Author: mopress

  • Suzi Hazahza and the Pirates of Homeland Security

    By Greg Moses

    CounterPunch / ElectronicIntifada / OpEdNews / IndyBay /
    UrukNet

    One by one, all the helium-inflated excuses for arresting and imprisoning Suzi Hazahza have been popped and now lie on the ground. And the single memory humanizing the government that still holds her unlawfully behind bars is the look on one Federal Magistrate’s face Thursday in Dallas when he was told by a US Attorney that Congress has stripped the federal bench of any right to order Suzi Hazahza freed until a full six months of illegal detention have passed.
    Anguish is the word that some observers have used to describe the look on the judge’s face as he wrestled with the impotence of his authority before the power of Homeland Security to arrest and detain innocent immigrants.

    “Believe it or not, immigration law is replete with that language,” explains New York immigration attorney Joshua Bardavid from his New York office on Friday evening, as sounds of the street honk outside his window. “Congress has told the courts that many discretionary decisions by immigration authorities are unreviewable.” In this case, the unreviewable decision involves the unlawful six-month imprisonment of an innocent immigrant in the hellish privatized Rolling Plains prison of Haskell, Texas.

    Over the weekend, Bardavid will work up his motion pleading with the Federal Magistrate to exercise his unimpeachable power to enforce the Constitution, with its protections against unlawful seizure and guarantees of due process. But the argument will be a a tough sell politically, because in order to take legal responsibility for Suzi Hazahza, the federal courts will have to state plainly that Homeland Security is using its discretionary authority to break the Constitution on American soil. For an aspiring federal magistrate under the administration of George the Bush II, such a ruling could mean the end of a career and almost certain reversal by the Fifth Circuit judges who gave us the racist Hopwood ruling not too many years ago (the ruling that abolished affirmative action in Texas for several years).

    “It is extraordinarily upsetting and frustrating that we can live in a system where it is possible that a judge concludes that detention is unlawful but that he himself has no authority to release the prisoner,” says Bardavid. But that could be the best hand-wringing effort that the federal courts will make in this case. And it would be a nauseating retreat from the principle of habeas corpus at home.

    For Suzi Hazahza, the reality of a powerless judiciary branch, disabled by a weak Congress, will leave her to the hands of a muscular executive power without checks or balances. She will be living in a virtual police state until May 3, when the six-month deadline for her unlawful detention expires. For the rest of us, that leaves a question. If we allow Suzi Hazahza and other innocent immigrants to live in a police state for six months at a time, what are we allowing Homeland Security to make of America?

    On the first Friday in November, 2006 Suzi Hazahza was arrested at gunpoint inside her father’s home and transported with the rest of her family to an immigration jail in Dallas. By the first Sunday in November, the administration had scored its Dalls-area headlines about the arrest and detention of “criminal aliens” such as the seven Hazahas and other immigrant families.

    In order to make the case that the pre-election roundup was a hit for Homeland Security, immigration authorities posted a press release on the internet that included a mug shot of Suzi’s 17-year-old brother Ahmed, deliberately misidentifying his age as an 18-year-old adult, and maliciously publicizing his juvenile delinquency as a burglar. There are international laws against the use of children for propaganda purposes. But with the administration facing a grim election challenge, no trick seemed too dirty to pull. On that first Sunday in November, Ahmed was placed into solitary confinement, because he was a juvenile in an adult facility at the Rolling Plains prison of Haskell, Texas.

    Not only did Homeland Security know exactly how old Ahmed was, but they knew that his birthday was coming soon. So he was not sent with his mother and younger brother to the T. Don Hutto prison in Taylor, Texas, where all the other immigrant juveniles of the pre-election roundup were sent. By the first Sunday in November, the Hazahza family had been split between two Texas prisons, with mother Juma and 11-year-old Mohammad sent to Hutto, while father Radi was sent to Rolling Plains with his two adult daughters and his two oldest sons.

    What Homeland Security will not put into a press release is that the Hazahza family never tried to hide from anybody. They entered the USA legally with visas and applied for asylum to protect themselves from politics back home. Although they have been ordered deported to Jordan or Palestine, visas have been denied by authorities at both places. All the adult members of the family were law abiding citizens. Radi worked as a vehicle inspector. His oldest son Hisham worked as a cell phone salesman. His oldest daughter Mirvat managed the office of an insurance agent and is married to an American citizen. His youngest daughter Suzi had devoted herself to the care of her mother Juma and was engaged to be married to an American citizen in December.

    At the federal magistrate hearing on Thursday, the US Attorney admitted that immigration authorities could not prove they had sent a letter to Radi Hazahza ordering him to report for a meeting. They had not sent the letter with return-receipt requested. They had no affidavit from immigration personnel stating that the letter had been mailed. They had no service documents.

    “I even asked them if they had a photocopy of the envelope,” recalls Bardavid. But no, they didn’t even have that.

    Furthermore, the letter they showed the judge misstated the facts of the Hazahza immigration case in such a way that it didn’t seem to arise from within a knowledgeable process. The letter stated that the Hazahzas of Palestine and Jordan had been ordered deported to Israel, which is a lie. In any case, it was the wrong form.

    “That letter was so fundamentally flawed that it can’t be given legal effect,” argued Bardavid in Dallas. “Therefore the detention based on that letter is unlawful. Even the US Attorney seemed surprised by the errors in the document and promised to look into the matter further.”

    “I have difficulty grasping in my head this is occurring,” says Bardavid from his New York office. “The government did not refute any allegations that we made about the prison conditions, or the fact that the Hazahzas were allegedly sent the wrong form, or lack of proof of service for that letter, or that the facts were flawed. The premise of their entire case was that this federal court does not have jurisdiction in these matters.”

    Despite the horrible implications for Suzi Hazahza, America should send her a thank you note. Thanks to Suzi’s unjust treatment we now have proof that our Homeland Security machine has pulled loose from its Constitutional moorings. Homeland Security has become a pirate operation unto itself. Each passing day of Suzi’s imprisonment gives us one more reason to demand the resignation of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and immediate action by Congress to strip the agency of its power to evade federal court review.

  • Archive: Free the Hazahzas!

    The following items were previously posted in the announcements section of the Texas Civil Rights Review.

    Wednesday, March 28th, 5pm to 9pm: we will hold a sunset candlelight vigil at the JFK Museum located at Dealey Plaza, 411 Elm Street, Dallas.

    Thursday, March 29th, 9:00am to noon: we continue our vigil in solidarity with the Hazahza family and all the imprisoned victims of ICE, at the U.S. District Courthouse, 1100 Commerce Street, Dallas.

    Read Jay’s call to action

    Hazahza Family

    Mirvat, Ahmed, Muhammad, Juma, and Radi Hazahza
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement claims that Hutto was built to keep families together. The Hazahzas have been separated from each other since their pre-election abduction in early November, 2006. Muhammad and Juma were released from the T. Don Hutto prison camp in early February, two days before a press tour there. Hisham (who is not pictured above), Suzi, Mirvat, Ahmed, and Radi are still being held at the Rolling Plains prison camp at Haskell, Texas.

    Sample Letter to ICE

    Drafted by Joshua Bardavid, Esq.
    For three months in a row we have set records for our site traffic in 2007. While the overall totals are surely modest by today’s internet standards, we do want to thank you for showing that you care about the issues we’ve been covering this year. Free Suzi Hazahza and all mistreated immigrants!–gm

  • How We Treat Our Immigration Detainees

    By Nick Braune
    Mid-Valley Town Crier
    Posted with Permission

    Last weekend, March 24 and 25, I joined a pilgrimage led by Jay Johnson-Castro, who has been walking (walking) to various detention sites for immigrants. He and his friends are causing quite a stir around the state; I hooked up with him a bit on his route from an ugly Port Isabel detention center to an ugly one in Raymondville.

    My wife and I rode slowly in our car in a short caravan behind Jay and some other stalwart walkers — pilgrims to the Raymondville immigrant detention center. Jay, seeming to me to be in his mid-fifties and wearing a light straw hat to keep the sun off of him, was feeling upbeat, and he made a series of beautiful stump speeches for the press — I saw three news media interview him.

    Why should it be a crime, he asks the press, to be an economic or political refugee? Why do authorities lock people up as criminals for being oppressed and wanting to escape to America? Isn’t that (seeking refuge) what the poem engraved on the Statue of Liberty is about?
    Emma Lazarus’ stunning sonnet refers to America as the “Mother of Exiles” with mild eyes welcoming the tired, the poor and “huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” But these detention centers do not have mild eyes.

    The most emotional part of the pilgrimage for me was simply the sight of the Raymondville center. As we moved off of the highway to it, we saw the bleak prison and the barbed wire. There are regular buildings around, but the detainees are held in huge puffy tents. An article in Rolling Stone magazine last year said the center looked like it just landed from Mars.

    (The Raymondville area, the Rolling Stone article explained, was labeled the Valley of Tears in the late 1970s during an onion strike. After the strike, the growers got rid of most farm workers, and the Raymondville area tried textiles to survive. But NAFTA killed the textiles. Then the idea of making Raymondville “Prisonville” caught on. And now Raymondville with its windowless tents, is a Valley of Tears for yet another reason.)

    Hundreds and hundreds live inside the tents, twenty three hours a day inside. I asked Jodi Goodwin, a Harlingen lawyer who joined the walk with Jay, some questions about the detainees.

    Author: Do lawyers regularly help detainees learn their rights and do detainees know what to do to free themselves from the tents?

    Goodwin: There are no lawyers that regularly visit the detainees to give legal rights presentations. A group of about 6 lawyers volunteered from August through December to give such presentations to the detainees, but ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] cut off our access to the detainees when they found out we were able to go inside the tents to give the presentations. As far as I know, no rights presentations have been given since the second week of December of 2006. I do not believe that ICE gives the detainees information about how to free themselves from the tents. That was part of the information we used to provide during our rights presentations.

    Author: I suspect there is a deliberate effort to make detainees feel like criminals, even though they have not been convicted of a crime. Do they have prison clothes, have to stand in line, get yelled at, etc.?

    Goodwin: Yes, they wear prison clothes; yes, they are kept in lines; yes, they are yelled at. Actually, they are treated worse than criminals. Criminals at least have a right to representation regardless of their financial ability. Immigration detainees have no right to counsel unless they can afford to pay a lawyer themselves.

    Author: I heard you say earlier that some are having trouble sleeping; any comments on how their basic needs (food, sleep, exercise, medical help) are being met?

    Goodwin: I believe that basic needs such as sleep, food, exercise, medical attention are in fact not being met. My clients report being incommunicado because the phones do not work, or because they have no money to buy an overpriced phone card. My clients report insufficient amounts of food. Stale or undercooked food. Rancid milk served past the expiration dates. Weeks of waiting to see someone from the medical staff. Lights being left on 24 hours a day. No toilet paper available for days on end. And there’s much more lacking in the way of basic needs.

    Author: Is there anything my readers can do to help?

    Goodwin: Call or email Senators and Representatives to encourage them to pass meaningful immigration reform and to demand ICE live up to its own detention standards by treating human beings with dignity.

    Part II, next week.

  • Archive: Motion to Stop the Federal Court from Freeing Suzi Hazahza

    Posted with Certificate of Service

    Copied and pasted from a pdf file, here is the claim made by the government of the USA that its own federal courts may not release wrongfully detained immigrants unless they have been wrongfully detained at least six months.

    Technically, the motion argues that Homeland Security enjoys the discretion to call immigrants “flight risks”; and so long as Homeland Security makes this claim, the court has no jurisdiction to intervene. The motion does not state a background assumption made by the Federal Magistrate and US Attorneys that the power to hold immigrant prisoners on such discretionay basis has been limited by previous court rulings to 180 days.
    -gm

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    DALLAS DIVISION

    Radi Hazahza, et al.,
    Petitioners,

    v.

    Michael Chertoff, et al.,
    Respondents.

    No. 3:07-CV-0327-D (BF)
    ECF
    Referred to the U.S. Magistrate Judge

    FEDERAL RESPONDENTS’ POST-HEARING SUBMISSION

    In the March 29, 2007, hearing before the Court on Petitioner’s habeas corpus petition, the Federal Respondents argued that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) strips federal district courts of jurisdiction to review discretionary immigration decisions of the Attorney General where such discretion is specified in a statute, and thus the Court did not have jurisdiction to review the discretionary decision that Petitioners are a flight risk under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6). The Federal Respondents submit this post-hearing brief to
    provide the Court and opposing counsel with the case law cited by the Government on this issue at the hearing.

    * * *

    Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) provides that no court shall have jurisdiction to review “any other decision or action of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority for which is specified under this subchapter to be in the discretion of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security . . . .” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).1 The Fifth Circuit has held that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) strips courts of
    jurisdiction to review discretionary authority specified in a statute. See Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 303 (5th Cir. 2005) (ruling that courts retain jurisdiction to review discretionary decisions where discretion derived from regulations promulgated by Attorney General).

    In this case, the Court does not have jurisdiction to review ICE’s discretionary determination that Petitioners were a flight risk under § 1231(a)(6), and thus could be detained beyond the 90-day removal period. Section 1231(a)(6) states that “[a]n alien
    ordered removed . . . who has been determined by the Attorney General to be . . . unlikely to comply with the order of removal” may be detained beyond the removal period. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) (emphasis added). Because this statute clearly grants discretion to the Attorney General to determine whether individuals, such as Petitioners, are flight risks, § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) strips this Court of jurisdiction to review this discretionary decision. See, e.g., Ghanem v. Upchurch, 2007 WL 666091, at *2 (5th Cir. Mar. 7, 2007) (affirming Judge McBryde’s decision that because statute governing revocation of a visa
    grants discretion to Secretary of Homeland Security, § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) strips court of jurisdiction).[Note 2]

    ************

    [Note 1] The phrase “this subchapter” refers to subchapter II of Chapter 1 12 of Title 8 of the United States Code, which includes §§ 1151-1381. Guyadin v. Gonzales, 449 F.3d 465, 468 (2d Cir. 2006).

    [Note 2] The Federal Respondents also contend that Petitioners cannot challenge ICE’s §1231(a)(6) determination by way of a habeas corpus petition, as habeas jurisdiction does not extend to review of discretionary determinations made by agencies, only pure questions of law. See Bravo v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 590, 592-93 (5th Cir. 2003); Gallegos-Reyes

    Respectfully submitted,
    RICHARD B. ROPER
    United States Attorney
    ____/s/ Stephen P. Fahey_______
    STEPHEN P. FAHEY
    Assistant United States Attorney
    Illinois State Bar No. 6274893
    U.S. Federal Building & Courthouse
    1100 Commerce Street, Third Floor
    Dallas, Texas 75242-1699
    Telephone: 214.659.8600
    Facsimile: 214.767.2916
    Email: Steve.P.Fahey@usdoj.gov
    
    OF COUNSEL:
    
    JUDSON J. DAVIS
    U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    U.S. Department of Homeland Security
    8101 N. Stemmons Frwy.
    Dallas, Texas 75247
    Telephone: 214.905.5779
    Facsimile: 214.905.5593
    ATTORNEYS FOR FEDERAL RESPONDENTS
    

    ************

    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

    I hereby certify that on March 29, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the clerk of court for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, using the electronic case filing system of the court. The electronic case
    filing system sent a “Notice of Electronic Filing” to the following attorneys of record who have consented in writing to accept this Notice as service of this document by electronic means:

    Joshua E. Bardavid

    Theodore N. Cox

    [SIGNED BY]
    __/s/ Stephen P. Fahey______
    Assistant United States Attorney