website
Speaker 3: coolzonmedia dot com, or check us out on the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 3: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts. You can
Speaker 3: now find sources for It Could Happen Here listened directly
Speaker 3: in episode descriptions.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening.