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

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.

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.

This is what this means to me: as most of you know, I am British, and always will be. But, in February 2017, we became US citizens, after nearly 18 years here. For me it was bittersweet, I just could not get into it, it all felt wrong; I felt I was selling part of my soul. 1/6

When we came out after the ceremony, there was a cardboard cut-out of President Obama and Michelle Obama by the Democratic party booth, and I had my photo taken next to them as I registered to vote. 2/6

For the next 3.9 years I watched this country get suffocated by a president with no interest in the common good: dividing us all; inciting hate against anyone white, straight and able; totally disregarding science. Literally he assaulted every single one of my values. 3/6

And it really and deeply affected me. And I don't think I realised. But I believed that we could all work together to turn it around. That is why I got so involved with the election, as you've all seen on my timeline over the past few weeks, because everything was at stake. 4/6

Today, 7th November 2020, I now feel proud to be a US citizen, proud to have a president who will do his best to unite the people and heal us, allow us to move forward and make progress in solving many vital issues such as social & racial justice & climate change. 5/6

They’re shooting into the chamber.

At my office in Congress I have an original ballot of Mandela’s election as reminder to never take democracy for granted. After yesterday’s senate vote, I turn back to Mandela’s first speech when released from prison 31 years ago this week. Here’s what we can learn (THREAD)

GRACE: “I greet you all in the name of peace, democracy and freedom for all.”

Robbed of 27 years of his life, no one would have faulted Mandela if he emerged from prison with anger. But instead, with his first words of his first speech in decades, he chose grace. 2/13

HUMILITY: “I stand before you not as a prophet but as a humble servant of you, the people.”

Mandela was revered by millions as a leader of conscience. But in his second sentence, he made sure to set the tone for humility and service. No individuals stand above the people. 3/13

SOLIDARITY: “I salute the working class...religious communities..the endless heroism of youth.. the mothers and wives and sisters of our nation”

He focused on the contributions of the many and showed respect to those often overlooked. He showed the vitalness of coalitions. 4/13

URGENCY: “Our struggle has reached a decisive moment.”

Mandela used the speech to set the tone for the work ahead. His release was not the climax, but instead just the possibility of change. No assumptions could be made of what comes next. 5/13

Here's a quick thread on the chronology leading up to today's vote in the Scottish Parliament on whether ministers should go to court to investigate the finances of Donald Trump's Scottish resorts via a legal mechanism known as an Unexplained Wealth Order.👇

Intrigue surrounding the source of Trump's finances here is by no means new. An editorial in @TheScotsman questioned where the money was coming from back in *2008*. But the UWO issue came to prominence last Feb during exchanges in the Scottish Parliament.

The issue returned to parliament last November, when First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said any consideration or application for an UWO were "properly matters for the Crown Office, not for the Scottish ministers."

This argument went against the explicit definition of who is able to apply for a UWO, as set out in the Criminal Finances Act 2017 / Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which states that "the Court of Session may, on an application made by the Scottish ministers, make an UWO"

The leading advocate, Aidan O'Neill QC, has also said Scottish ministers alone are responsible for decisions around UWOs, and that transferring responsibility to the Crown Office or Lord Advocate "does not and can not" change its legal responsibilities.