7 episodes
American Immigration from Mariel to Miller Marica Sharashenidze // Paul Wickham Schmidt
-
- Government
Judge (Ret.) Paul Wickham Schmidt & Podcaster Marica Sharashenidze, with an “up close and personal look” at American’s most misunderstood issue.
For nearly five decades, retired Judge Paul Wickham Schmidt has been involved in the development and application of American immigration law. From the staff of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) at the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”), to the General Counsel’s Office of the “Legacy” Immigration & Naturalization Service (“INS”), where he was the Deputy General Counsel and Acting General Counsel, to partnerships at two of America’s most distinguished law firms, Jones Day, then Fragomen, to appointment as Chairman and an Appellate Judge at the BIA, followed by 13-years on the trial bench at the U.S. Immigration Court in Arlington, VA, the “retail level of American immigration,” until his retirement in 2016, Judge Schmidt has “seen it all” and lived much of it. Since “retiring,” he has been an Adjunct Professor of Law at Georgetown Law, a proud member of the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges (amici in more than 50 cases seeking to uphold due process in Immigration Court), the author of the blog immigrationcourtside.com, and an oft-quoted commentator on, and outspoken critic of, current developments in immigration law, due process, and human rights.
In this timely, hard-hitting, highly personal seven-episode series, podcaster Marica Sharashenidze interviews Judge Schmidt about six events that shaped American immigration and his life in the law: From the Mariel Boatlift and the Refugee Act of 1980, to the fundamental changes made by the Immigration Reform & Control Act of 1986 (“IRCA”), the development of the BIA in the 1990s, the infamous “Ashcroft Purge,” all the way up to the Trump Administration’s all-out assault on due process in our Immigration Courts, and ending with a more recent look at what the future might hold for both immigrants and America’s role as a nation that welcomes and depends on them.
Get some unique historical context and learn how the re-emergence and “normalization” of racism, xenophobia, false narratives, unbridled nationalism, and de-humanization of “the other” in our national immigration and refugee policies and dialogue presents an existential threat to the rights and future of every American.
Cover photo by Alice Wycklendt from https://freeimages.com/"
-
Concluding Remarks
So, what now? Will the intentional cruelty, “Dred Scottification,” false narratives, and demonization of “the other,” particularly women, children, and people of color, by presidential advisor Stephen Miller and his White Nationalists become the “future face” of America? Or, will “Our Better Angels” help us reclaim the vision of America as the “Shining City on the Hill,” welcoming immigrants and protecting refugees, in good times and bad, while “leading by example” toward a more just and equal world?
-
The Mariel Boatlift Crisis
The Refugee Act of 1980 feels like a huge success...for a short amount of time. The first test of the act comes when Fidel Castro opens Cuba's borders (and Cuba's prisons) and hundreds of refugees arrive on Florida shores. The Mariel Boatlift Crisis forced the U.S. government to realize that not all asylum processing can happen abroad. Unfortunately, it also left the public with the impression that "Open arms and open hearts" leads only to crisis.
-
The Refugee Act of 1980
The year is 1980 and the war in Vietnam has displaced hundreds and thousands of people. The system of presidential parole doesn't seem like it can handle the growing global refugee crisis. What is the answer to this ballooning need? Process most refugees abroad to streamline their entrance to the U.S. Codify asylum in the U.S. in legislation that puts human rights first. Increase prestige, improve overall government coordination, provide a permanent source of funding, and institutionalize refugee resettlement programs and assimilation. Have Ted Kennedy be the face of the effort. For once, things are actually working out for humanity.
-
The 1990s BIA
In the 1990s, Judge Schmidt was BIA Chairman Schmidt. With the support of then
Attorney General Janel Reno, he aspired to “open up” appellate judgeships to all immigration experts, and to lead the BIA to much-needed progressive steps towards humane asylum law, better scholarship, improved public service, transparency, and streamlined efficiency to reduce the backlog. However, progress seemed to stall at several points and certain types of behavior tended to be rewarded. The Board sits at the intersection between a court and an agency within the administration, which means its hurdles come both from structural issues with the U.S. Justice System and with entrenched government bureaucracy. -
Creating EOIR
In the 1980s, critics claimed that the federal agency in charge of immigration enforcement, the “Legacy” Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”), could not process quasi-judicial cases in a fair and just manner due to limited autonomy, non-existent technology, insufficient resources, haphazard management, poor judicial selection processes, and backlogs. The solution? Create a sub-agency of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) just for the immigration courts, focused on “due process with efficiency” and organizationally separate from the agency charged with immigration enforcement. The Executive Office of Immigration Review (“EOIR”) was an ambitious and noble endeavor, meant to be an independent court system operating inside of a Federal Cabinet agency. Spoiler: despite significant initial progress it did not work out that way in the long run.
-
The Immigration Reform and Control Act
In 1986, the United States was facing an immigration crisis with an overwhelmed INS and a record number of undocumented folks in the country. IRCA, a bipartisan bill, was created to solve the immigration crisis through a three-pronged approach: legalization, enforcement and employer accountability. However, it soon became apparent that some parts of IRCA were more successful than others. IRCA taught us relevant lessons for going forward. Because while pathways to citizenship are self-sustaining, enforcing borders is not.