"El Magonista" | Vol. 10, No. 43 | November 30, 2022

The justices wrestled with questions about states’ standing to sue, whether the guidelines were lawful and the limits of judicial power over immigration.

WASHINGTON — In a tense and tangled argument on Tuesday, the Supreme Court struggled to decide whether to revive immigration enforcement guidelines issued by the Biden administration that had set priorities for deciding which unauthorized immigrants should be arrested and detained.

The legal issues in the case were of surpassing consequence, several justices noted. Allowing routine suits from states challenging federal policies in this area would “bring immigration policy to a dead halt,” Justice Elena Kagan said. An argument pressed by the Biden administration about the limited power of federal judges to address the issue, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said, was “fairly radical.” Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh called the argument “pretty astonishing.”

The guidelines, issued last year, focused on “national security, public safety and border security.” But they also gave Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents substantial discretion to decide whether enforcement actions were warranted.

Texas and Louisiana filed suit to block the guidelines, which they said allowed many immigrants with criminal records to remain free while their cases moved forward, imposing burdens on the states’ justice systems and violating a federal law that they said made detentions mandatory.

Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar told the justices that the Department of Homeland Security must be able to set priorities. “There are more than 11 million removable noncitizens in this country, and D.H.S. has about 6,000 interior enforcement officers,” she said, adding that the federal government does not have the resources to apprehend and seek to deport all unauthorized immigrants... READ MORE

One of the few issues most Americans can agree on when it comes to the thorny topic of immigration is that longtime residents who were brought into the United States illegally as children should be granted permanent status. Congress should seize the opportunity during the lame-duck session to pass such legislation before the end of the year. 

With the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy in peril in federal court, California Sen. Alex Padilla has joined other Democratic senators to corral support to pass bipartisan legislation after Thanksgiving that would provide a permanent solution for these immigrants whose fates have been in limbo for years. Legislation could be a standalone bill or language attached to a must-pass government spending bill. Either way, such legislation would need the support of at least 10 Republicans and all 50 Democrats to pass. Padilla, who heads the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, and Border Safety, is appealing to common sense, making the case to Republicans that offering permanent residency to immigrants who’ve lived in the country most of their lives and work in essential jobs boosts... READ MORE

Arguments in United States v. Texas dwelled on whether to upend one of the judiciary’s longstanding procedures in order to neutralize the most reactionary judges.

Drew Tipton, a Trump appointee to a federal court in Texas, has spent just over two years on the bench. In those two years, he has repeatedly handed down decisions blocking the Biden administration's immigration policies that were rooted in highly dubious legal arguments.

And because federal trial court procedures in Texas frequently permit litigants to choose which judge will hear their case, Texas’s Republican attorney general often chooses Tipton to hear challenges to Biden administration policies. At least when it comes to immigration, Tipton has acted as a reliable partisan. 

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court had to confront this set of circumstances head-on. 

The Court heard an appeal of Tipton’s decision in a case known as United States v. Texas. Tipton’s order in the case, which he handed down in July, effectively stripped Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas of his statutory authority to set enforcement priorities for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the agency that enforces immigration laws within US borders. 

Tipton’s decision invalidated a memo Mayorkas issued in September 2021, which instructed ICE to prioritize undocumented immigrants who “pose a threat to national security, public safety, and border security and thus threaten America’s well-being” when making arrests or otherwise... READ MORE

Does the executive branch have the right to focus its limited resources to enforce immigration laws against people it believes most deserve deportation, or must it carry out an inflexible mandate to arrest large numbers of immigrants?

In oral arguments at the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Texas on Tuesday, Texas and Louisiana continued their challenge to the federal government’s ability to decide which immigrants are apprehended and removed. Although the case is different from some of the callous state-level antics that have gotten media attention recently—such as the removal of migrants from the state of Texas to Martha’s Vineyard with false promises of employment and cash assistance—it is another reminder that Republican-led states want to play the heavy in the larger immigration policy debate.

The justices offered a heated debate about the power of the federal government to decide its own immigration enforcement priorities without tipping their hand about the outcome. The question for immigrants—many of whom have lived in the United States for years and whom the Biden administration would not otherwise seek to remove—is where the court will come down: in support of an immigration system that offers some grace and flexibility in how it enforces its laws, or in support of what the federal government describes as “unyielding mandates” to apprehend and remove a broad set of unauthorized immigrants who pose no danger to anybody... READ MORE

By Isabela Dias | Mother Jones | NOV. 28, 2022 | Photo by Ross D. Franklin

Arizona’s voters decided to reverse years of discrimination in higher ed.

Jose Patiño remembers how his mother cried when the acceptance letter from Arizona State University arrived in the mail in late 2006. There it was, the ultimate reward for her son’s hard work and the reason why they had sacrificed so much by leaving Mexico when he was six years old. He had not just been accepted, he received a full scholarship offer. Patiño was on the way to becoming the first member of his undocumented family to get a college degree. “I had never seen her that happy,” Patiño says.

But their happiness proved short-lived. A few months later, Patiño received a different letter from the university stating that his tuition had tripled, and he no longer qualified for the scholarship. That abrupt change was a direct result of Proposition 300, a successful ballot measure that made university students in Arizona who were not US citizens or permanent residents and those lacking legal status ineligible for in-state tuition and federal and state financial aid. The referendum was approved with 72 percent of votes in November 2006. “I’m going to figure out a way,” Patiño told his mother at the time. “It will be difficult, but I’ll figure it out.”

Patiño, now the education and external affairs director of the Arizona-based immigrant youth-led group Aliento, did figure it out. He went on to attend ASU on a private scholarship set up by university administrators sympathetic to the plight of undocumented students in Arizona. He received a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, and then a master’s degree in secondary education from Grand Canyon University. But the impact of Proposition 300 was profound. A 2011 analysis by ASU’s Cronkite News found that between the Spring of 2007 and the Fall of 2010, the number of students without proof of citizenship in public universities in the state plummeted from 1,524 to 106. Proposition 300 effectively made college education unattainable for many of Arizona’s low-income undocumented youth... READ MORE

Delia Ramirez won her suburban Chicago district with a strong progressive message. She thinks it’s the key to stemming gains by the GOP.

ADDISON, Ill. — It was a Saturday, about a week and a half before the midterms, and Delia Ramirez wasn’t taking any chances. The heavily Democratic 3rd Congressional District with its 40-plus percent Hispanic population was almost guaranteed to send her to Washington. But Ramirez was out knocking on doors anyway. She didn’t want to just win; she wanted to prove something.

Since 2020, much attention has been paid to Republicans’ increasing popularity with Latino voters. To reverse this trend, some have argued, Democrats would need to hew much closer to the middle. But Ramirez had a different theory, and she was determined to prove it here in the western suburbs of Chicago.

Democrats, she believed, were losing Hispanic voters because they weren’t talking to them the right way. And that means telling working-class Latinos the party is going to fight for them against the “rigged” economic system that favors, as she puts it, “a bunch of riquillos,” or rich people. What brings out working Latino families to vote, Ramirez argues, is a straightforward economically progressive message — not threats to democracy or rhetoric on social justice issues but pocketbook issues such as health care and housing.

“Buenos días!” A woman with a spatula in one hand greets Ramirez on her doorstep. Ramirez, 39, presents herself in Spanish as the soon-to-be “first Latina Congresswoman in the entire Midwest.” As Ramirez compliments the delicious smell of food, she learns the woman is not yet a citizen but her husband José Padilla, a U.S. citizen and a registered voter, is working in the backyard. Ramirez follows the sound of digging... READ MORE

Top U.S. officials are considering drastic measures — including barring some asylum seekers and surging prosecutions of illegal border crossings — in preparation for an end to the pandemic-era Title 42 border policy, Axios has learned.

Why it matters: Some of the ideas under serious consideration echo controversial immigration policies from the Trump administration. Others could expand legal avenues for migrants and asylum seekers in the region to enter the U.S.

That some of these approaches are being considered at the highest levels of government reflects the Biden administration's desperation to get a handle on unprecedented efforts to cross the U.S.-Mexico border.
Top officials from the White House National Security Council, Department of Homeland Security, State Department and Justice Department have been involved in the discussions. Some of the potential actions would require cooperation from multiple agencies, according to two U.S. sources familiar with internal discussions.
Driving the news: A federal judge is forcing border officials to stop using Title 42 on Dec. 21.

Catch up quick: The Trump-era policy — continued under the Biden administration — cites public health concerns to allow Border Patrol to immediately expel migrants at the border without the chance for asylum.

U.S. officials anticipate the loss of the tool and the narrative that there are "open borders" will lead to a jump in the already-high number of border crossings. Preparations for this scenario have been underway.
Actions to expand legal pathways for migrants and asylum seekers and crack down on people who do not enter the U.S. at legal entry points were discussed in detail as recently as a Cabinet-head level meeting on Monday, according to the two sources familiar.
Final plans are still in flux.
The intrigue: The planning comes as House Republicans gear up for investigations into the administration's handling of the border — and a potential impeachment inquiry into DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas... READ MORE

Amid a record number of border crossings, Republicans in Congress are amplifying their calls for more border security and threatening to impeach Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, setting the stage for a showdown with Democrats in the next session of Congress over a whole host of immigration issues.

Republicans and Democrats have long struggled to come to bipartisan agreements on immigration issues, and the next Congress, which will be split between a Democrat-controlled Senate and Republican-controlled House, is likely to face even more legislative stalemates on the issue.

Before Republicans claim the majority in the House in January, Senate Democrats are pushing to pass a bill that would create a pathway to citizenship for so-called “Dreamers” or recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, amid a court battle that threatens the program’s future.

Republicans are keen to resume former President Donald Trump’s efforts to build a wall at the southern border, and Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) introduced legislation earlier this year that would facilitate the project, but it has yet to make it out of committee and is unlikely to do so next year when Democrats retain control of the Senate.

Title 42, a Covid-era policy that allows U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials to turn away migrants at the border, is on its death knell after a judge last week ordered the federal government to halt the practice, but 15 Republican-led states filed legal action this week that could lead to an appeal, and a group of bipartisan House members came out in favor of the program months ago when President Joe Biden said he would end it... READ MORE

Like so many current national issues at hand, it seems immigration reform has fallen victim to the extremes of Washington, D.C. politics. As pundits on the far-right and far-left bicker back and forth, few things are actually getting done.

While politicians in Washington are constantly in a state of gridlock, a recent court ruling has threatened to put nearly 700,000 law-abiding immigrants at risk. Also referred to as “Dreamers,” these folks are young adults brought to the U.S. as children. Passing permanent protections for Dreamers would give these law-abiding young people the security and freedom they ought to have.

Politicians from both parties should be full of pride to support permanent protections for Dreamers, who fear deportation from the only country they have called home. The recent U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling has legal experts positing the ruling will take away Dreamers’ ability to work and live legally in this country. The only way to guarantee stability for Dreamers is for Congress to pass permanent protections.

Most Dreamers are currently going to school or working legally under Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) permits. The DACA program will be overturned because of the Fifth Circuit’s recent ruling. The average DACA recipient was brought to the U.S. at only 6 years old and has thought of the U.S. as their home for more than 20 years. Many Dreamers grow up thinking they are American citizens, only to learn otherwise when they try to apply to college or get a driver’s license. Passing federal legislation would allow these folks to remain in the U.S. and pursue their American Dreams without fear of deportation. Voters across the political party spectrum believe that Dreamers should be permitted to remain in the U.S.... READ MORE

Judge Drew Tipton’s order in United States v. Texas is completely lawless. Thus far, the Supreme Court has given him a pass.

In July, a Trump appointee to a federal court in Texas effectively seized control of parts of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the federal agency that enforces immigration laws within US borders. Although Judge Drew Tipton’s opinion in United States v. Texascontains a simply astonishing array of legal and factual errors, the Supreme Court has thus far tolerated Tipton’s overreach and permitted his order to remain in effect.

Nearly five months later, the Supreme Court will give the Texas case a full hearing on Tuesday. And there’s a good chance that even this Court, where Republican appointees control two-thirds of the seats, will reverse Tipton’s decision — his opinion is that bad.

The case involves a memo that Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas issued in September 2021, instructing ICE agents to prioritize undocumented immigrants who “pose a threat to national security, public safety, and border security and thus threaten America’s well-being” when making arrests or otherwise enforcing immigration law. 

A federal statute explicitly states that the homeland security secretary “shall be responsible” for “establishing national immigration enforcement policies and priorities,” and the department issued similar memos setting enforcement priorities in 2005, 2010, 2011, 2014, and 2017. 

Nevertheless, the Republican attorneys general of Texas and Louisiana asked Tipton to invalidate Mayorkas’s memo. And Tipton defied the statute permitting Mayorkas to set enforcement priorities — and a whole host of other, well-established legal principles — and declared Mayorkas’s enforcement priorities invalid. This is not the first time that Tipton relied on highly dubious legal reasoning to sabotage the Biden administration’s immigration policies... READ MORE

The Biden administration has the power to end the needless suffering of stateless people in the United States.

The US Department of State has recently called on governments around the world to implement the pledges they made to protect stateless people – people who, as defined by the UN, are “not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law”.

But there are an estimated 200,000 stateless people in the US and they, too, need protection. I know this because I am one of them.

Yes, I am a stateless individual, a citizen of nowhere.

I was born in what is now Ukraine to a family of mixed Armenian and Ukrainian heritage. We faced discrimination due to our ethnicity in the Soviet Union,  so we made our way to North America to build ourselves a better life. There, unfortunately, our claim for asylum would be denied.

When the Iron Curtain collapsed and Ukraine became an independent nation, my parents and I became stateless. We have never lived in post-independence Ukraine, so it does not recognise us as citizens.

I am currently allowed to work in the US as a Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipient, but recent court decisions placed the future of DACA, and my ability to work in this country, in question. As I do not have a passport, I cannot leave the US... READ MORE

A group of 71 mayors from around the country called on congressional leaders to fast-track immigration protections for “Dreamers,” ahead of a GOP takeover of the House of Representatives.

In a letter Tuesday under the Cities for Action banner, the mayors warned that court action could soon invalidate the remainders of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, leaving hundreds of thousands of Dreamers in the lurch.

“A potential Supreme Court decision could strip DACA recipients of their work permits, threaten the livelihood of over 1.3 million DACA-eligible individuals, their families and their communities, and place them on a path to deportation,” wrote the mayors.

The mayor’s argument for legislative action on Dreamers — undocumented immigrants who arrived in the country as minors — is moral, economic and political.

“Over the last decade, more than 830,000 of our family members, neighbors, and friends have been protected under DACA. During the COVID pandemic, 343,000 or more than three-quarters of DACA recipients in the workforce were employed in jobs deemed essential by the Department of Homeland Security,” wrote the mayors.

“It is estimated that over 2.5 million U.S. citizens live with DACA-eligible people. Ending DACA would have a devastating impact on millions of people including DACA recipients, DACA-eligible individuals, their families, friends and communities across the country.”

Democratic leaders in the Senate have thrown their weight behind a bill protecting Dreamers, granting them some form of permanent extension to the work permits and deportation deferrals they received under DACA... READ MORE

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the release of Suavecito, by the band Malo, which became a mainstream hit at a time when Latino people were just a small percentage of the US population. The love song became a powerful symbol for Latino-Americans, writes Diane Bernard.

On Cinco de Mayo, 1980, Latino-American singer and songwriter Richard Bean joined Jorge Santana, Carlos Santana's younger brother, on stage at an outdoor concert in Los Angeles. Years before, Bean had written a song called Suavecito, and he never realised how iconic it had become until the two began playing it. As its slow groove flowed over the loudspeakers, the 20,000-person crowd in the city's Lincoln Park erupted in a roar.

"As I was singing to the crowd, four huge Chicano (Mexican-American) guys marched behind the band on stage and unfurled a giant green, white and red Mexican flag," Bean tells BBC Culture. The flag was so large it took all four men to hold it, he explains. "Get them off the stage," the roadies began shouting, according to Bean. "Get them off." But the four stood proud. "No, not until the song is over," they said. "Not until Suavecito is done." When he looked behind him at the huge flag, and looked out at the all-Latino audience, Bean began to tear up. It wasn't until that moment, he said, that he knew Suavecito, informally called the "Chicano National Anthem" by some, lived up to that name as a true symbol of America's Mexican-Americans and Latino people... READ MORE

Legend has it that the cities of Madero and Tampico are protected from hurricanes by an alien base called Amupac.

MIRAMAR BEACH, Tamaulipas — As Tropical Storm Karl formed just a few hundred miles from the coastal cities of Madero and Tampico last month, Beatriz García, a 71-year-old local, wasn’t worried when she saw the news. “I immediately said, ‘they [aliens] are going to protect us.’ And this is what I believe and trust: that they exist, that there is a base,” said García.

Local legend has it that this area in Mexico has been protected from hurricanes and other dangerous storms for over 50 years by extraterrestrials who monitor Earth from an underwater base hidden a few miles off Miramar Beach called Amupac. And Garcia, like many others here, is a believer. While the rumors of underwater alien protectors are unproven, what’s certain is that Tropical Storm Karl took a sharp turn away from that part of the shoreline, and connected further south on the Gulf Coast of Mexico, causing floods in some places, and leading to one death.

Extreme weather events continue to miss these cities, feeding the legend and making Madero and Tampico the epicenter of alien culture in Mexico. Around Miramar Beach especially, the legend of Amupac has become an important driver of the economy and a principal reason some of the tourists flock to the area. Restaurants are named after martians and souvenir stands sell alien stuffed toys next to T-shirts with flying saucers and green men boasting of being the Playa Protegida — “Protected Beach.” And maybe it is... READ MORE