March 2010

  • March 22, 2010

    The U.S. Supreme Court passed on a chance to hear the second Kiyemba v. Obama, a case involving four of the Chinese Muslims, or Uighurs, detained at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. Denying certiorari this morning, the Court let stand a lower court's decision that federal judges have no authority to review the executive branch's determinations where and when to send detainees cleared for release.

    The Court previously granted review in Kiyemba I, in which Uighurs challenged their continued detention at Guantanamo despite being cleared for release. Upon news that the executive branch found countries willing to accept each of the Uighur detainees, however, the Court remanded the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. In Kiyemba II, non-Uighurs who are also slated for release to countries previously announced by the administration also joined the case.

    Among the most promising plaintiffs to join Kiyemba II was Ahmed Belbacha, according to reports. Belbacha, who the executive branch says it will release to his native Algeria, alleges that his life was threatened by terrorists there. He also contends that the Algerian military considers him a desserter, and he was tried and convictied in absentia for terrorism-related charges carrying a 20-year sentence. "Caught between domestic terror groups and a government that has already decreed a harsh sanction for him, Mr. Belbacha cannot safely return to Algeria," his attorneys told a district court earlier this month.  

  • March 19, 2010
    Guest Post

    By Maurice Belanger, Director of Public Information, National Immigration Forum
    This weekend, tens of thousands of activists will be in Washington demanding that Congress fix an immigration system that is dysfunctional.

    What's this about?

    The Immigration System, and Why It's Broken

    Most foreigners coming to live in the U.S. come here in one of three ways: through close family ties, through employer sponsorship, or as a refugee. The family-based and employment-based systems have fixed quotas for immigrant visas that were last updated in 1990.

    In the ensuing 20 years, those quotas have not kept pace with demand. As a result, there are now extraordinary waits for families to reunite and for workers to get their "green cards." Currently, an immigrant living here who is trying to bring a spouse or minor child must wait between four and five years. Others wait longer.

    For some categories of immigrants, the prospect of legal immigration is even more unrealistic. For example, there are only 5,000 visas available per year for low-skilled immigrants who, during the late 1990s and parts of the last decade, were being absorbed by our economy at a rate of 300,000 to 500,000 per year. If all of those immigrants "got in line" for a proper visa, the waiting list that would develop in one year would span one human lifetime.

    It's not hard to understand, given the above facts, that a lot of people in the last 20 years have found a way around the immigration system. Before the economic downturn took hold, there were an estimated 12 million unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. Unauthorized workers made up five percent of the U.S. workforce.

    Fixing the Broken System

    Advocates on the National Mall this weekend will be calling for "comprehensive immigration reform." Broadly, this reform consists of, first, some sort of process by which unauthorized immigrants are brought out of the shadows, register, and get a criminal background check. Those who have no criminal record will be allowed to attain legal status, putting them on a path to citizenship. Second, family visa backlogs must be cleared, and admissions levels must be adjusted so that long backlogs to not immediately re-appear. Third, there must be some way to match the number of workers coming to the U.S. with what is happening in the economy. Fourth, there has to be an effective, intelligent enforcement scheme, prioritizing the worst violators of immigration and labor law. Enforcement must respect the due process rights of all, and it must be accountable. Comprehensive immigration reform will also include measures to speed the integration of immigrants.

    Immigration Reform and Economic Recovery

    Given that unauthorized workers make up five percent of the U.S. workforce, immigration reform will be an important component of our economic recovery. With that many U.S. workers subject to deportation, there are plenty of opportunities for unscrupulous employers to offer substandard pay to unauthorized workers. This hurts all U.S. workers. Bring unauthorized workers into the system, and they will be more willing to stand up for the rights they have under our labor laws. The "wage floor" will be raised for all U.S. workers. The Center for American Progress estimates that comprehensive immigration reform will result in a $1.5 trillion boost to the economy over a ten year period. By contrast, the economy would take a $2.6 trillion hit over ten years if we were to send all unauthorized workers packing.

    Going forward, we had better make the adjustments in our admissions systems before the economy recovers. If the economy returns to anywhere near where it was in the 1990s, we can expect the number of unauthorized workers to climb steeply.

  • March 19, 2010
    Matthew Yglesias, a fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, and a blogger at the organization's ThinkProgress, chatted with ACSblog about increased use of the filibuster and other delaying tactics to scuttle the president's judicial nominations. Yglesias spoke with ACSblog following his participation in a recent ACS panel discussion on the filibuster and the pace of judicial confirmations.

    Yglesias said the concept of debate over judicial nominations is not obsolete or irrelevant, "but that the procedural tactics around congressional debate are not really about debate, their just about delay and taking up time. We are seeing an unprecedented level, I think of just pure delay, in the sense where you don't have the votes to block someone and you don't have any intention of blocking them, but you just engage in procedural maneuvers to slow them down."

    Yglesias also addressed the Obama administration's reaction to the slow pace of judicial confirmations, saying "I think the Obama administration has not made any really serious effort to elevate the judicial side of this; they haven't nominated all that many people, they haven't talked in a really public way about the difficulty their nominees are having. The Bush administration after putting up with a lot of delays, at one point decided to make a big point of emphasis; that it really wanted to get judges confirmed and they had an enormous amount of success after they did it."

    Watch the interview with Yglesias below, or download a podcast of it here.

    The full video of the ACS event on the filibuster and judicial confirmations is available here. Earlier this week, several senators took to the Senate floor to denounce the delays in conforming executive branch and judicial nominees.

     

  • March 18, 2010
    The U.S. Supreme Court unveiled a new look for its Web site earlier today, prompting longtime Supreme Court correspondent Tony Mauro to joke that the new site launches the high court "into the 21st century only a few years late."

    Mauro noted that the high court's old site had drawn criticism for being outdated and "clunky." But, he writes, while the new site does not feature much new content it is "more accessible and reader-friendly." The site's resources continue to include recent opinions, its calendars and oral argument transcripts.

    Kathy Arberg, the high court's information officer, suggested that new information and features would be added over time. 

     

  • March 18, 2010
    A forthcoming report by the Brennan Center and Justice at Stake will show that unprecedented sums of money are being spent to influence the election of judges, ABC News reports.

    "In the past decade, candidates for state judgeships raised more than $206 million, more than double the $83 million judges raised in the 1990s," according to the forthcoming study. ABC News also noted former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, have spoken out against the large sums of money flowing into judicial campaigns.

    O'Connor recently told Georgetown law students that the amount of money being funneled into electing judges has become "a threat to judicial independence." When asked about judicial elections in the 39 states that conduct them at a recent event by the National Association of Women Judges, Justice Ginsburg said, "If there's a reform I would make, it would be that."

    University of Maryland law school professor Sherrilyn Ifill, in a post for Concurring Opinions, said the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC, which invalidated decades of restrictions on corporate campaign contributions, "is likely to unleash a virtual run on judicial elections in some states," citing the ABC News article

    Ifill continued:

    There is a real constitutional crisis in the judiciary of some states (and no, Justice Roberts, it's not the judicial pay scale). More and more, state courts are losing confidence of the public. The single largest contributor to judicial elections is the Chamber of Commerce and other pro-business groups. Business advocates argue that this is to counter the influence trial judges had in the 1980s, when they were the largest contributors to judicial campaigns. Whatever the history, the reality is that there are strong, well-financed forces favorable to business and to conservative political principles that exert powerful influence over state judicial elections.

    Earlier this week other media outlets reported on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's plans to significantly ratchet up its campaign contributions. The Washington Post reported that the pro-business lobby "plans to spend at least $50 million on political races and related activities this year, a 40 percent increase from 2008." The newspaper noted that high court's Citizens United opinion has "bolstered" the organization's potential to sway this year's midterm elections.