A comprehensive new @HouseJudiciary report on family separation puts to bed any suggestion that the Trump administration intended to reunite families.

One damning new revelation? Former CBP head Kevin McAleenan tried to keep separations going after a court ordered them to stop. https://t.co/ORVnsA6fKi

New! @DOJ_EOIR is *finally* moving forward with its long-planned deployment of electronic filing at the immigration courts, through a new Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that may hopefully bring the agency into the 21st century.

Digging into it now.

https://t.co/f1itGIMseK

In the new Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, EOIR is proposing to expand its e-filing pilot program (ECAS) to all immigration courts nationwide.

ECAS post-dates my time in immigration court so I'll defer to others on how well that system has worked so far.

EOIR proposes that all new cases in immigration courts which implement the new e-filing programs would get an "electronic Record of Proceedings" rather than a paper file.

BUT—this would only apply to NEW cases. The current 1.25 million cases would not be converted to electronic.

Once the new electronic filing system is in place at a court, all attorneys (including DHS) will be required to file documents electronically, with limited exceptions allowing judges to accept some documents in open court.

BIA-accredited reps will have to opt-in to e-filing.

Under the proposal, law students and law grads who practice in immigration court would be required to file all documents through their attorney supervisor's account, and additionally mandate for the first time that the supervisor enter an appearance and appear for all hearings.

🚨 The June "Death to Asylum" regulation has been finalized. It is set to go into effect on Monday, January 11, just nine days before inauguration.

https://t.co/tQGwoRrjjW

Under this new rule, one of Trump's last parting body blows to the United States' system of humanitarian protection, none but the lucky few will be able to win asylum.

The regulation creates near-total bans on asylum for wide swathes of people and herculean procedural barriers.

Before I get into just how horrific this new anti-asylum regulation is, a picture of Petra I took this morning to soften the blow of what is a terrible thing to read through—even though the Biden administration will be working to end it ASAP and court challenges are certain.

Back to the new regulation, which I wrote about in June when it was first proposed.

Today, the Trump administration says that they have "generally adopt[ed] the [Notice of Proposed Rulemaking] with few substantive changes." Meaning it's just as bad.

The Trump administration's anti-refugee policies show right at the start.

To them, refugee protections are first about "protecting [our] own resources and citizens" and only secondarily about protecting people from persecution.

That's what led us to turn away Jews in the 1930s.

There is a LOT to like about this bill. I want to highlight some of the proposed changes beyond just legalization, including:

- Ending the 3 & 10 year bars
- Curbing the "Muslim ban" authority
- Preventing "aging out" of children on nonimmigrant

Today's press release says the new bill will revoke the 1996 immigration bill's creation of 3 and 10 year bars to getting a visa for those who have been present unlawfully in the US for 6 months or over a year.

Here's @immcouncil's fact sheet on the bars:

The new bill has multiple provisions designed to reduce the current green card backlogs, which for nationals of some countries like India, China, Mexico, and the Philippines, can mean the process of obtaining a green card can take 20+ years (or even longer in some cases).

The bill would also create similar reforms for the employment-based immigration system, where backlogs are even worse. Under the current system, some Indian nationals seeking a green card are predicted to have a 100+ year wait for a visa! The new bill would do a lot to fix that.

This particular provision would be a welcome change for thousands of people who grow up in the United States as a "derivative" on their parents' nonimmigrant work visas.

Under current laws, they have to leave the US when they turn 21 (if they can't get another visa).

Just jumped into listening to the Tipton status hearing in the Texas case and the Texas AG just said something wildly incorrect, that all 14,000 people held in ICE detention would be released—but that's just completely wrong. It only applies to those with final orders!

Tipton, admitting his lack of knowledge on immigration law, asks a series of questions about detention that suggests he completely buys into Texas's argument that anyone with a criminal record is per se dangerous. But they served their time! If they were a citizen they'd be out.

Kirschner pushing back on Tipton and the AG's focus on detention, making clear that the case is about "removal," not detention. He asks Tipton to lay out his questions fully so they can answer them.

Texas's AG office completely botches Zadvydas, claiming that if removable is not foreseeable the government has no authority to detain them.

That is simply false (DHS can always continue to detain on public safety grounds), and @CodyWofsy jumps in to correct that issue.

Pushing back, @CodyWofsy makes clear that "as a practical matter, people who have final removal orders are often detained for years," including in circumstances where there are practical issues with their removal (diplomatic issues, e.g.) and Texas's claim was just wrong.

THREAD: CCP vs US Military, on home soil.

1. I watched the Executive Orders and I watched the media panic. I watched the MSM lies and I watched the treason. I watched the fake Russia narrative. I watched the calls for impeachment. I watched a stolen election, in full view.

NEW - on @skynews shortly:
Reliable source tells me Withdrawal Deal text contains

- No unilateral exit from backstop

- Large annexe on level playing field

.... after reporting this on @SkyNews I get a call from a different senior source that this is “spot on” and further that the Attorney General Geoffrey Cox has not pulled his punches in confirming in legal advice there is “no unilateral exit” from backstop ...

... furthermore I’m told (and this chimes with excellent Times splash this morning re Weyand) that the future partnership then takes its starting point as the activated backstop - ie UK-wide customs union-style arrangement and level playing field.

Understand that a ministerial briefing on the draft Withdrawal Agreement meant to drum up support from some trade organisations due tonight has now been postponed

Met a Brazilian-American Lyft driver from San Diego who passionately attacked the racism of Republicans, then switched to passionately defending Bolsonaro.

If I were Thomas Friedman, I could tell you what this means.

Met a Haitian-American in a restaurant who said he'd always vote for Democrats because of the immigration issue, but that he has conservative beliefs too. "I don't want to pay for someone's abortion!", he declared.

Met a Latino Lyft driver from San Jose who said that while he was liberal, California was getting too liberal for him and he was considering moving to San Antonio.

Again, not being Tom Friedman, I am unable to offer any commentary on the political and policy implications of these conversations.

I guess my only thought is that political opinions are pretty complex and multidimensional, out there in the real world.

(end)

✔️ We have begun. It's Day 4 of the Trump Impeachment Trial 2.0. The defense is putting on their case. The first lawyer is Van Der Veen.

1/

Already this is wackadoodle. Seems like the defense is trying to tell us not to believe what we saw. This lawyer has the audacity to say that the people assembled at Trump's speech were peaceful patriots

2/

This lawyer is claiming that Trump's speech on the ellipse on January 6th was was a policy speech about "turning out strong in the next primaries" and how this was about working on voting law reform.

A mere civics lesson.

3/

The lawyer is lying. The Clinton campaign never "declared that the election was stolen by Russia."

Also, this Trump lawyer is trying to claim that democrats objecting to some of the electoral votes is equivalent to Trump's incitement of violence.

4/

As we expected, Trump's lawyers are not going to address the merits. Instead this is what-about-ism

5/

(THREAD) The main problem with that @DanDrezner piece in the Post is that it's an international politics prof writing about the field in which I'm a professor—communications. No one in communications would *ever* compare the blogosphere to either Twitter or Substack. Here's why.

1/ Back in the mid-aughts, I was a Koufax Award-nominated political blogger (I don't know what Drezner was doing then; I first heard of him about a year ago). So I was into the blogosphere pretty deep, as I also ran a second high-traffic blog that was focused on the art world.

2/ The "blogosphere" was an outgrowth of MySpace and LiveJournal, inasmuch as in the heady early days of the internet people suddenly realized that they could engage in private diaristic writing—a very specific subgenre of writing—in the public square, and it was suddenly "okay."

3/ So the blogosphere as such had *nothing* to do with journalism, which needless to say was in a different state just 15 years ago (note: unlike Drezner, I also teach writing and journalism at the university level, so this thread is squarely "in my area," unlike his Post piece).

4/ The blogosphere was a manifestation of the transformation of the public-private binary at the dawn of the internet—and *also* connected to the "creative writing" explosion (what I did a PhD on); in the aughts, creative writing was the fastest-growing discipline *in the world*.