Mediaboss Marketing

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis and more, subscribe to Mother Jones' newsletters.

During the 20142015 school year, Caleigh Wood started to learn about Islam as part of her 11th grade world history class. Upon discovering this, Caleighs dad, John, wrote on Facebook that he just about fucking lost it, adding in response to a commenter, A 556 round [of ammunition] doesnt study Islam and it kills them fuckers everyday. John told the schools vice principal that you can take that fucking Islam and shove it up your white fucking ass, according to federal court records. After saying that he was going to create a shit storm like you have never seen, he got banned from the La Plata, Maryland, high school.

That could have been the end of the story. Instead, Brandon Bolling and other lawyers from the Thomas Law More Center, a right-wing Christian group that declares itself battle ready to defend America, represented John as he sued the Charles County public school system for allegedly attempting to indoctrinate his daughter into Islam.

An excerpt of an anti-Muslim Facebook in which John Wood tagged his daughter. PACER

Last week, the Justice Department announced that it had hired Bolling, a former Marine and federal attorney, to be an assistant chief immigration judge in Texas, even though he has no discernible immigration experience. During two stints at the Thomas More Law Centerneither of which is disclosed in his government bioBolling worked on numerous cases that pitted his clients against Muslims and the gay community. Now Bollingwill help oversee the immigration cases of people detained in El Paso, and could be responsible for deciding whether victims of persecution based on their religions and sexual orientations receive protection under US asylum laws.

Bolling is one of 46 new immigration judges recently hired by the Trump administration. Another is Matt OBrien, who served as the research director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, one of the countrys leading anti-immigrant groups. The decision to hire both men is an escalation of the Trump administrations efforts to select judges sympathetic to its anti-immigration agenda. (The Justice Departments Executive Office for Immigration Review and the Thomas More Law Center did not respond to requests for comment.)

As part of the Justice Department, immigration courts lack the independence of federal courts. The decisions they make can determine whether immigrants who have been in the United States for decades can remain, or whether asylum seekers will be deported to the countries they fled. Even when immigrants appeal their decisions, they generally stick, since the Trump administration has made a point of filling the Board of Immigration Appeals with judges known for denying nearly all asylum claims.

When the Thomas More Law Center first hired Bolling more than a decade ago, the centers president, Richard Thompson, highlighted Bollings tours during Operation Enduring Freedom. I have a bias for lawyers with combat backgrounds, Thompson said. They make great lawyers in the Culture War.

John Wood wasnt the first Marine who Bolling represented in a lawsuit targeting Islam. In 2008, Bolling, another Thomas More attorney, and David YerushalmiThe Man Behind the Anti-Shariah Movement, in the words of a New York Timesheadlinefiled a complaint on behalf of a former Marine named Kevin Murrayin a suit against thenTreasury Secretary Henry Paulson. The suit alleged that the federal government violated the First Amendment by acquiring a stake in the finance and insurance giant AIG as part of its response to the financial crisis. The lawyers argued that AIG engaged in Shariah-based Islamic religious activities that are anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, and anti-American by offering some insurance products that complied with tenets of Islamic religious law governing lending and borrowing in order to serve Muslim clients. Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California-Los Angeles, pointed out at the time, The government no more cares about advancing Shariah through the AIG bailout than my local Ralphs supermarket cares about advancing kosher laws by selling products that are certified kosher.

But the lawsuit claimed that the governments endorsement of Islamic law sends a message to [Murray]that he is an outsider, not a full member of the political community. Murrays lawyers wrote that the theo-political doctrine of Islam is contrary to the dictates of the First Amendments religion clauses and that jihad was a way to gain political control and exercise Islamic authority over a population. The word infidel appeared seven times in their complaint. Not surprisingly, a judge dismissed the suit. (Bolling was no longer at Thomas More at the time.)

Bolling also took aim at homosexuality and sex education. In 2008, Bolling challenged the sex education curriculum of Montgomery County, Maryland, on behalf of plaintiffs including a group called Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays. A Thomas More press release stated that the lawsuit objected to the notion that homosexuality is innatemeaning they are born that way.

Bolling argued in court that the curriculum was illegal because it required teaching factually inaccurate information, specifically that homosexuality is innate. He also thought it should be illegal to show students how to use condoms while engaging in oral and anal sex on the grounds that Maryland law prohibited teaching erotic techniques. The judge upheld the curriculum after a six-year legal battle that involved numerous other legal challenges. (The Thomas More centerhas been able to afford such prolonged litigation with financial support from Dominos Pizza founder Thomas Monaghan.)

John Wood didnt fare much better than Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays. Judge George Hazel concluded that Caleighs Christian teacher did not have a secret Muslim indoctrination plot. [T]he First Amendment does not afford the right to build impenetrable silos, completely separating adherents of one religion from ever learning of beliefs contrary to their own, Hazel concluded in favor of the school district. Nor, in this Courts view, does it prohibit a high school teacher from leading a purely academic study of a religion that may differ from the religious beliefs of some of his students.

Read the rest here:
He Defended Anti-Gay and Anti-Muslim Causes. Now He's an Immigration Judge. - Mother Jones

Understanding the rights, history of immigrants in America is understanding the country in itself

FEIRAN ZHOU

American history is (among other people) built on the history of immigrants.

As it is so often said, America is a nation built on immigration (among other things), and the history between America and immigrants is understated most of the time, considering just how much this country owes them. Whether its been for the benefit of America, the immigrants or both, this country has relied on them for as long as its been a country. Which makes its tumultuous (to say the least) relationship with immigration weird in a way.

Understanding the history of immigration and what rights immigrants are fighting for today is integral to understanding America. While it is impossible to make a definitive list for understanding the role immigration plays in America, hopefully these recommendations will enlighten you a little.

Along with recommendations by yours truly, WSU history professor Lipi Turner-Rahman has contributed two.

Frontline: Immigration Battle

This episode came out in 2015 and mainly follows former U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez as he pushes for immigration reform, while also spotlighting young immigrant activists and organizations like the National Council of La Raza. While it may be a little old, its still a very relevant look into the people fighting for immigration reform and the obstacles they face to carve out a place for themselves in America.

I think its also important to learn about immigration before our current president. We all know how charged of a topic it is now, but this episode reminds us that a lot of what immigration reformers are fighting for hasnt changed, hence the very relevant part.

Tell Me How It Ends: An Essay In 40 Questions by Valeria Luiselli

Tell Me How It Ends is 71 pages long, so even if you dont like to read, it doesnt take a long time to finish. The book is framed through the forty questions Luiselli, as a translator for unaccompanied child migrants, has to ask. Through those questions, Luiselli ponders what these children have gone through and also takes time to reflect on Americas history with immigration, as well as her journey to become a citizen.

There are a lot of hard parts to read for such a short book, from the hard facts Luiselli mentions about history or the immigration process to the personal experiences she describes. Those hard parts are what makes this book so important, and such an essential read.

Tell Me How It Ends is a soul-crushing look into immigration, why so many come to this country and how we treat them before, in travel and after they get here.

Bengali Harlem and the Lost Histories of South Asian America by Vivek Bald

Turner-Rahmans first recommendation traces the history of South Asian immigrants coming to American in the early 1900s, how they came to cities such as Harlem and Baltimore, and integrated with the communities of color.

This is a wonderful book that highlights the intermarriages, collation building and alliances that communities of color have had to make in America to survive, Turner-Rahman said.

Pioneering Punjabis

Turner-Rahmans second recommendation comes in the form of a historical archive by UC Davis, detailing the history of Punjabi Americans in California in the early 20th century. The archive looks into the personal experiences, the people, and most interestingly, how the Punjabi American community impacted California.

This archive also serves as a good representation of how immigrants have been a constant throughout American history, how theyve been making minor and major contributions that are often too quickly forgotten. Its an interesting look into a part of history you likely didnt know.

Excerpt from:
Educate Yourself: Immigration The Daily Evergreen - The Daily Evergreen

The Home Secretary said the UK is absolutely about to enter a glorious new era. Brexit transition rules will end in December allowing the country to finally take back control. Ms Patel told the Daily Express: January 1 is going to be one of those totemic moments in the history of this country, a landmark moment.

We are ending free movement. We are a government thats all about delivery.

The points-based system is just the first step to big immigration changes, changes to border control.

Ms Patel said the government is boosting economic investment in all parts of the UK.

We want to get Britain moving again but we actually want to get Britain motoring, she said.

We want to see the renaissance of our regions, we want to level up.

We have levers to do all that so this is just the start.

Ms Patel was speaking during a visit to Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, to meet local police on the first anniversary of being made Home Secretary.

The Cabinet minister said the Conservatives are unapologetically the party of law and order.

We have a first-class working relationship with the police, she said. I am absolutely shoulder to shoulder with them.

We dont stand behind them, we stand beside them. It is a journey for both of us in terms of the support we give and my commitment to them, but also through resourcing.

Ms Patel revealed 90,000 people have applied to be police officers since last October and the government is well ahead of its police recruitment targets.

READ MORE: Barnier warned public 'growing impatient' as no deal Brexit 'likely'

Police forces have received that largest uplift in funding in a decade at 1.1 billion.

That is moving the needle on law enforcement, Ms Patel said. We love the police, we respect the police, we are here for the police, we are the party of law and order.

Ms Patel, who visited the Blue Glove Boxing Academy, a gym for emergency services personnel, hailed police officers for their exceptional service during the coronavirus crisis.

She said there had been a spirit of national unity during the COVID lockdown and the police have been at the forefront of it.

Police have warned they will not be able to carry out widespread enforcement of new rules coming into force on Friday ordering the public to wear facemasks in shops.

Ms Patel said she did not believe that heavy-handed tactics would be necessary because people have been very conscientious about following the rules.

DON'T MISS: David Frost will succeed in Brexit negotiations but only if he caves [ANALYSIS]Brexit fishing row: Boris demands near total ban on EU vessels in UK [LATEST]Brexit time bomb: EU warns just 84 DAYS to complete trade deal [UPDATE]

She insisted enforcement is always a last resort.

People will apply their common sense, she said. We dont need police officers to go round in a pernicious way to act in an enforcement way.

The Home Secretary said she did not expect there to be widespread flouting of the rules over the summer, despite recent problems such as overcrowding on Bournemouth beach.

She said people have had pent up frustrations in the last few weeks after lockdown.

She added: Thats inevitable. Thats human instinct.

But she insisted Britons are sensible people.

Ms Patel said she has used her first year to empower and equip police officers, including making stop and search easier.

Although some campaigners claim the measures leave young black boys and men disproportionately targeted, Ms Patel insisted it is not a divisive tactic.

She said: Ive spent plenty of hours, too many sadly, with parents that have lost their children to street violence. The parents have said to me repeatedly we need more stop and search.

Officers have been actively using stop and search even during the COVID crisis over concerns about weapons on the streets, she said.

When it comes to saving lives, we should be unapologetic, Ms Patel added. If we are saving lives then these are the types of measures we should be using.

Ms Patel said tackling knife crime is a priority and told how machetes half my height are being pulled off the street.

We need to stop that, she said.

Hard cash is going into police forces in a targeted way to keep the public safe.

Crime is coming down, she said. We are serious about getting violent crime down.

Read this article:
Brexit will unleash Britain's potential vows Patel as she hints at new immigration reform - Daily Express

No ice, no polar bears, and no hockey. Climate change will take them right before making us go extinct. Backyard ice hockey rinks in US cities back in the 1940s, gave 60 days of suitable ice. Today, it is less that 20 days a year. The question is, what effect is this having on polar bears? Dr. Stephen Amstrup joins Thom Hartmann to talk about how carbon emissions are affecting the climate and how they are going to kill the polar bears.

The Thom Hartmann Program covers diverse topics including immigration reform, government intrusion, privacy, foreign policy, and domestic issues. More people listen to or watch the TH program than any other progressive talk show in the world! Join them.

The Thom Hartmann Program is on Free Speech TV every weekday from 12-3 pm EST.

Missed an episode? Check out TH on FSTV VOD anytime or visit the show page for the latest clips.

#FreeSpeechTV is one of the last standing national, independent news networks committed to advancing progressive social change.

#FSTV is available on Dish, DirectTV, AppleTV, Roku, Sling and online at freespeech.org

Climate Change Hockey Polar Bears Stephen Amstrup The Thom Hartmann Program Thom Hartmann

See the rest here:
Climate Change Will Take Hockey, and Polar Bears - Free Speech TV

And the clock is ticking: A court has already ordered the administration to start accepting new applications for the Obama-era program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, that protects immigrants who came to the country illegally as children.

The result is that few people, if any, know what will happen. Administration officials are telling different things to different people involved in immigration policy. And staffers are going back and forth internally with just over 100 days from the election.

Whiplash is how Karen Tumlin, an attorney involved in one of the cases that the Supreme Court ruled on last month, summed it up.

Any action he takes is a political minefield. The Trump campaign wants to energize immigration hardliners in the presidents base who say DACA represents egregious executive overreach before the November election. But it also wants to win over the swing voters, evangelicals and Hispanics who support Dreamers.

Trump moved to end the program in 2017, offering a six-month wind-down period designed to give Congress time to pass legislation to make the program permanent. But lawmakers never acted and in June, the Supreme Court rejected Trump's action on relatively narrow grounds, leaving the door open for him to try to kill it again.

Trump initially acknowledged that he lost the Supreme Court case and said he would try to kill the program a second time by writing another memorandum rescinding DACA that would start the lengthy process.

He later appeared to change his mind, saying a different legal interpretation of the case actually gave him more authority to act unilaterally on immigration and other issues.

The latest news in employment, labor and immigration politics and policy.

He then confused even his own staffers when he appeared to not distinguish between executive and legislative actions, using the words executive order and bill interchangeably, and announcing on television that he would sign an immigration bill, though Congress had not passed one.

In the meantime, Trumps staffers have been crafting separate executive orders on immigration, health care and taxes after an outside lawyer counseled the president that the Supreme Courts DACA decision actually handed him more executive power despite a loss in the case.

The immigration order could be amended to offer protections for a more limited number of Dreamers, according to three people familiar with the discussions. But such a move risks backlash after Trump spent years arguing President Barack Obama acted illegally when he pushed through his own order to offer Dreamers legal protections in 2012.

Mara Teresa Kumar, president and CEO of the Latino political organization Voto Latino, who has spoken to the White House about DACA, said Trump is trying to end the program while appearing like hes trying to fix it as a way to appease Hispanics, independents and evangelicals.

He wants the headline to read hes trying to fix DACA, she said. What he's trying to do is neutralize the opposition.

Trumps politically risky position is arguably one he created himself by embarking on seemingly contradictory actions cracking down on immigrants but insisting he will treat Dreamers with compassion.

Trump made immigration the centerpiece of his 2016 campaign, promising to build a wall on the southern border with Mexico, deport millions of migrants who arrived in the country illegally and terminate DACA, which provides renewable work permits to 700,000 Dreamers. But once in office, he often spoke of his great heart and great love for the Dreamers.

As he runs for office a second time, Trump once again talks tough on immigration while his political advisers try to slice into Democrats advantage with Hispanic voters. His campaign has created an advisory board and a coalition focusing on recruiting volunteers, collecting data and fundraising. Campaign aides say Trumps hardline immigration policies appeal to Hispanic Americans, like all Americans, because they are worried about safety but they say little about Dreamers.

Meanwhile, presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden, who was vice president when DACA was created, has vowed to reinstate the program, calling Trumps decision to end the program cruel and counterproductive.

A Trump campaign official blamed Obama for acting unconstitutionally by creating DACA and Democrats for stonewalling administration offers.

President Trump has repeatedly offered to find a bipartisan solution to protect Dreamers, but said it had to be done while securing our borders and fixing our immigration system, the official said, though it was Trump who actually ended up rejecting a bipartisan deal.

The White House and Department of Homeland Security did not respond to questions.

Activists and lawmakers on both sides of the issue have lobbied the White House for weeks. Immigration advocacy groups, prominent evangelical leaders and major companies have all urged him to to keep the program until Congress passes legislation.

Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which has been in touch with the White House, said he hopes Trump plans to follow through on his pledge to end the program but understands that he may be playing politics to throw his opponents off balance. The president seems to be trying to send intentionally conflicting signals, he said.

But Todd Schulte, president of FWD.us, a group working to protect Dreamers, said Trump will only hurt himself and Republicans in November if he continues to side with the few people who want Dreamers deported just 12 percent, according to a recent POLITICO/Morning Consult poll.

The president, who is currently in open defiance of the Supreme Court, can either stop siding with those 12 percent by trying to end DACA, or continue his effort to harm DACA recipients and further crush his partys political chances this fall, he said.

Trump immediately said he would try to end the program again using a different explanation for killing DACA that would pass legal muster. They want us to refile if we want to win, he said in an interview with Fox News. So, I'm going to refile, and it's going to work out for DACA.

The paperwork to start the lengthy process has been widely expected for weeks but never came. Some administration officials said they were not able to file without first receiving a document from the Supreme Court, though immigration lawyers say that was not necessary. That order was filed Monday.

And the delay in paperwork doesnt explain why the administration didnt immediately start processing new applications. A Maryland court ordered the administration to do that and set a hearing Friday on the issue. If it fails to start accepting applications, the administration could be held in contempt, facing possible fines or other sanctions.

"From the Supreme Court down, the courts have made it clear: DACA stands, and now its doors are open to new Dreamers to apply, said California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who led the multistate coalition at the Supreme Court on DACA.

Even as he planned to scrap the program, Trump insisted he would protect Dreamers as part of a broader immigration deal with Democrats. But more than half a dozen congressional offices involved in DACA discussions in the past, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosis office, say they have not heard from the White House.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said in a statement she hasnt heard from the White House on immigration but urged her colleagues to protect Dreamers. I have long supported a path to citizenship for Dreamers, she said. Congress should take up legislation so that these young people can stop living in fear.

Earlier this year, Jared Kushner, the presidents son-in-law and senior adviser, had floated including protections for Dreamers as part of a broader immigration package, POLITICO reported in June. But administration aides knew a deal was unlikely and planned to use the lack of one to blame Democrats for being unwilling to come to the table, hoping the message would help the president appeal to Hispanic voters.

Finding a legislative solution is next to impossible for a divided Congress during an election year that has been dominated by the coronavirus pandemic. Democrats, already suspicious of any deals with Trump, have said they want to wait and see if their party wins back the White House and Senate in November before they proceed.

House Democrats have passed a bill that would provide legal status and eventual citizenship to 2.3 million Dreamers, including DACA recipients. But the Senate, which needs 60 votes to pass legislation, has ignored it.

In late June, Trump began to consider a different strategy altogether after reading a pair of op-eds by a former aide to President George W. Bush attorney, who said the Supreme Courts DACA ruling actually gave the president more power than he realized.

A general view of the U.S. Supreme Court. | Stefani Reynolds/Getty Images

John Yoo, who wrote the legal opinions that supported an expansion of presidential power after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, said that because the Supreme Court never said Obama was wrong to establish DACA it paved the way for another president to also act unilaterally. A president can reverse a predecessors decision, but the process is lengthy and could take years, he said.

The Supreme Court gave the president of the United States powers that nobody thought the president had, by approving, by doing what they did their decision on DACA, Trump said on Fox News Sunday. But the decision by the Supreme Court on DACA allows me to do things on immigration, on health care, on other things that we've never done before.

Leon Fresco, an immigration attorney who handled immigration issues at the Department of Justice under Obama, agrees that because the Supreme Court did not invalidate the program altogether it leaves the door open for Trump to determine by executive order how he wants to treat the 11 million immigrants in the country illegally.

The White House is working on an executive order modeled after a bill pushed by Kushner that failed to garner support on Capitol Hill to give priority to high-skilled, well-educated immigrants over those who want to enter the U.S. based on circumstances involving their family or native country, according to two White House officials. Some have suggested a narrow DACA-like proposal could be added to the order.

The longer Trump waits to respond to the Supreme Court on DACA, the more his efforts to end DACA will hang around his neck like an anvil weighing him down with voters he and Republican senators need this fall, said Douglas Rivlin, director of communications for Americas Voice, an advocacy group. One could argue that defying the Supreme Court would be to his advantage if the American people were with him on DACA, but they arent.

More:
Whiplash: Trump and his team face an internal struggle over Dreamers - POLITICO