Secretary Kerry's Unintentional Irony

On January 16, 2017, Secretary of State John Kerry criticized President-Elect Donald Trump's criticisms of German Prime Minister Angela Merkel's refugee and migrant policies. The President-Elect referred to Merkel's policy on this issue as a “catastrophic mistake.” Now, while the President-Elect did not provide specific complaints, I am inclined to agree with him that the migrant/refugee policies of Merkel have endangered the national security of European Union member states and have, ironically, endangered the European Union itself [see blog]. Interestingly, Secretary Kerry did not criticize the substance of President-Elect Trump's critique, but something quite different:

“I thought frankly it was inappropriate for a president elect of the United States to be stepping into the politics of other countries in a quite direct manner … and he will have to speak to that.”

- Secretary of State John Kerry[1]

On behalf of those of us with memories extending beyond the last couple of weeks, I must ask Secretary Kerry to clarify his comments. Was it not Secretary Kerry, who after perpetrating the backstabbing of our ally, Israel, at the United Nations Security Council [see blog], who delivered a scathing critique of the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, going as far as to draw false equivalence between Prime Minister Netanyahu's alleged intransigence and that of the terror organization, Hamas? Was it not Secretary Kerry's State Department that gave a significant grant to One Voice, an organization run by former Obama Campaign operatives that proceeded to aid the opposition to Prime Minister Netanyahu in Israel's most recent election?[2] Was it not President Obama who specifically criticized Likud when he was running for office in 2008, notwithstanding the fact that Likud was not even in the governing coalition at the time? Even if one takes Secretary Kerry's comments to be referring to the fact that President-Elect Trump made his comments as a President-Elect, and not as a President, he would still have to account for the statements of President Obama during his campaign and transition regarding Israel, as well as regarding Iran and Syria, both of which he sought better relationships with.

The word “irony” comes to the English language by way of Greek and Latin. According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, the first known use of the English word “irony” was in 1502.[3] Suffice it to say, irony had a long run. In his final act as Secretary of State, John Kerry laid irony to rest.

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

1. Reuters, “Kerry criticizes Trump for remarks on German refugee policy,” news.trust.org, (Jan. 16, 2017)
2. Chapman, Michael W., “Obama State Dept: $350K For Campaign Infrastructures Used Against Netanyahu In Israel Election,” cnsnews.com, (Dec. 12, 2016)
3. Merriam-Webster, “Irony,” merriam-webster.com, n.d. (retrieved Jan. 16, 2017)

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Senator Jeff Flake Plans to Propose Legislation to Break Up the Ninth Circuit

On February 1, 2016, I posted a blog addressing concerns presented by Doug Ducey, the Governor of Arizona, about his state being in the appellate jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [see blog].

The Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction over appeals arising from Arizona, California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Alaska, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Because of its significant scope, the Ninth Circuit has the largest caseload of any of the federal circuit courts by a significant margin. The Ninth Circuit also has the largest immigration caseload, owed both to its size and to the fact that it encompasses California and Arizona.

Nearly one year after I posted my blog on Governor Ducey's proposal, Lydia Wheeler of The Hill reports that Republican Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona is planning to introduce legislation to split up the Ninth Circuit.[1] The article notes that Republicans have proposed similar measures dating “back to the 1980s,” but that such measures have hitherto been unsuccessful. The Republicans quoted in the article — which include Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California — are supportive of the measure. Interestingly, the one Democrat quoted in the article, Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, seems open to considering the proposal on the merits:

“The problem has always been that [the Ninth Circuit] has a very large and somewhat unwieldly geographic area and caseload, so the question is whether there's an effective way to deal with those appeals … I'd have to see those details.”

In my previous blog post on the subject, I expressed support for breaking up the Ninth Circuit, noting that:

“If the Ninth Circuit consisted only of California, it would be responsible for more people than any of the other circuits. If you turned the rest of the Ninth Circuit … into a circuit, it would cover about as many people as both the Second and Third Circuits.”

For that reason and a variety of other reasons that I detailed in my 2016 post on the subject, I continue to support breaking up the Ninth Circuit into two smaller circuits. It will be interesting to see the exact details of Senator Flake's proposal, and whether it manages to gain traction in Congress. Any change to the composition of the Ninth Circuit would be an extremely important development in immigration law and for federal appellate law in general.

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

1. Wheeler, Lydia, “GOP eyes new push to break up California court,” thehill.com, (Jan. 22, 2017)

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Board of Immigration Appeals Requests Amicus Briefs on the Material Support Bar

On January 9, 2017, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) issued an Amicus Invitation No. 17-01-09 [PDF version]. This means that the Board is asking for amicus — “friend of the court” — briefs on a specific issue. Amicus Invitation No. 17-01-09 is about the “material support bar.” Briefs are due by February 8, 2017.

The Board is asking for members of the public who wish to appear as amicus curiae before the Board to file briefs on the following issues (quoted from the decision):

1. Does the word “material” in section 212(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI) of the Immigration and Nationality Act have an independent meaning, or is the phrase a term of art in which “material” has no independent meaning?
2. Assuming there is a de minimis exception to the material support bar, does that exception apply to contributions of money?

The first question addresses the meaning of the word “material” in section 212(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI). The provision renders inadmissible an alien who commits an act that he or she knows, or reasonably should know, “affords material support…” to terrorist activities or organizations (the statute lists the types of activities, individuals, and organizations). The question is whether the work “material,” in the section 212(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI) context, has an “independent meaning,” or whether the term “material support” is a term of art wherein “material” has no independent meaning.

The second question begins by assuming that there is a de minimis exception to the material support bar. Such an exception would mean that is possible for an alien to have provided support to an activity, individual, or organization where the support is so trivial or minor that it would not trigger the material support bar. The question then asks if the de minimis exception to the material support bar could ever apply to contributions of money. In effect, the Board wants briefing on whether an individual could donate money to a proscribed activity, organization, or individual, but the amount of money could be so small that it would not trigger the material support bar.

The material support bar is most significant in the asylum/refugee [see category] and withholding of removal [see article] contexts. However, it may also arise in normal admissibility determinations. Any developments regarding the interpretation of the material support bar are well worth following, as the bar arises in a variety of adjudications. We will be sure to update the site if the Board publishes a precedent decision addressing the issues it requested briefing on in Amicus Invitation No. 17-01-09.

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

Series of Posts: President-Elect Trump's Cabinet Picks and Immigration

PRESIDENT-ELECT TRUMP'S CABINET PICKS AND IMMIGRATION

On January 20, 2017, Donald J. Trump will be sworn in as the 45th President of the United States, and Michael R. Pence will be sworn in as the 48th Vice President of the United States. In a recent blog post, I detailed several reasons why I am enthusiastic about the prospects for the Trump Administration [see blog].

The Trump Administration promises to make dramatic changes in the conduct of the Executive Branch from the previous eight years. One area where many expect to see some of the most significant changes is in immigration policy. For this reason, I will write a series of blog posts detailing the backgrounds and public policy statements of the cabinet nominees of President-Elect Trump who will have the most bearing on administering the immigration laws. The list of nominees is as follows, and this article will be updated each time we post a new article:

• Nominee for Secretary of State: Rex Tillerson;
• Nominee for U.S. Attorney General: Jeff Sessions;
• Nominee for Secretary of Homeland Security: John Kelly; and
• Nominee for Secretary of Labor: Andrew Puzder.

If confirmed, these four individuals will run the four most important departments for immigration purposes. The Secretary of State oversees the Department of State (DOS) and all of the U.S. Embassies and Consulates. As head of the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Attorney General administers the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The Secretary of Homeland Security runs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which includes the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Finally, the Secretary of Labor heads the Department of Labor (DOL), which is responsible for adjudicating labor certification and labor condition applications, and thereby plays a significant role in adjudicating many nonimmigrant and immigrant visa petitions. This is just a small sample of what these departments do in the realms of immigration law and policy.

Far more will go into the Trump Administration's posture on executing the immigration laws than President-Elect Trump's choices to head the DOS, DOJ, DHS, and DOL. However, understanding the backgrounds and views of these four individuals will go a long way toward understanding how the Trump Administration will view immigration law and policy. It is important to note that these individuals will not only run their departments, but will likely be key advisers to the President-Elect as he charts a new course in immigration law and policy for the next four years.

Please check back regularly for new articles in this series. From June to November, I wrote a series of blog posts on immigration issues through the prism of the 2016 political season. To read these posts, please see my directory for the series of posts on Immigration Issues and the Election [see blog]. My post on President-Elect Trump's most significant immigration policy address is worth reading again as he prepares to take the oath of office on January 20 [see blog].

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com