Dr. Jill Stein is the Green Party’s presumptive nominee for President of the United States. In a recent appearance on Democracy Now!, she argued that there was little difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump:
Trump says very scary things—deporting immigrants, massive militarism and, you know, ignoring the climate. Well, Hillary, unfortunately, has a track record for doing all of those things. Hillary has supported the deportations of immigrants, opposed the refugees—women and children coming from Honduras, whose refugee crisis she was very much responsible for by giving a thumbs-up to this corporate coup in Honduras that has created the violence from which those refugees are fleeing. She basically said, “No, bar the gates, send them back.” You know, so we see these draconian things that Donald Trump is talking about, we actually see Hillary Clinton doing.
Dr. Stein says that, people are “very quick to tell you about the terrible things that the Republicans did, but they’re very quick to forget the equally terrible things that have happened under a Democratic White House…. It’s time to forget the lesser evil, stand up and fight for the greater good.”
I am a member of the Green Party. I am also an attorney who represents immigrants and asylum seekers. My clients have fled persecution in the Middle East, Africa, and the Americas. They are not people who have the luxury of idealism. They are people whose loved-ones have been killed by war and terrorism. Many of my clients have been attacked or threatened with death. Their first priority is to keep their families and themselves alive. By leaving everything behind–family members, friends, homes, careers–in order to find safety in America, they have already chosen the lesser evil that Dr. Stein speaks about.
We are now almost at the start (!) of the general election season. Are the two major candidates for President really the same, as Dr. Stein argues? My clients don’t think so. They are genuinely afraid of Donald Trump and of what he represents. When Mr. Trump threatens to ban Muslims from the United States, or when he refers to Mexicans (and Americans of Mexican decent) in a racist manner, my clients wonder whether there is a future for them in this country.
One of my clients is a women’s rights activist from Afghanistan. Will she be able to reunite with her young children, or will they be prevented from coming to the U.S. because of their religion? Other clients are a Syrian couple, both doctors, whose first child died in the war. Will they be able to keep their second child safely in the United States, or will they be forced to leave? What about my Iraqi client who was kidnapped and tortured by terrorists? Or my Pakistani-journalist client whose step-father was murdered in retaliation for the family’s democratic political views? And what about my Honduran client who was shot in the head by members of MS-13 because he refused to join their gang? If Mr. Trump had his way, I imagine all these people—and many more—would be blocked from seeking refuge in our country.
Contrast this with Hillary Clinton. Dr. Stein points out that Ms. Clinton supported a coup in Honduras that supposedly helped create the current refugee flow from that country, and that Ms. Clinton favors detention of asylum seekers, including families with children, who arrive at our Southern border. Based on the evidence I have seen, Dr. Stein’s claim about the coup is dubious: Violence was rising in Honduras before the coup, and it continued to rise after the coup. It is very difficult to pin the current waive of migration to the coup (or to credit Ms. Clinton with causing it). As for the detention of families at the border, I have yet to see a solution to this problem that is practically and politically viable. Should we simply throw open our border to all comers? My sense is that the large majority of Americans would oppose such a move. I personally think we should be using more alternatives to detention, but this is a policy tweak; not a complete solution. A leader’s first priority must be to protect our country. How that can be achieved without control of our border, I do not know. In sum, the “lesser evils” discussed by Dr. Stein are difficult policy choices, and reasonable people can differ on the solutions.
More important than her previous policy positions are the positions Ms. Clinton would likely take if elected President. The Democratic Party has moved to the left, and whatever policies Ms. Clinton advances will be determined largely by where the party stands politically. On immigration, it is in a different universe from the Republican Party and from Mr. Trump, whose hardline stance on immigrants is well known. For Dr. Stein to argue that the two candidates’ positions on immigration are similar is like saying that black is the same as white (ok, maybe it’s more like saying that dark gray is the same as light gray, but you get the idea).
I have been a member of the Green Party for over 15 years. I support many of it’s policies. But I have found it very difficult to support the top-down strategy that seems to have characterized the party since at least 2000, when Ralph Nader siphoned off votes from Al Gore. I have always felt that the Green Party should focus on state and local races. A “revolution” (whatever that means) will not come from the top down–it will come from the bottom up. So while I believe the Green Party should run a national campaign in order to raise awareness on various issues, I also believe it should ultimately endorse the Presidential candidate that represents the “lesser evil.” In the current election, that candidate is Hillary Clinton. There are major differences between her and Donald Trump, and those differences may determine whether people like my clients live or die. I hope Dr. Stein will keep such people in mind as we move through this election campaign.
Thanks Jason.
Couple more questions
1- would they inform me in advance by written before the interview,for how long before the interview
2_ Do they usually ask for the original documents before , after or during the interview ( which documents)?
Many thanks
It depends on the office, but usually it is 2 or 3 weeks before the interview. During the interview, you should bring original documents if you have them (passport, birth and marriage certificates, any threat letters, employment letters, school documents, anything). Take care, Jason
Hi, Jason
Hope you are doing great
I’m in the process of applying for advance parole to go visit my family in Uganda, since i have a pending asylum case. My question is, how much is the fee upon submission to USCIS? Two, upon issuence of advance parole as a travel document will I need a passport or the document will be used in place of passport to travel abroad and come back into united states.
You have to check the form I-131 (available at http://www.uscis.gov) for the fee. Also, fees will go up on December 23, so you might want to file before that date. The AP allows you to re-enter the US; it does not serve as a passport. You will need to use your own passport, which can have negative implications for your asylum case. Also, if you return to the country where you fear harm, it will likely cause you to lose your asylum case. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason i’m pending asylum since 3/2013 in chicago asylum offiice.
But I made my intreview on 3/2013, and this days after every inquiry I received, i found many different answers. One time the office said waiting for background check, and other time said unresolved issues and last time may you will make another interview or we will ask more about you with your agency. Really i’m confused what all this answers mean?
Hi jason
One more Q
With recommended approval latter they send me form AR-11
Why ?? And whats that ?
If you change your address, you need to tell USCIS by filing an AR-11. Take care, Jason
Dear jason
Thanks again and again for all your support , i want to ask you about
Are you setting recommended for approval is the same queue waiting for final approval or the situation is slightly different, and how much as possible of waiting?
We have seen some recommended approval people wait for 2+ years without a decision. One of them just received a notice for another interview (Why? I have no idea). It is not the same queue, however. The people with recommended approval are waiting for security background checks or clearance from headquarters. Most people with recommended approval seem to get a final approval in less than a year, but like everything, it keeps getting slower. Take care, Jason
Hello Jason, does the current political situation and the argument over refugees and immigrants have to anything to do with keeping Syrians TPS pending? My TPS is pending since January 2015!
The problem pre-dates the current political debate (you can Google “ACLU Delay Muslim Immigration” to see a report about it). Your case is taking too long. On the http://www.uscis.gov website, there is a 1-800 phone number you can call – you should call an inquire. Or, on the same website, you can make an Info Pass appointment and go in-person to ask about the EAD. Also, there is a link at right called USCIS Ombudsman. You can inquire through them as well. Good luck, Jason
Wow! Then why they allowed or opened the TPS from the first place! Thats so disappointing..people’s life is pending for this reason! Thats discrimination and people need to speak up! How can we sue the USCIS or any Federal Agency that’s involved in that!
Immigration law is different from other areas of law. Immigrants have far fewer protections from discrimination, and no immigrant has the “right” to get status in the US (except perhaps for certain types of humanitarian relief like Withholding of Removal and Torture Convention relief).
Thank you Jason for your reply. Indeed the funny thing is that the world has forgotten that immigration is a normal activity of humanity since we came to this world…we are what we are because of immigration…the only difference is that before there were less borders and restrictions of this activity, and maybe we used to live in a safer world before those restrictions… restrictions foster hatred among nations, although they have other benifits. Maybe the ideal situation is when the world and strong countries like the US try to stop the causes of immigration, like wars, instead of turning their backs and blocking their borders. I bet that every immigrant or asylum seeker would prefer to stay in their countries, and they themselves don’t want to cause this drama…look at the UK, the main reason for leaving the EU is the free movement thing and their fear of immigrants..do those countries think that immigrants or asylum seekers enjoy being rejected and hated by the countries in which they are trying to have a normal life away from death and wars! No one chose to leave their countries unless there is a compelling reason…it’s just a sad world we are living in…
All true. Hopefully, things in the world will improve, but we do not seem to be headed in a positive direction. Take care, Jason
I think it’s more about the American election campaigns not a solution to asylum seekers…
Thank you Mr Jason for all your support, compassion and honesty toward asylum seekers and other immigrants. Love and respect!
Jason, my client demographics and stories are very similar to yours, but my perspective is very different. I actually believe that Trump will act swiftly to clear out the very people who are currently a blight on the law-abiding immigrant communities in the U.S. Moreover, I believe he will implement mechanisms for those most valuable to the U.S. to be able to lawfully return to the U.S. Also, I have to correct you on something….Trump has not “[referred] to Mexicans (and Americans of Mexican decent) in a racist manner”. Not at all. He has acknowledged that a significant number of those here illegally via the Mexican border have, are and will perpetrate violent crimes against Americans. This is an irrefutable fact, and it’s often immigrant communities suffering the most from this criminal element.
Thank you – I think it is difficult to spin his comments about the Judge handling the Trump U case or about Muslims as anything but racist. Even Paul Ryan called his statement about the Judge the “textbook definition” of a racist comment. I do think both your and my clients are struggling as a result of the surge at the border. It seems to me that the current situation is untenable: We need to make a decision about these migrants. They do not easily meet the definition of refugee, and it seems to me that we need to either let them in, based on some type of TPS or an amended definition of refugee, or exclude them for lack of a nexus. I do not trust how Trump would make that decision, or how he would treat other of our clients (especially Muslims). I suppose we shall see. Take care, Jason
Paul Ryan is a hack owned by the US Chamber of Commerce and his BFF is Luis Gutierrez, he is posturing for them in hopes Trump will lose so Ryan can run for Presidrnt in 2020. Ryan is not credible on anything other than perhaps budgeting. Judge Curiel is a member of multiple race-based associations and grievance groups, including one sponsoring an organized effort to damage the business interests of a litigant before Curiel’s court. He also participated in handing out scholarships to illegal immigrants. That’s fine, but his appearance of bias toward Trump based on Trump’s opposition to illegal immigration warrants a recusal. I also represent many Muslim clients, but there are good reasons to object to tens or hundreds of thousands of economic migrants being rushed into the US as “refugees” (for which they overwhelmingly do not meet the definition), none of which have anything to do with racism. (Moreover, Islam is not a race.) I think we risk trivializing REAL racism by tossing around the term simply to disparage those with whom we disagree. I too hope there is some good resolution to the current crisis. A “safe zone” in the Midfle East is a possibility.
I am certainly not a fan of Ryan, but I listed his statement to illustrate that people across the political spectrum have called Trump’s comment racist. If you had a case where a judge was Jewish and a member of a Jewish organization, and a litigant was a Nazi, it would be outrageous to suggest that the judge recuse himself. It assumes that the judge cannot separate himself from his personal feeling when ruling on cases. The only solution would for ever judge to recuse himself in every case where the litigant has some unrelated disagreement with the judge – or worse, some perceived disagreement with the judge based on stereotypical characteristics that the judge might hold due to his ethnicity, religion, etc. Anyway, if you ever want to write a blog post on this topic, let me know. It would be interesting to hear a more comprehensive statement about your views on Trump and asylum/refugee issues. Take care, Jason
What a generous offer, Jason, and quite a compliment coming from someone who publishes such a high quality blog. Thank you. BTW, as lawyers we are always massaging analogies, but I think the most appropriate analogy to the Judge Curiel situation would be a judge (of any faith) who is an active member of the BDS movement presiding over a case in which one of the litigants is a pro-Zionist founder/high profile member (of any faith) of an anti-BDS group. I think that judge would rightly recuse himself, not because he CAN’T be fair, but because the appearance of bias and impropriety is damaging to the legal process.
I think we won’t agree on this, but that is why a posting from you would be interesting. Anyway, think about writing something if you’d like. It is going to be a loooong campaign, so there is no rush. Take care, Jason
“Patti Lyman”, you have failed to demonstrate that trump’s actions and words are not racist. You went on to talk about a judge’s membership in an organization that represents diversity (this is a terrible act on the judge’s part?)! Further, you talked about the aforementioned judge’s terrible act of generosity. How dare he tries to help people who desperately need help! How does that negate the fact, or accusation like you claim, that Trump pathological mendacious, racist and deceiving? He did in fact say that Mexico sends the rapist to the US. He also claimed that the judge is Mexican and therefore is not qualified to adjudicate. Trump has said some very awful things about immigrants, women, Muslims and Hispanic people. The derogatory things he said about these people are too numerous to mention right now. You can do a quick Google search and I can guarantee you that you will see many reputable sources quoting Trump’s derogatory statements about the aforesaid group of people. Finally, while I can’t stop you from being racist, xenophobic, or use statements that have racist overtone, I do expect that, as a lawyer, you present facts and utilize logic- especially when everyone believes and knows otherwise!
I’m not sure what you mean by “swiftly clear out” criminal aliens. The word is out that immigration law permits a fairly stable ground for even the worst of criminals to routinely win withholding and D-CAT cases. Depending on the immigration court/judge, it can be fairly common for individuals with terrible records, and who still pose a danger to others, to win the right to remain in the United States on a scale that would horrify the public. I suppose the only thing a President can do to change that would be to completely overhaul EOIR and the Immigration Court system in general. Even then, he cannot overturn the decisions of many circuits and the Supreme Court on what the INA mandates concerning criminal aliens, though now we’re on to judicial appointments. I get that Mr. Trump probably will promise he can get all of that done in a year, but unless he has a legislature ready to make the parallel changes in the INA, it won’t happen.
Also, I hope that picture/caption isn’t copyrighted because I am re-posting it everywhere.
You should talk to the copyright holder, Abdul Al Hazred at Miskitonic University…