May 29, 2025 • 33 mins
James talks to immigration lawyer Kirsten Zittlau about the end of the asylum system as we knew it, detentions in courthouses, and the case of Primrose from the Darién Gap series.
Donate to Primrose's legal fees: venmo.com/u/kirsten-zittla
https://www.gofundme.com/f/immigration-lawyer-for-primrose
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
All media. Hi everyone, and welcome to the show. It's
me James today and I'm joined once again by Kirsten Zitlau.
We've heard from her before. She's an immigration lawyer who
takes asylum cases, and we're going to talk about the
asylum system or I guess what's left of it today.
Kirsten is representing somebody I met, the Darien gap Primrose,
(00:23):
who you've heard from before. So we're going to talk
about that case and then we're going to talk a
little bit about ice detentions inside immigration court. Welcome to
the show, Kristin.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
Thank you, James, it's good to be here.
Speaker 1 (00:33):
Yeah, thanks for thanks for coming. I know you're extremely busy.
Can you explain to us, like the asylum system is
essentially coming to an end, right, we are not getting
new asylum cases, Like what is the situation for people
in the asylum system right now?
Speaker 3 (00:50):
Yes, that's a correct statement, James. So there are no
new asylum cases. In other words, people who cross at
the Southern Order are now detained only to be removed
immediately basically or as soon as possible, under what's called
two twelve F authority. It's under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
(01:13):
Trump has used this authority, which basically broadly says that
if the President finds a certain class of immigrants or
the entry of immigrants would be detrimental to the interests
of the United States, they made by proclamation, you know,
suspend all entry have said immigrants. So that was the
purpose and the effect of the executive order discussing the
(01:37):
invasion at the border, and all the other executive orders
discussing invasions and criminal aspects such as cartels and trender ragua,
which we all know now is you know, is the
justification for alleged justification for just shutting it down at
the border. So whereas people used to get credible fear
(01:59):
interviews or were parolled into the United States to be
allowed to fight an asylum case, none of that is
happening anymore. And people are, if anything, only screened for
what's called Convention against Torture screenings to just determine like, hey,
are they going to be portrayed by their government or
with the acquiescence of their government if they returned to
(02:19):
their home country. But even then they are not allowed
to remain in the United States or fight any relief
in the United States. That just means that they will
be deported to a third country. So that was a
situation like when we saw the Iranians sitting in the
hotel room in Panama, That's what happened there most likely.
So that's the situation at the southern border. Whoever is
still in the United States, you know, who came in
(02:40):
before in Operation Day, is still allowed to fight their
case as of now, but there are no new asylum
cases essentially, right.
Speaker 1 (02:49):
So for those people fighting their case, the asylum system
was already an uphill battle, right, and it became hot
after Biden's asylum ban. It's already had after title forty two.
Like people who listen to the show will have known
about the people who crushed in twenty twenty three, and
of course they would have followed those people who I'm
(03:09):
in the drying gap, some of whom very few of
whom crushed before January. I literally one I believe that
I'm aware of. Can you explain what the asylum system
is like for those people now?
Speaker 2 (03:22):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (03:23):
So I think the biggest two factors affecting asylum cases
these days is what you just referred to, which is
the asylum ban called the circumvention against lawful pathways that
barred people essentially from asylum if they did not use
CBP one the application to apply for an appointment, which
of course only allowed I think fifteen hundred a day
(03:44):
or something absurd, forcing most people to cross unlawfully. So
that's still very much in place. The litigation has been
stalled forever. There's no hope of you know, I don't
think there's no movement on that. I haven't seen or
heard anything. Yeah, most likely intentionally because when Trump did
a similar ban, it was overturned immediately. So this is
like a new strategy that we're seeing where things are
(04:05):
just lagging in court right. You know, for example, just
a quick side detour the birthright citizenship issue got up
to the Supreme Court real quick, whereas the asylum issue,
meaning the border shut down to asylum, is still languishing
somewhere before. I think even just a federal district judge
is not even in any appeal court yet. So this
is all I think, it's strategic, so that circumventioning as
(04:27):
lawful pathways ban is still very much an impediment. You know,
we all of course argue that every migrant in Mexico
was in danger and thus qualifies for the exception to
the CLP that their life was in danger and they
couldn't afford to wait the many many months for the
CBP one appointment. But judges it's been met with mixed reviews.
They generally like to see like somebody basically near death
(04:51):
for the exception to apply. And of course the immigration
bar argues that all migrants are basically under threat of death.
Any cartel or even immigration official contact in Mexico could
have been a death sentence very easily, as we all know.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
Yeah, so that's a big thing affecting.
Speaker 3 (05:07):
The latest thing that's also being implemented as a result
of this cartel terrorist organization designation is you know where
it's not just the cartels is MS thirteen and ten
dew Ragua is that there's a what's called a trig
bar that's applied then also to asylum and the bar
(05:27):
is basically about material support of any of these groups,
but it's construed to an absurd degree where even if
you made a bowl of food for Samaras under duress,
or you made payment because your kid was about to
be killed, right, that's considered material support in your barred
from asylum.
Speaker 1 (05:47):
I wondered if they would do that.
Speaker 2 (05:48):
Yeah, so we're seeing that too.
Speaker 3 (05:51):
Other than that, I mean, I have been fortunate to
win asylum for folks under Trump two point zero. I mean,
I don't know how long that'll still last, but judges
are still you know, granting cases. So I'm glad to
see that.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (06:04):
So that's generally what it's looked like these past four
months for Assil's Okay.
Speaker 1 (06:08):
Yeah, I think it's really important that we do. There
are still possible, like victories to be had within the
court system, and asylum is one of the places where,
like there's no more getting me on the train. I
guess like the people who are on the train now
we can and people should if they have the financial means,
and we'll talk about how they can do that later.
People should support those people because there's no one else
(06:29):
who can go through that system, and like, there are
people who have gone through horrific things to get here,
and horrific things in the places that they came from.
And even if it's not everyone we would like to
keep safe, we should do everything we can to keep
those people safe.
Speaker 3 (06:42):
One hundred percent, you know, just to say I mean
and funding somebody's legal fees. I mean, an attorney makes
all the difference in navigating these types of issues that
I just talked about and other issues and presenting your case.
I mean, asylum cases are still incredibly difficult to win,
and so representation of counsel is of than key.
Speaker 1 (07:01):
Yeah, I think that the rates of success people who
don't have counsel are dramatically lower. I haven't looked on
Track recently, but you can normally find that on the
I think Track is no longer the University of Syracuse,
but it did. It did some place where you can
find information statistics. Let's talk about one of those cases,
if that's okay, And obviously you know we won't intervening
(07:22):
anyone's perhaps any more than we have to. But like
I want to talk about Primrose. Primrose is Zimbabwean woman
who I met in Bajaji Gito when I was in
the Darien Gap reporting on my series. People heard from
her in the series.
Speaker 4 (07:36):
Even me. I was crying myself. I was like, I
want to just put myself in the water. Then again,
just or the gain was tough, really really tough, the mountain,
the stones, the river. It's not easy at all. It's
not a very I don't even recommended someone to say, yeah,
you lose that and give no. And even myself, I
(07:58):
did know about it. Yeah, I was regretting myself. I
was crying. I was like, good, I don't know my
family and my family they don't know where I am
right now.
Speaker 1 (08:09):
But I make it. Yeah, make it You're safe. Yeah,
she is now in the asylum process, right, can you
explain a little bit about like where she is in
the process. And I will eventually do a scripted series
on this, but like I guess, can we get an
update on her situation and how it's progressing.
Speaker 2 (08:30):
Absolutely so.
Speaker 3 (08:31):
I came into the case about I want to say,
a month or two ago, she had somebody supporting her,
a friend living in Texas, and that situation, a living situation,
has changed, I believe, which is also not the worst
thing she's but she will be moving with a friend
to southern California or moving in with a friend rather,
(08:52):
But just this situation is very different in Texas and
Louisiana and Mississippi and those types of states markedly so.
And her case is a good example of that. And
there's a reason that people like Mamu Khalil and many
others are sent to detention centers in that area because
it's in the Fifth Circuit, first of all, which is
(09:13):
widely renowned to be not a favorable circuit court of
appeals to immigrants.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (09:18):
But more so than that, even the judges themselves are
very different from what we would encounter in California, for example.
So my first encounter with the judge was, you know,
and this is all virtual. I submitted a motion to
appear for her.
Speaker 2 (09:33):
She had a master calendar hearing in June.
Speaker 3 (09:36):
I submitted amotion to appear for that telephonically, explaining I
was representing her at lower no cost, you know, whatever
funds could be raised, and could I please appear for
as it's a status type conference telephonically. And that motion
was met with a really strange response. I don't to
this day, I don't really know exactly. It was sort
of approved, but then moot because eventually a final court
(09:58):
hearing was set. So that's where we're right now. She
has a final court next year and about a year
and a couple months. But in ruling on my WebEx motion,
I was emailed the order of the judge along with
a notice.
Speaker 2 (10:11):
That premiers should self deport.
Speaker 3 (10:14):
So judges are sending out these notices with routine other
orders in cases where the immigrant has council is fighting
their case. It's obvious they're fighting their case Jesus. And yeah,
so it's one of the things where you just feel
very strongly this administration's influence.
Speaker 1 (10:35):
Are they obliged to do that or is that a
choice that the judge is making.
Speaker 3 (10:38):
Not at all, And in fact it's completely inappropriate. So
all of us are the immigration bar is taking a
different approach to it. You know, some are filing motions
to recuse, telling the judges, hey, you need to recuse yourself.
You're a non neutral judge. To send this out in
the middle of the case is absurd. It's a due
process violation. They're entitled to a neutral judge. Yeah, I
think my approach would be more one of playing dumb,
(11:00):
because often this has happened. The system, if you will,
of ecass the electronics system that we use for court
immigration filing systems that Elon Musk briefly had access to
or whatever was going on there. But anyways, I digress.
You know, will send out automatic notices with the emails
with the judges orders. So my approach, I think will
be to give the judges the benefit of the doubt
(11:21):
and ask them if this was an electronic notice and
if they say no, then I've gotten it on the record,
and if they deny the case, I have that in
there for the appeal. But yeah, it's happening all over
the country with all sorts of different judges, and it's
definitely something that we're grappling with right now.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
And it's just it's.
Speaker 3 (11:37):
Very ballsy for a judge to say, hey, leave the
country and oh, by the way, I'm a neutral arbiter.
Speaker 1 (11:44):
Yeah, I mean, what's the point of having the judge,
you having the whole process right if then they're going
to declare this clear bias.
Speaker 3 (11:51):
Yeah, it's a third I mean, it's you know, I mean,
it's such a violation of due process rights. And I
think I know everybody in this country now knows the
importance of due process, whereas before only attorneys through that
term around. But no, I mean, this stuff really matters,
you know.
Speaker 1 (12:04):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (12:05):
And then also another thing that happened in Primrose's case
is that when you have a work permit clock right,
which is another absurd thing for assiles that once they
file their asylum application, they have to wait one hundred
and fifty days before they can.
Speaker 2 (12:17):
Apply for a work permit.
Speaker 3 (12:20):
And of course they're expected to be independently wealthy during
those five months or you know, or star or I
don't know what they're expected to do.
Speaker 1 (12:26):
Yeah, rely on the generosity of others, like exactly.
Speaker 3 (12:30):
So if you do something like try to change venue
or a motion to continue, if you do something in
your case that the judge perceives as not moving the
case along and rather like kind of trying to stall
it or possibly pausing it or slow it down, the
judge will stop the work permit clock the days and
it's a whole thing. So Primroses was stopped because the
(12:51):
judge wanted her to get an attorney. So usually when
the case is set for a final hearing, that code
adjournment code they call it, I know for we have.
Speaker 2 (13:01):
The access to the codes and what stops the clock
and what.
Speaker 3 (13:03):
Doesn't, And it always restarts the clock because you moved
your case along because you're setting it for trial.
Speaker 2 (13:08):
It's it's you know, obviously moving your case along.
Speaker 3 (13:11):
Hers was not restarted for whatever reason, yea, And my
only remedy would be to write some court administrator who
may or may not ever respond.
Speaker 2 (13:20):
I can't even go to the judge about this. You know,
it's it's absurd.
Speaker 3 (13:23):
So that's just the situation that one assilie is one
asylum seeker is dealing with in Texas. So you can
only imagine what goes on in detentions that you know,
detained cases in those states.
Speaker 1 (13:36):
Yeah, people who don't have counsel, like getting that self deportation.
If you don't have counsel, like you could assume that
you are just obliged to leave, like yeah, that your
your process is.
Speaker 3 (13:46):
Over one hundred percent, And there's no legal basis for
the judge to be issuing that. In fact, it's completely
unlawful to be issuing something like that at the beginning
of the case, at the end of the case, and
at the beginning. The judges have to give certain advisals,
but telling somebody to self deport is number an advisor
that should be given under the law.
Speaker 1 (14:04):
Ever, right, Yeah, like it kind of nullifies the whole system.
Speaker 3 (14:08):
And plus I should mention real quick that it's disingenuous
and harmful and that with these you know, this administration
on purpose isn't telling people with one thousand dollars, take
a thousand dollars in self deport and you know, will
pay for your flight and all this stuff. But they're
not telling people is that when you leave, you are
then subject to a deportation order and that comes with
a ten year bar This is not mentioned, and that's
(14:31):
a big deal.
Speaker 1 (14:32):
Yes, yeah, I mean it seems even like I think
the executive order said permanently leave the United States, right.
Speaker 3 (14:39):
Well it did, and then but then they switch tactics
a little bit with the app to self deport saying like,
you know, leave now, leave now so you have a
chance to come back later or something like that, right,
but you know without mentioning that, hey you no, you're
barred from the United States for ten years and if
you ever return unlawfully, then you're a subject to a
whole series of you know. Yeah, I mean, it's just
(15:01):
there's all these warnings that need to come with the
deportation order that are strategically left out of all the
administration's latest messaging on this topic.
Speaker 1 (15:08):
Yeah, it's pretty bad. Let's take a break for advertisements
here and it will come back all right, we are back,
and so we've spoken about these like self deportation orders,
(15:30):
right for other people who have entered more recently, right,
entered within the last two years. This has been happening
we're recording on the twenty second for the last two
days now. It seems like ICE is dismissing the cases
against them and then detaining them directly in court, if
I'm correctly informed.
Speaker 3 (15:50):
Yes, So this has been happening periodically throughout the past
four months, but in the past few days, like this week,
it's been dramatically ramped up, Like right now as we're
recording this, ICE is arresting people in the downtown San
Diego court and also courts throughout the country. It's been
reported everywhere, happening widely this week. And this is another
(16:11):
thing the administration said they were going to do and
is doing. I mean, you know, they're doing what they
said they were going to do.
Speaker 2 (16:16):
Yeah, And it's.
Speaker 3 (16:18):
To use what's called two thirty five authority. More broadly
so Ina Section two thirty five applies to people who
entered within less than two years, like you said, and
they can be then subject to what's called expedited removal.
That means that they have to take a credible fear
interview and be detained, and that they only get to
fight a case if they pass their credible fear interview,
(16:40):
and then they do not qualify for an immigration judge bond,
So they only get out if Ice lets them out,
which of course I is letting nobody out. So the
administration wants to have people detained under this authority, this
two thirty five authority, as much as possible, to have
them have to fight their case detained and either lose
the will to do so and or not be able
(17:02):
to afford an attorney, because detained cases move along a
lot quicker and are very costly as well for that reason.
So what they're doing is anybody who was here two
years or less but was parolled in so they're in
the regular immigration court proceedings they got out there under
two forty proceedings, that's called so DHS attorneys in court
are terminating those proceedings. They're asking the judge to terminate
(17:25):
the two forty proceedings, so then that case is closed
and then they immediately restart a case under section two
thirty five. And at the second they do that, the
person is subject to mandatory detention, and ICE is right
there in the courthouse to arrest them and detain them.
Speaker 1 (17:38):
Jesus, Yeah, I thought ICE couldn't arrest people in California's
at California state courts, no federal courts which were in California.
Speaker 3 (17:47):
I believe so, and colleagues and I have been talking
about this. I haven't researched it thoroughly, but I think
also the nature of these proceedings, like the two thirty
five proceeding, like you are mandatory detention, like you okay,
you were taken into custody. It's as if you just
cross the border and you know, are taken into custody.
It's treated like like that type of situation, like no
(18:07):
warrant is necessary.
Speaker 2 (18:08):
I don't believe you know.
Speaker 1 (18:09):
Oh okay, right, yeah, so they could they have very
broad authority to detain people any way. That makes sense exactly.
Speaker 3 (18:16):
So the real issue here is the ethical I mean
a lot of us are grappling with this and of
course fiercely opposing these motions in that the justification that
the DHS attorneys are attempting to use is that circumstances
have materially changed since the issuance of their initial case
that they're in now, which of course is not the.
Speaker 1 (18:37):
Case, right, Like whose circumstances.
Speaker 3 (18:39):
Exactly exactly, Like the rise of fascism doesn't constitute a
change circumstance. Yeah, So it's just there's no there's no
basis for this motion. And secondly, the only basis, like,
there's zero justification for this other than filling detention centers,
lining cour Civic and Geogroup's pockets. Yeah, and in ten
(19:00):
prejudicing an immigrant to have to fight their case attained.
I mean right, there's no there's no good or legitimate
justification for this period the end, you know.
Speaker 1 (19:11):
Yeah, and fighting it detained will be a lot harder.
They will be obviously in like terrible situation they are,
as we've covered before, often moved to a different state
from their council. Will make it a lot harder for
them if they choose to go that route. I'm guessing
that ICE is hoping that people won't fight and will
just or DHS it is hoping that people will just
choose not to fight.
Speaker 3 (19:32):
That's the whole point is this whole administration's the messaging
and their actions are all about forcing people breaking people's
spirits and forcing them into a situation where they feel
their only option is to self deport. Yeah, it is heartbreaking,
it's very sick. Yeah, it's it's very disturbing. It's very
(19:53):
very different from Trump one point zero.
Speaker 1 (19:56):
Yeah. I think that's worth sort of focusing in on
that this is a complete, distinct and much more radical
disassembling of the asylum system as we know it.
Speaker 2 (20:07):
Absolutely.
Speaker 3 (20:07):
I mean, I think we can all agree or disagree
as far as how we feel about the past four
months and what has happened, but I think everybody can
agree that the pace at which it has happened is
extremely concerning.
Speaker 1 (20:20):
Right, we are four months into four years, and we
have seen at constitutional crisis, like a full blown defiance
of the courts. We at the day we're recording, the
Trump administration is attempting to deport people to South Sudan,
many of whom eleven of twelve of whom are not
seuth Sudanese.
Speaker 2 (20:40):
Right.
Speaker 1 (20:41):
I guess from what I understand, their attempt at giving
those people a credible fear screening was that they didn't
hear them shouting from the cells they were detained in,
that they were afraid of being tortured.
Speaker 3 (20:53):
Yeah, they're supposed to give them opportunity to be heard
essentially and give notice of this country that they're going
to be deported to. That nobody and no judge is
ever considered whether they have a fear or if they
would be in danger deported.
Speaker 2 (21:07):
To this country.
Speaker 3 (21:08):
Right, So again, this is a due process situation where hey,
before you can be sent to some random country, especially
South Sudan, maybe you should be given an opportunity to
present why you have a fear or that something bad
might happen to you over there to a judge. And
so this was recently ordered. I believe the case is
called DBD versus DHS. Was what stopped the Libya situation
(21:29):
from happening, where yeah, judge said, this is exactly what
needs to occur. These people need to be given real notice,
not this whatever has been had, you know, and and
an opportunity to be heard.
Speaker 2 (21:40):
And then yeah, they immediately.
Speaker 3 (21:42):
Thereafter attempted to as you said, or I think I
don't know if they actually accomplished it with South Sudan.
Speaker 1 (21:48):
Yeah, my understanding is they are in a country which
is neither the United States nor South Sudan. On an
aircraft at this time, and DHS is arguing that they
can do their credible fear screenings there on the aircraft.
I don't know how they've planned together people privacy, translation,
and access to council. I just looked on Court listener
right before we recorded, and Judge Murphy clarified Massachusetts District
(22:11):
Court judge that ten days would be the amount of
time that they would need to assert a credible fear
and then if DHS determined that they didn't have credible fear,
they would then have fifteen days to ask the reopening
of their case. TBD. Is the United States going to
like somehow accommodate them in where they are. People are
speculating they're in Djibouti, which is the largest US military
(22:33):
base in the continent of Africa and close to South Sudan,
And so if that's the case, Yeah, I don't know
how they will get due process. We will find out
if they will get due process.
Speaker 3 (22:45):
I guess yeah, they probably won't, but will be told
that they did, or will be or will be told
that they were criminals in the first place, which is
the other theme of this administration, right with the Alien
Enemies Act, which has basically been put on pause by
a number of Satan judges who have said there's no invasion,
(23:05):
there's no war.
Speaker 2 (23:06):
This is absurd, This just flat out doesn't apply.
Speaker 3 (23:09):
And I have to say that the immigration bar is
very I think not just the immigration bar, I think
all of us are very frustrated that the Supreme Court
has not yet come out with a definitive substance of
ruling on this because, for the people who don't know,
the Alien Enemies Act allows the administration to circumvent the
i NA, which is the whole immigration court system, and
(23:30):
immediately to port supposed criminals who were invading the country.
I mean, we all know this with the Venezuelans who
are accused of being trend Aragua just for having tattoos.
And so that is to me and I think all
of us the biggest threat to just be able to
put somebody on a plane to another country and in
a prison in another country, as we've seen the sea
cot in El Salvador. I mean, we need our Supreme
(23:53):
Court to speak on this, then we need it quickly.
Speaker 1 (23:56):
Yeah, like if we no longer have habeas a frontal
assault on the Bill of rights like most of them.
Speaker 3 (24:03):
And there's so many assaults on the Bill of Rights,
and then we need our Supreme Court to really to
step up. And I think I'm not the only one
who's extremely frustrated by that, because we're in crisis and
as we've seen, it's fallen on courts and lawyers and
judges to try to defend the semblance of democracy in
(24:23):
this country.
Speaker 2 (24:23):
But the highest court in the land needs to help
out soon. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (24:27):
Yeah, and like this is where like the rover meets
the road, right for like maintaining people's basic rights, dignity
and yeah, the right not to be sent to a
labor camp in El Salvador or you know, seuth Sudana country,
which is rapidly descending into conflict. Again, I thought the
government was barrel bombing this week.
Speaker 3 (24:48):
Well, and just real quick, another note on the Supreme
Court is that they're they're also concerning I mean, as
we know, there's a lot of Trump appointees there and
so I mean it's not even that that's the answer.
It's just we're you know, but we need answers more
quickly than what they're they're giving us. And it's just
when given the rate that this administration is working at
(25:10):
I don't know that they will if they ever get
the case or the asylum ban at the border would
even overturn that because historically they've sort of supported his
two twelve F powers. So I'm not saying that's the
answer to everything, but it's definitely frustrating to not have
basic things yeah already decided, like the use of the
alien enemies that.
Speaker 1 (25:28):
Yeah, like just not to know where we're at, Like
when you know people are trying a good faith to
move forward with the legal processes that they have spent
their entire life savings on to get here and do
the right quote unquote the right way. You're still fighting
(25:54):
a number of asylum cases, as we said before the call,
like you probably won't be forever, right Like, at some
point there's just not going to be any more asylum cases.
I know that you're accepting donations. I think through venmo
On behalf of Primrose, that will be sure to link
to that woman account in the description of this show,
so people can donate if they'd like to. Now it's
(26:15):
the time to do it, right, It's not like this
is going to be an ongoing thing. Like if people
don't help now, then there won't be migrants to support
or assylies to support later, So like, how can people
materially support maybe in other ways, right if they're like
on hard times and have the financial resources, what else
can people do to just to make this a little
(26:36):
bit less cruel to some people who are among the
most unfortunate people on the planet.
Speaker 3 (26:41):
Often, I think even mental and emotional support for the
immigrants in your life, I think is something that is
underestimated because speaking as a very privileged white woman attorney
US citizen, this has taken a tremendous toll on me,
and the mental toll that has taken on the actual
(27:03):
undocumented community and a SI les this messaging is so
harmful and so disgusting that I think I would just
caution people to not underestimate the power of human kindness
to those already in your life and just empowering them
distributing Know your Rights cards and information that still matters.
(27:24):
But also I think the people who are, as we've
been discussing, going to be at the most disadvantaged in
terms of being able to keep up morale are these
people who are going to be mandatorily detained. So in
terms of what we were talking about I believe before
we started recording, reaching out to any organizations I know
in San Diego there's detention resistance, or even reaching out
(27:47):
to the detention center that's near you to be able
to determine how you can send a letter, how you
can put money on somebody's books so that they can
have phone calls with their family or phone calls with you.
Even I think these types of things are are key
in light of the administration's clear messaging that immigrants are
(28:10):
very much unwanted and criminals. So I think I think
that that's where I would come at this from. If
you cannot donate again, like we were talking, if you
have a few dollars to spare, I mean, if everybody
has a few dollars to spare, there is a finite number,
like we were saying of asylum cases love ye, like
for roses. So if people can spare a few dollars
(28:31):
here or there whenever they can, it doesn't make the difference.
Speaker 1 (28:35):
Yeah, no, it does, and it shows that like even
if the government doesn't want you to hear, a lot
of people want you to be protected. We want you
to be safe, Like, yeah, the mental damage it does,
I think it's hard to overstate. Like I was talking,
I remember to a young woman Ino and like she
was the only surviving member of her pamently the government
had killed everyone, and so she came to the US
(28:58):
right to be safe, and like, now the government is
coming after her in addition to the trauma she already
has from watching her entire family die. Like, now the
most powerful government in the world is coming after you.
I can't imagine how that feels.
Speaker 2 (29:12):
That's a very good point.
Speaker 3 (29:13):
I mean, yeah, people are coming already traumatized, only to
be further traumatized by this administration in the system. And yes,
I mean emotional and mental and any kind of support
is not to be underestimated in the slightest during these times.
Speaker 1 (29:27):
Yeah, like have people over for dinner if you can,
or yeah, like call the detention center and put money
on someone's commisary. Like just showing people that they're welcome
is important. Like I know a lot of the migrants,
Like if I look at my phone right now, in
the time we've been recording, one of the migrants I
met that Darien Gat will probably have texted me. They're
in Mexico right, and they just want the world to
(29:48):
know about the situation, they know they can't come to
the US anymore. But sometimes people will say, I guess
the Americans don't want s anymore, And like that breaks
my heart because I think most people, if they knew
these people circumstances right to people have reached out to
me since the Darien Gap stuff to ask how they
can help, and like, most people do want those people
to be their neighbors. And it breaks my heart that
(30:10):
they think that we don't want them, that we would
rather leave them to die wherever they're at. Like it's
genuinely really horrible for me to think of that. So yeah,
I would really encourage anyone listening if you can, to
do what you.
Speaker 3 (30:23):
Can absolutely in just remembering that again, these asylum cases
are finite. So if you know any asylum seeker or
can support any asylum seeker right now, they made it
in Let's give them their best shot.
Speaker 1 (30:37):
Yeah yeah, yeah, like we can still help those people,
and while we can, we should absolutely Yeah, Well, thank
you so much for joining us. We do appreciate it.
I know that your time is very valuable and you're
really busy right now, so we really appreciate your time.
You're always welcome back, and if there's anything else you'd
like to say before we finish up.
Speaker 2 (30:56):
Yeah, thank you, James.
Speaker 3 (30:57):
I think the only thing I just want to emphasize
is that, you know, from the standpoint of immigration attorneys
like I feel that we're obviously a subject of an
executive order, and you know, big law firms are being
extorted by the administration to represent causes that the administration
believes in and not robono immigration work and so forth
and so on. So it's not like too many of
us have been personally attacked, although you know, judges have
(31:20):
been arrested, even judges for just hiring an immigrant to
do work around the house. So it is a scary
time to be practicing immigration law. But unfortunately, I do
see there being a time when it won't happen. I mean,
I see the writing on the wall where I will
not be able to continue mentally and or economically, because
a side effect of all this, and a very intentional
(31:42):
side effect, is to make it so that we can't
do much for people anymore, and or they can afford us,
or there's not people here to do anything for because
their spirit was broken or their finances or all of
the above and they had to leave. So it is
a very intense time. But I came from different areas
of life. I've only been in immigration seven years and
(32:04):
it's the first time I've thought of, Okay, where am
I going to go to next in these seven years,
And it's a very real thing. So, like I said,
it feels very different than Trump one point zero.
Speaker 1 (32:16):
So no, yeah, this is considerably more severe.
Speaker 3 (32:20):
So in other words, take care of yourself if you
are an ally, because you know the attack is on
immigrants and anybody who advocates, supports and so forth, and
it's a very targeted, direct attack and it's very easy
to get run down and consumed by it. And so
definitely do what you need to do to take care
of yourself. And if that means stepping back, then you know,
(32:42):
I mean, I want to keep my foot in the
door as much as possible these next four years on
something immigration and recite asylum related. But there's also economic
and other realities that are happening intentionally, So.
Speaker 1 (32:53):
Yeah, definitely, and I think it is important for people
to do whatever they need to do to self preserve
and take care of themselves as well. I think that's
a good place to end, thank you so much for
your time, and again, like if you're listening, please check
the description of the show and we will have a
link to primises go fund Me if you'd like to help.
Speaker 2 (33:10):
Thank you so much, James, thank you. It Could Happen
Here is a production of cool Zone Media.
Speaker 3 (33:19):
For more podcasts from cool Zone Media, visit our website
coolzonmedia dot com, or check us out on the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts. You can
now find sources for It Could Happen Here listened directly
in episode descriptions.
Speaker 1 (33:33):
Thanks for listening.
All media. Hi everyone, and welcome to the show. It's
me James today and I'm joined once again by Kirsten Zitlau.
We've heard from her before. She's an immigration lawyer who
takes asylum cases, and we're going to talk about the
asylum system or I guess what's left of it today.
Kirsten is representing somebody I met, the Darien gap Primrose,
(00:23):
who you've heard from before. So we're going to talk
about that case and then we're going to talk a
little bit about ice detentions inside immigration court. Welcome to
the show, Kristin.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
Thank you, James, it's good to be here.
Speaker 1 (00:33):
Yeah, thanks for thanks for coming. I know you're extremely busy.
Can you explain to us, like the asylum system is
essentially coming to an end, right, we are not getting
new asylum cases, Like what is the situation for people
in the asylum system right now?
Speaker 3 (00:50):
Yes, that's a correct statement, James. So there are no
new asylum cases. In other words, people who cross at
the Southern Order are now detained only to be removed
immediately basically or as soon as possible, under what's called
two twelve F authority. It's under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
(01:13):
Trump has used this authority, which basically broadly says that
if the President finds a certain class of immigrants or
the entry of immigrants would be detrimental to the interests
of the United States, they made by proclamation, you know,
suspend all entry have said immigrants. So that was the
purpose and the effect of the executive order discussing the
(01:37):
invasion at the border, and all the other executive orders
discussing invasions and criminal aspects such as cartels and trender ragua,
which we all know now is you know, is the
justification for alleged justification for just shutting it down at
the border. So whereas people used to get credible fear
(01:59):
interviews or were parolled into the United States to be
allowed to fight an asylum case, none of that is
happening anymore. And people are, if anything, only screened for
what's called Convention against Torture screenings to just determine like, hey,
are they going to be portrayed by their government or
with the acquiescence of their government if they returned to
(02:19):
their home country. But even then they are not allowed
to remain in the United States or fight any relief
in the United States. That just means that they will
be deported to a third country. So that was a
situation like when we saw the Iranians sitting in the
hotel room in Panama, That's what happened there most likely.
So that's the situation at the southern border. Whoever is
still in the United States, you know, who came in
(02:40):
before in Operation Day, is still allowed to fight their
case as of now, but there are no new asylum
cases essentially, right.
Speaker 1 (02:49):
So for those people fighting their case, the asylum system
was already an uphill battle, right, and it became hot
after Biden's asylum ban. It's already had after title forty two.
Like people who listen to the show will have known
about the people who crushed in twenty twenty three, and
of course they would have followed those people who I'm
(03:09):
in the drying gap, some of whom very few of
whom crushed before January. I literally one I believe that
I'm aware of. Can you explain what the asylum system
is like for those people now?
Speaker 2 (03:22):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (03:23):
So I think the biggest two factors affecting asylum cases
these days is what you just referred to, which is
the asylum ban called the circumvention against lawful pathways that
barred people essentially from asylum if they did not use
CBP one the application to apply for an appointment, which
of course only allowed I think fifteen hundred a day
(03:44):
or something absurd, forcing most people to cross unlawfully. So
that's still very much in place. The litigation has been
stalled forever. There's no hope of you know, I don't
think there's no movement on that. I haven't seen or
heard anything. Yeah, most likely intentionally because when Trump did
a similar ban, it was overturned immediately. So this is
like a new strategy that we're seeing where things are
(04:05):
just lagging in court right. You know, for example, just
a quick side detour the birthright citizenship issue got up
to the Supreme Court real quick, whereas the asylum issue,
meaning the border shut down to asylum, is still languishing
somewhere before. I think even just a federal district judge
is not even in any appeal court yet. So this
is all I think, it's strategic, so that circumventioning as
(04:27):
lawful pathways ban is still very much an impediment. You know,
we all of course argue that every migrant in Mexico
was in danger and thus qualifies for the exception to
the CLP that their life was in danger and they
couldn't afford to wait the many many months for the
CBP one appointment. But judges it's been met with mixed reviews.
They generally like to see like somebody basically near death
(04:51):
for the exception to apply. And of course the immigration
bar argues that all migrants are basically under threat of death.
Any cartel or even immigration official contact in Mexico could
have been a death sentence very easily, as we all know.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
Yeah, so that's a big thing affecting.
Speaker 3 (05:07):
The latest thing that's also being implemented as a result
of this cartel terrorist organization designation is you know where
it's not just the cartels is MS thirteen and ten
dew Ragua is that there's a what's called a trig
bar that's applied then also to asylum and the bar
(05:27):
is basically about material support of any of these groups,
but it's construed to an absurd degree where even if
you made a bowl of food for Samaras under duress,
or you made payment because your kid was about to
be killed, right, that's considered material support in your barred
from asylum.
Speaker 1 (05:47):
I wondered if they would do that.
Speaker 2 (05:48):
Yeah, so we're seeing that too.
Speaker 3 (05:51):
Other than that, I mean, I have been fortunate to
win asylum for folks under Trump two point zero. I mean,
I don't know how long that'll still last, but judges
are still you know, granting cases. So I'm glad to
see that.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (06:04):
So that's generally what it's looked like these past four
months for Assil's Okay.
Speaker 1 (06:08):
Yeah, I think it's really important that we do. There
are still possible, like victories to be had within the
court system, and asylum is one of the places where,
like there's no more getting me on the train. I
guess like the people who are on the train now
we can and people should if they have the financial means,
and we'll talk about how they can do that later.
People should support those people because there's no one else
(06:29):
who can go through that system, and like, there are
people who have gone through horrific things to get here,
and horrific things in the places that they came from.
And even if it's not everyone we would like to
keep safe, we should do everything we can to keep
those people safe.
Speaker 3 (06:42):
One hundred percent, you know, just to say I mean
and funding somebody's legal fees. I mean, an attorney makes
all the difference in navigating these types of issues that
I just talked about and other issues and presenting your case.
I mean, asylum cases are still incredibly difficult to win,
and so representation of counsel is of than key.
Speaker 1 (07:01):
Yeah, I think that the rates of success people who
don't have counsel are dramatically lower. I haven't looked on
Track recently, but you can normally find that on the
I think Track is no longer the University of Syracuse,
but it did. It did some place where you can
find information statistics. Let's talk about one of those cases,
if that's okay, And obviously you know we won't intervening
(07:22):
anyone's perhaps any more than we have to. But like
I want to talk about Primrose. Primrose is Zimbabwean woman
who I met in Bajaji Gito when I was in
the Darien Gap reporting on my series. People heard from
her in the series.
Speaker 4 (07:36):
Even me. I was crying myself. I was like, I
want to just put myself in the water. Then again,
just or the gain was tough, really really tough, the mountain,
the stones, the river. It's not easy at all. It's
not a very I don't even recommended someone to say, yeah,
you lose that and give no. And even myself, I
(07:58):
did know about it. Yeah, I was regretting myself. I
was crying. I was like, good, I don't know my
family and my family they don't know where I am
right now.
Speaker 1 (08:09):
But I make it. Yeah, make it You're safe. Yeah,
she is now in the asylum process, right, can you
explain a little bit about like where she is in
the process. And I will eventually do a scripted series
on this, but like I guess, can we get an
update on her situation and how it's progressing.
Speaker 2 (08:30):
Absolutely so.
Speaker 3 (08:31):
I came into the case about I want to say,
a month or two ago, she had somebody supporting her,
a friend living in Texas, and that situation, a living situation,
has changed, I believe, which is also not the worst
thing she's but she will be moving with a friend
to southern California or moving in with a friend rather,
(08:52):
But just this situation is very different in Texas and
Louisiana and Mississippi and those types of states markedly so.
And her case is a good example of that. And
there's a reason that people like Mamu Khalil and many
others are sent to detention centers in that area because
it's in the Fifth Circuit, first of all, which is
(09:13):
widely renowned to be not a favorable circuit court of
appeals to immigrants.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (09:18):
But more so than that, even the judges themselves are
very different from what we would encounter in California, for example.
So my first encounter with the judge was, you know,
and this is all virtual. I submitted a motion to
appear for her.
Speaker 2 (09:33):
She had a master calendar hearing in June.
Speaker 3 (09:36):
I submitted amotion to appear for that telephonically, explaining I
was representing her at lower no cost, you know, whatever
funds could be raised, and could I please appear for
as it's a status type conference telephonically. And that motion
was met with a really strange response. I don't to
this day, I don't really know exactly. It was sort
of approved, but then moot because eventually a final court
(09:58):
hearing was set. So that's where we're right now. She
has a final court next year and about a year
and a couple months. But in ruling on my WebEx motion,
I was emailed the order of the judge along with
a notice.
Speaker 2 (10:11):
That premiers should self deport.
Speaker 3 (10:14):
So judges are sending out these notices with routine other
orders in cases where the immigrant has council is fighting
their case. It's obvious they're fighting their case Jesus. And yeah,
so it's one of the things where you just feel
very strongly this administration's influence.
Speaker 1 (10:35):
Are they obliged to do that or is that a
choice that the judge is making.
Speaker 3 (10:38):
Not at all, And in fact it's completely inappropriate. So
all of us are the immigration bar is taking a
different approach to it. You know, some are filing motions
to recuse, telling the judges, hey, you need to recuse yourself.
You're a non neutral judge. To send this out in
the middle of the case is absurd. It's a due
process violation. They're entitled to a neutral judge. Yeah, I
think my approach would be more one of playing dumb,
(11:00):
because often this has happened. The system, if you will,
of ecass the electronics system that we use for court
immigration filing systems that Elon Musk briefly had access to
or whatever was going on there. But anyways, I digress.
You know, will send out automatic notices with the emails
with the judges orders. So my approach, I think will
be to give the judges the benefit of the doubt
(11:21):
and ask them if this was an electronic notice and
if they say no, then I've gotten it on the record,
and if they deny the case, I have that in
there for the appeal. But yeah, it's happening all over
the country with all sorts of different judges, and it's
definitely something that we're grappling with right now.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
And it's just it's.
Speaker 3 (11:37):
Very ballsy for a judge to say, hey, leave the
country and oh, by the way, I'm a neutral arbiter.
Speaker 1 (11:44):
Yeah, I mean, what's the point of having the judge,
you having the whole process right if then they're going
to declare this clear bias.
Speaker 3 (11:51):
Yeah, it's a third I mean, it's you know, I mean,
it's such a violation of due process rights. And I
think I know everybody in this country now knows the
importance of due process, whereas before only attorneys through that
term around. But no, I mean, this stuff really matters,
you know.
Speaker 1 (12:04):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (12:05):
And then also another thing that happened in Primrose's case
is that when you have a work permit clock right,
which is another absurd thing for assiles that once they
file their asylum application, they have to wait one hundred
and fifty days before they can.
Speaker 2 (12:17):
Apply for a work permit.
Speaker 3 (12:20):
And of course they're expected to be independently wealthy during
those five months or you know, or star or I
don't know what they're expected to do.
Speaker 1 (12:26):
Yeah, rely on the generosity of others, like exactly.
Speaker 3 (12:30):
So if you do something like try to change venue
or a motion to continue, if you do something in
your case that the judge perceives as not moving the
case along and rather like kind of trying to stall
it or possibly pausing it or slow it down, the
judge will stop the work permit clock the days and
it's a whole thing. So Primroses was stopped because the
(12:51):
judge wanted her to get an attorney. So usually when
the case is set for a final hearing, that code
adjournment code they call it, I know for we have.
Speaker 2 (13:01):
The access to the codes and what stops the clock
and what.
Speaker 3 (13:03):
Doesn't, And it always restarts the clock because you moved
your case along because you're setting it for trial.
Speaker 2 (13:08):
It's it's you know, obviously moving your case along.
Speaker 3 (13:11):
Hers was not restarted for whatever reason, yea, And my
only remedy would be to write some court administrator who
may or may not ever respond.
Speaker 2 (13:20):
I can't even go to the judge about this. You know,
it's it's absurd.
Speaker 3 (13:23):
So that's just the situation that one assilie is one
asylum seeker is dealing with in Texas. So you can
only imagine what goes on in detentions that you know,
detained cases in those states.
Speaker 1 (13:36):
Yeah, people who don't have counsel, like getting that self deportation.
If you don't have counsel, like you could assume that
you are just obliged to leave, like yeah, that your
your process is.
Speaker 3 (13:46):
Over one hundred percent, And there's no legal basis for
the judge to be issuing that. In fact, it's completely
unlawful to be issuing something like that at the beginning
of the case, at the end of the case, and
at the beginning. The judges have to give certain advisals,
but telling somebody to self deport is number an advisor
that should be given under the law.
Speaker 1 (14:04):
Ever, right, Yeah, like it kind of nullifies the whole system.
Speaker 3 (14:08):
And plus I should mention real quick that it's disingenuous
and harmful and that with these you know, this administration
on purpose isn't telling people with one thousand dollars, take
a thousand dollars in self deport and you know, will
pay for your flight and all this stuff. But they're
not telling people is that when you leave, you are
then subject to a deportation order and that comes with
a ten year bar This is not mentioned, and that's
(14:31):
a big deal.
Speaker 1 (14:32):
Yes, yeah, I mean it seems even like I think
the executive order said permanently leave the United States, right.
Speaker 3 (14:39):
Well it did, and then but then they switch tactics
a little bit with the app to self deport saying like,
you know, leave now, leave now so you have a
chance to come back later or something like that, right,
but you know without mentioning that, hey you no, you're
barred from the United States for ten years and if
you ever return unlawfully, then you're a subject to a
whole series of you know. Yeah, I mean, it's just
(15:01):
there's all these warnings that need to come with the
deportation order that are strategically left out of all the
administration's latest messaging on this topic.
Speaker 1 (15:08):
Yeah, it's pretty bad. Let's take a break for advertisements
here and it will come back all right, we are back,
and so we've spoken about these like self deportation orders,
(15:30):
right for other people who have entered more recently, right,
entered within the last two years. This has been happening
we're recording on the twenty second for the last two
days now. It seems like ICE is dismissing the cases
against them and then detaining them directly in court, if
I'm correctly informed.
Speaker 3 (15:50):
Yes, So this has been happening periodically throughout the past
four months, but in the past few days, like this week,
it's been dramatically ramped up, Like right now as we're
recording this, ICE is arresting people in the downtown San
Diego court and also courts throughout the country. It's been
reported everywhere, happening widely this week. And this is another
(16:11):
thing the administration said they were going to do and
is doing. I mean, you know, they're doing what they
said they were going to do.
Speaker 2 (16:16):
Yeah, And it's.
Speaker 3 (16:18):
To use what's called two thirty five authority. More broadly
so Ina Section two thirty five applies to people who
entered within less than two years, like you said, and
they can be then subject to what's called expedited removal.
That means that they have to take a credible fear
interview and be detained, and that they only get to
fight a case if they pass their credible fear interview,
(16:40):
and then they do not qualify for an immigration judge bond,
So they only get out if Ice lets them out,
which of course I is letting nobody out. So the
administration wants to have people detained under this authority, this
two thirty five authority, as much as possible, to have
them have to fight their case detained and either lose
the will to do so and or not be able
(17:02):
to afford an attorney, because detained cases move along a
lot quicker and are very costly as well for that reason.
So what they're doing is anybody who was here two
years or less but was parolled in so they're in
the regular immigration court proceedings they got out there under
two forty proceedings, that's called so DHS attorneys in court
are terminating those proceedings. They're asking the judge to terminate
(17:25):
the two forty proceedings, so then that case is closed
and then they immediately restart a case under section two
thirty five. And at the second they do that, the
person is subject to mandatory detention, and ICE is right
there in the courthouse to arrest them and detain them.
Speaker 1 (17:38):
Jesus, Yeah, I thought ICE couldn't arrest people in California's
at California state courts, no federal courts which were in California.
Speaker 3 (17:47):
I believe so, and colleagues and I have been talking
about this. I haven't researched it thoroughly, but I think
also the nature of these proceedings, like the two thirty
five proceeding, like you are mandatory detention, like you okay,
you were taken into custody. It's as if you just
cross the border and you know, are taken into custody.
It's treated like like that type of situation, like no
(18:07):
warrant is necessary.
Speaker 2 (18:08):
I don't believe you know.
Speaker 1 (18:09):
Oh okay, right, yeah, so they could they have very
broad authority to detain people any way. That makes sense exactly.
Speaker 3 (18:16):
So the real issue here is the ethical I mean
a lot of us are grappling with this and of
course fiercely opposing these motions in that the justification that
the DHS attorneys are attempting to use is that circumstances
have materially changed since the issuance of their initial case
that they're in now, which of course is not the.
Speaker 1 (18:37):
Case, right, Like whose circumstances.
Speaker 3 (18:39):
Exactly exactly, Like the rise of fascism doesn't constitute a
change circumstance. Yeah, So it's just there's no there's no
basis for this motion. And secondly, the only basis, like,
there's zero justification for this other than filling detention centers,
lining cour Civic and Geogroup's pockets. Yeah, and in ten
(19:00):
prejudicing an immigrant to have to fight their case attained.
I mean right, there's no there's no good or legitimate
justification for this period the end, you know.
Speaker 1 (19:11):
Yeah, and fighting it detained will be a lot harder.
They will be obviously in like terrible situation they are,
as we've covered before, often moved to a different state
from their council. Will make it a lot harder for
them if they choose to go that route. I'm guessing
that ICE is hoping that people won't fight and will
just or DHS it is hoping that people will just
choose not to fight.
Speaker 3 (19:32):
That's the whole point is this whole administration's the messaging
and their actions are all about forcing people breaking people's
spirits and forcing them into a situation where they feel
their only option is to self deport. Yeah, it is heartbreaking,
it's very sick. Yeah, it's it's very disturbing. It's very
(19:53):
very different from Trump one point zero.
Speaker 1 (19:56):
Yeah. I think that's worth sort of focusing in on
that this is a complete, distinct and much more radical
disassembling of the asylum system as we know it.
Speaker 2 (20:07):
Absolutely.
Speaker 3 (20:07):
I mean, I think we can all agree or disagree
as far as how we feel about the past four
months and what has happened, but I think everybody can
agree that the pace at which it has happened is
extremely concerning.
Speaker 1 (20:20):
Right, we are four months into four years, and we
have seen at constitutional crisis, like a full blown defiance
of the courts. We at the day we're recording, the
Trump administration is attempting to deport people to South Sudan,
many of whom eleven of twelve of whom are not
seuth Sudanese.
Speaker 2 (20:40):
Right.
Speaker 1 (20:41):
I guess from what I understand, their attempt at giving
those people a credible fear screening was that they didn't
hear them shouting from the cells they were detained in,
that they were afraid of being tortured.
Speaker 3 (20:53):
Yeah, they're supposed to give them opportunity to be heard
essentially and give notice of this country that they're going
to be deported to. That nobody and no judge is
ever considered whether they have a fear or if they
would be in danger deported.
Speaker 2 (21:07):
To this country.
Speaker 3 (21:08):
Right, So again, this is a due process situation where hey,
before you can be sent to some random country, especially
South Sudan, maybe you should be given an opportunity to
present why you have a fear or that something bad
might happen to you over there to a judge. And
so this was recently ordered. I believe the case is
called DBD versus DHS. Was what stopped the Libya situation
(21:29):
from happening, where yeah, judge said, this is exactly what
needs to occur. These people need to be given real notice,
not this whatever has been had, you know, and and
an opportunity to be heard.
Speaker 2 (21:40):
And then yeah, they immediately.
Speaker 3 (21:42):
Thereafter attempted to as you said, or I think I
don't know if they actually accomplished it with South Sudan.
Speaker 1 (21:48):
Yeah, my understanding is they are in a country which
is neither the United States nor South Sudan. On an
aircraft at this time, and DHS is arguing that they
can do their credible fear screenings there on the aircraft.
I don't know how they've planned together people privacy, translation,
and access to council. I just looked on Court listener
right before we recorded, and Judge Murphy clarified Massachusetts District
(22:11):
Court judge that ten days would be the amount of
time that they would need to assert a credible fear
and then if DHS determined that they didn't have credible fear,
they would then have fifteen days to ask the reopening
of their case. TBD. Is the United States going to
like somehow accommodate them in where they are. People are
speculating they're in Djibouti, which is the largest US military
(22:33):
base in the continent of Africa and close to South Sudan,
And so if that's the case, Yeah, I don't know
how they will get due process. We will find out
if they will get due process.
Speaker 3 (22:45):
I guess yeah, they probably won't, but will be told
that they did, or will be or will be told
that they were criminals in the first place, which is
the other theme of this administration, right with the Alien
Enemies Act, which has basically been put on pause by
a number of Satan judges who have said there's no invasion,
(23:05):
there's no war.
Speaker 2 (23:06):
This is absurd, This just flat out doesn't apply.
Speaker 3 (23:09):
And I have to say that the immigration bar is
very I think not just the immigration bar, I think
all of us are very frustrated that the Supreme Court
has not yet come out with a definitive substance of
ruling on this because, for the people who don't know,
the Alien Enemies Act allows the administration to circumvent the
i NA, which is the whole immigration court system, and
(23:30):
immediately to port supposed criminals who were invading the country.
I mean, we all know this with the Venezuelans who
are accused of being trend Aragua just for having tattoos.
And so that is to me and I think all
of us the biggest threat to just be able to
put somebody on a plane to another country and in
a prison in another country, as we've seen the sea
cot in El Salvador. I mean, we need our Supreme
(23:53):
Court to speak on this, then we need it quickly.
Speaker 1 (23:56):
Yeah, like if we no longer have habeas a frontal
assault on the Bill of rights like most of them.
Speaker 3 (24:03):
And there's so many assaults on the Bill of Rights,
and then we need our Supreme Court to really to
step up. And I think I'm not the only one
who's extremely frustrated by that, because we're in crisis and
as we've seen, it's fallen on courts and lawyers and
judges to try to defend the semblance of democracy in
(24:23):
this country.
Speaker 2 (24:23):
But the highest court in the land needs to help
out soon. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (24:27):
Yeah, and like this is where like the rover meets
the road, right for like maintaining people's basic rights, dignity
and yeah, the right not to be sent to a
labor camp in El Salvador or you know, seuth Sudana country,
which is rapidly descending into conflict. Again, I thought the
government was barrel bombing this week.
Speaker 3 (24:48):
Well, and just real quick, another note on the Supreme
Court is that they're they're also concerning I mean, as
we know, there's a lot of Trump appointees there and
so I mean it's not even that that's the answer.
It's just we're you know, but we need answers more
quickly than what they're they're giving us. And it's just
when given the rate that this administration is working at
(25:10):
I don't know that they will if they ever get
the case or the asylum ban at the border would
even overturn that because historically they've sort of supported his
two twelve F powers. So I'm not saying that's the
answer to everything, but it's definitely frustrating to not have
basic things yeah already decided, like the use of the
alien enemies that.
Speaker 1 (25:28):
Yeah, like just not to know where we're at, Like
when you know people are trying a good faith to
move forward with the legal processes that they have spent
their entire life savings on to get here and do
the right quote unquote the right way. You're still fighting
(25:54):
a number of asylum cases, as we said before the call,
like you probably won't be forever, right Like, at some
point there's just not going to be any more asylum cases.
I know that you're accepting donations. I think through venmo
On behalf of Primrose, that will be sure to link
to that woman account in the description of this show,
so people can donate if they'd like to. Now it's
(26:15):
the time to do it, right, It's not like this
is going to be an ongoing thing. Like if people
don't help now, then there won't be migrants to support
or assylies to support later, So like, how can people
materially support maybe in other ways, right if they're like
on hard times and have the financial resources, what else
can people do to just to make this a little
(26:36):
bit less cruel to some people who are among the
most unfortunate people on the planet.
Speaker 3 (26:41):
Often, I think even mental and emotional support for the
immigrants in your life, I think is something that is
underestimated because speaking as a very privileged white woman attorney
US citizen, this has taken a tremendous toll on me,
and the mental toll that has taken on the actual
(27:03):
undocumented community and a SI les this messaging is so
harmful and so disgusting that I think I would just
caution people to not underestimate the power of human kindness
to those already in your life and just empowering them
distributing Know your Rights cards and information that still matters.
(27:24):
But also I think the people who are, as we've
been discussing, going to be at the most disadvantaged in
terms of being able to keep up morale are these
people who are going to be mandatorily detained. So in
terms of what we were talking about I believe before
we started recording, reaching out to any organizations I know
in San Diego there's detention resistance, or even reaching out
(27:47):
to the detention center that's near you to be able
to determine how you can send a letter, how you
can put money on somebody's books so that they can
have phone calls with their family or phone calls with you.
Even I think these types of things are are key
in light of the administration's clear messaging that immigrants are
(28:10):
very much unwanted and criminals. So I think I think
that that's where I would come at this from. If
you cannot donate again, like we were talking, if you
have a few dollars to spare, I mean, if everybody
has a few dollars to spare, there is a finite number,
like we were saying of asylum cases love ye, like
for roses. So if people can spare a few dollars
(28:31):
here or there whenever they can, it doesn't make the difference.
Speaker 1 (28:35):
Yeah, no, it does, and it shows that like even
if the government doesn't want you to hear, a lot
of people want you to be protected. We want you
to be safe, Like, yeah, the mental damage it does,
I think it's hard to overstate. Like I was talking,
I remember to a young woman Ino and like she
was the only surviving member of her pamently the government
had killed everyone, and so she came to the US
(28:58):
right to be safe, and like, now the government is
coming after her in addition to the trauma she already
has from watching her entire family die. Like, now the
most powerful government in the world is coming after you.
I can't imagine how that feels.
Speaker 2 (29:12):
That's a very good point.
Speaker 3 (29:13):
I mean, yeah, people are coming already traumatized, only to
be further traumatized by this administration in the system. And yes,
I mean emotional and mental and any kind of support
is not to be underestimated in the slightest during these times.
Speaker 1 (29:27):
Yeah, like have people over for dinner if you can,
or yeah, like call the detention center and put money
on someone's commisary. Like just showing people that they're welcome
is important. Like I know a lot of the migrants,
Like if I look at my phone right now, in
the time we've been recording, one of the migrants I
met that Darien Gat will probably have texted me. They're
in Mexico right, and they just want the world to
(29:48):
know about the situation, they know they can't come to
the US anymore. But sometimes people will say, I guess
the Americans don't want s anymore, And like that breaks
my heart because I think most people, if they knew
these people circumstances right to people have reached out to
me since the Darien Gap stuff to ask how they
can help, and like, most people do want those people
to be their neighbors. And it breaks my heart that
(30:10):
they think that we don't want them, that we would
rather leave them to die wherever they're at. Like it's
genuinely really horrible for me to think of that. So yeah,
I would really encourage anyone listening if you can, to
do what you.
Speaker 3 (30:23):
Can absolutely in just remembering that again, these asylum cases
are finite. So if you know any asylum seeker or
can support any asylum seeker right now, they made it
in Let's give them their best shot.
Speaker 1 (30:37):
Yeah yeah, yeah, like we can still help those people,
and while we can, we should absolutely Yeah, Well, thank
you so much for joining us. We do appreciate it.
I know that your time is very valuable and you're
really busy right now, so we really appreciate your time.
You're always welcome back, and if there's anything else you'd
like to say before we finish up.
Speaker 2 (30:56):
Yeah, thank you, James.
Speaker 3 (30:57):
I think the only thing I just want to emphasize
is that, you know, from the standpoint of immigration attorneys
like I feel that we're obviously a subject of an
executive order, and you know, big law firms are being
extorted by the administration to represent causes that the administration
believes in and not robono immigration work and so forth
and so on. So it's not like too many of
us have been personally attacked, although you know, judges have
(31:20):
been arrested, even judges for just hiring an immigrant to
do work around the house. So it is a scary
time to be practicing immigration law. But unfortunately, I do
see there being a time when it won't happen. I mean,
I see the writing on the wall where I will
not be able to continue mentally and or economically, because
a side effect of all this, and a very intentional
(31:42):
side effect, is to make it so that we can't
do much for people anymore, and or they can afford us,
or there's not people here to do anything for because
their spirit was broken or their finances or all of
the above and they had to leave. So it is
a very intense time. But I came from different areas
of life. I've only been in immigration seven years and
(32:04):
it's the first time I've thought of, Okay, where am
I going to go to next in these seven years,
And it's a very real thing. So, like I said,
it feels very different than Trump one point zero.
Speaker 1 (32:16):
So no, yeah, this is considerably more severe.
Speaker 3 (32:20):
So in other words, take care of yourself if you
are an ally, because you know the attack is on
immigrants and anybody who advocates, supports and so forth, and
it's a very targeted, direct attack and it's very easy
to get run down and consumed by it. And so
definitely do what you need to do to take care
of yourself. And if that means stepping back, then you know,
(32:42):
I mean, I want to keep my foot in the
door as much as possible these next four years on
something immigration and recite asylum related. But there's also economic
and other realities that are happening intentionally, So.
Speaker 1 (32:53):
Yeah, definitely, and I think it is important for people
to do whatever they need to do to self preserve
and take care of themselves as well. I think that's
a good place to end, thank you so much for
your time, and again, like if you're listening, please check
the description of the show and we will have a
link to primises go fund Me if you'd like to help.
Speaker 2 (33:10):
Thank you so much, James, thank you. It Could Happen
Here is a production of cool Zone Media.
Speaker 3 (33:19):
For more podcasts from cool Zone Media, visit our website
coolzonmedia dot com, or check us out on the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts. You can
now find sources for It Could Happen Here listened directly
in episode descriptions.
Speaker 1 (33:33):
Thanks for listening.
It Could Happen Here News
Hosts And Creators
Robert Evans
Garrison Davis
James Stout
Show Links
AboutPopular Podcasts
Cold Case Files: Miami
Joyce Sapp, 76; Bryan Herrera, 16; and Laurance Webb, 32—three Miami residents whose lives were stolen in brutal, unsolved homicides. Cold Case Files: Miami follows award‑winning radio host and City of Miami Police reserve officer Enrique Santos as he partners with the department’s Cold Case Homicide Unit, determined family members, and the advocates who spend their lives fighting for justice for the victims who can no longer fight for themselves.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.