The Kritarchs in the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), the immigration court system, and #DeepState operatives in U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that adjudicates immigration and citizenship applications, including asylum applications, have been conducting a campaign against the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, and his immigration enforcement priorities.
The sabotage by the EOIR has been ongoing for years, and the saboteurs in USCIS, the successor to the Examinations/Adjudications section of the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), have also been thorns in the side of any immigration enforcement for even longer. Such is the threat from the Deep State operatives in USCIS, that a warning was given to then candidate Trump that he must address the issue immediately upon his inauguration. [President Trump Will Have Foes In Immigration Bureaucracy—But Also Friends. They Can Help Him Win, by Federale, VDare, April 25, 2016] It appears in the end, despite slow implementation, that someone in the Trump Administration reads VDare, and has been fighting the personnel and bureaucratic battle over personnel and policy in the bureaucracy.
However, while Trump appointees are moving to make new policy and practice, there continues to be sabotage and Resistance by deeply entrenched bureaucrats who are traitors, saboteurs, and seditious. Two recent stories concerning the Caravan Of Death To America By Demographic Displacement expose the depth of the illegal resistance to the President’s policies and practices. And, yes, opposing policy by action or inaction, is illegal and grounds for termination from Federal Service.
First, sabotage from USCIS bureaucrats that President Trump was warned about. Here we have Voxsplaining the problem, Trump is enforcing immigration law.
The next battlefield at the border is in asylum interview rooms.
The Trump administration’s goal has been clear: It wants as few people as possible coming to the United States without papers. And if they do come, it wants to deport them as quickly as possible.
That goal might finally be within their grasp.
[Jeff Sessions Is Pushing Asylum Officers To Reject More Migrants. Will They Go Along?, by Dara Lind, Vox, July 20, 2018]
Then we have the sabotage, unnamed and anonymous bureaucrats openly stating they will ignore the law, as fitly determined by the controlling legal authority, the Attorney General, and express instruction from their superiors in USCIS.
The guidance memo is another step toward specificity in how officers are supposed to do their jobs. But that memo is still subject to interpretation by each field office and, from there, each individual officer. In practice, tightening the standards for approval during initial screening interviews might force officers to deny some asylum claims — but in other cases, it might just force them to do more work in their reports to document exactly how the migrant’s answers meet all the requirements.
Asylum officers who’ve spoken anonymously to Vox say that, especially when they’re conducting screening interviews, they simply do not share Sessions’s outlook toward asylum law — much less Trump’s apparent belief that no one who crosses illegally should get a chance at legal protection.
Now add some Voxsplaining on an irrelevant issue to confuse the reader.
But to asylum officers who are doing the screening interviews — and who know that their decisions can make the difference between someone being allowed to stay in the US for months to put together a full asylum claim or getting deported within a matter of days — their job is to use US asylum law as a framework for enforcing the international legal principle of non-refoulement, which bars a country from sending back an asylum seeker to somewhere she could be in danger of persecution.
The reticence of asylum officers to enforce Sessions’s changes to the hilt isn’t a “deep state” desire to subvert the will of the president. It’s a response to the immense power and responsibility that officers carry in deciding who deserves a chance to make a full asylum claim. If officers are too strict, they could be sending someone back to her death. “No one,” one asylum officer told me, “wants that on their conscience.”
What Vox does is not report facts, what it does is "Voxsplain," which is to lie or mislead about some controversial topic; in this case that non-refoulement is a principle in international law, which means it has no legal meaning in the courts of the United States, or elsewhere, but is a practice in the conduct of international affairs that is not “legally” binding on a nation-state, as a nation-state is not held to account by any international court unless a group of nations act to enforce a particular principle. Basically, as The Stache explains, it means nothing unless a powerful nation or group of nations wants to impose that on a less powerful nation. In other words, international law, and specifically non-refoulement, are myths, myths closely worshiped by the writers, readership, editors, and publishers of the New York Times. Vox, and like persons.
Now for the GS-0930-9/12 Asylum Officer position with USCIS, non-refoulement is not one of their concerns. Their concern is to implement as directed the laws of the United States as directed by the authority over them, which is the President, who holds all executive power, and such power as is delegated to principle and inferior officers of the United States is delegated only to act for the President. Certain Principle Officers of the United States, such as Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, have certain delegated authority, and one of those authorities the Attorney General holds is the interpret the laws of the United States and binding that interpretation on all Executive Branch principle and inferior officers, e.g. all Federal bureaucrats. And the Attorney General has bound Asylum Offices to follow a new interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (INA), regarding asylum applications.
The saboteurs in USCIS who illegally spoke to Vox have no legitimate concerns about non-refoulement, or about what happens to asylum claimants deported to their country of origin under U.S. immigration laws. Their only duty is to American law. If their conscience bothers them about the work they do, including denying credible fear claims or asylum applications, then they should find other work. Non-refoulement is not a principle in the INA.
Next we move to another group of saboteurs, Immigration Judges in the EOIR. Immigration Judges are just like Asylum Officers, inferior officers of the United States, and subject to the authority of the President, as they exercise his delegated authority. And are under the direct supervision of the Attorney General.
Among those inferior officers in the Executive Branch, and under the supervision of Attorney General Sessions, is Morris Onyewuchi, a mere General Attorney, IJ-00, at the EOIR, with the pretentious title of Immigration Judge, but still an inferior officer in the end. (EOIR "judges" are not supposed to have judicial independence.)In this case, the old-school hard-core Communists at Mother Jones are waging a war on immigration enforcement, and highlighting IJs like Onyewuchi who are acting to sabotage ICE’s enforcement.
Goodwin also says credible fear interviews at Port Isabel have been abbreviated in recent days, with asylum officers asking migrants for only biographical information. That could stem from a lack of resources, but it might also be sign of confusion over a court order that was issued on Thursday by Port Isabel immigration judge Morris Onyewuchi. After a Honduran mother appeared before Onyewuchi in what he described as a state of “severe emotional disturbance,” he stopped his review of a credible fear interview that the woman had not passed. Onyewuchi halted the woman’s case until the Department of Homeland Security can address the problems caused by her separation from her 9-year-old daughter. The mother is blind in one eye and has spoken with her daughter only once since they were separated.
Onyewuchi wrote that the court “cannot conduct a meaningful review that comports with Constitutional Due Process to a fair trial” when the lack of information about her child’s location is causing such extreme distress. “The Respondent cannot provide meaningful testimony under such severe emotional disturbance,” he wrote.
[ICE Has Found Yet Another Way to Prolong Family Separations, by Noah Lanard, July 1, 2018]
Such sabotage by Kritarch Onyewuchi (the name is Nigerian, Onyewuchi was sworn in by Loretta Lynch in March, 2016) is without precedent. The emotional distress of a defendant in a criminal case, much less an administrative hearing, is of little concern for any judicial officer. Defendants in criminal cases do not have their cases delayed because they are separated from their children, and nor are the removal hearings of illegal aliens delayed because an alien held in custody is separated from their children. That occurs every day and is nothing new in either the criminal courts or in administrative immigration hearings.
Onyewuchi’s illegal delay of the hearing, in direct violation of orders from his superior, and Principal Officer, Attorney General Sessions. AG Sessions has ordered Immigration Judges to cease all unnecessary delays of immigration hearings. Kritarch Onyewuchi is in violation of very specific instructions from Sessions. Onyewuchi’s actions are insubordination and cause for removal. Onyewuchi is imposing his own political views on immigration policy in an official government proceedings. He doesn’t like deporting illegal aliens and clearly supports mass immigration as a political opinion, consequently imposing that political opinion in violation of law and policy.
Time for Jeff Sessions to remove Onyewuchi. It is also time for USCIS to report to the DHS Office of Inspector General the illegal activity of the Asylum Officers who spoke with Vox. A quick supoena from the OIG to Vox to get the names of the employees who spoke with Lind should get the names. Undoubtedly Lind will either refuse or lie, claiming she was contacted anonymously or “forgot” their names. But time to investigate and place the fear of God in insubordinate employees.
