DOCSLIB.ORG

Supreme Court of the United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Supreme Court of the United States No. 21- IN THE Supreme Court of the United States MOHAMMAD SHARIF KHALIL, Petitioner, v. UR JADDOU, et al., Respondents. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES CouRT OF AppEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRcuIT PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI KATHRYN H. BRADY Counsel of Record ALLIE J. HALLMARK FRANCHEL D. DANIEL CHARLES D. SWifT, Director CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CENTER FOR MUSLIMS IN AMERICA 100 North Central Expressway, Suite 1010 Richardson, TX 75080 (972) 914-2507 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner 305353 A (800) 274-3321 • (800) 359-6859 i QUESTION PRESENTED The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) identifies various “terrorist activities” that render a noncitizen inadmissible. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B). The REAL ID Act of 2005 amended the INA to, among other things, add a ground of inadmissibility for receipt of “military-type training . from or on behalf of any organization that, at the time the training was received, was a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)).” Id. § 1182(a) (3)(B)(i)(VIII). No other terrorism-related grounds of inadmissibility under § 1182 include the language “at the time” to describe the conduct at issue. In the early–mid 1980s, Petitioner Mohammad Sharif Khalil fought against the Soviets with the U.S.-backed and trained war-time ally known as Jamiat-i-Islami (Jamiat). Mr. Khalil disclosed his background with Jamiat and was granted asylum in 2000. In its 2019 denial of Mr. Khalil’s application to adjust status, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services claimed that beginning in the late 1980s, Jamiat qualified as an undesignated “Tier III” terrorist organization under § 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III) of the INA, as amended by the PATRIOT Act of 2001. The question presented is: Whether the INA, as amended by the REAL ID Act, permits the government to retroactively deem a noncitizen inadmissible for receiving military-type training from or on behalf of a group that the United States did not consider a terrorist organization “at the time” of his training. ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING Petitioner Mohammad Sharif Khalil was the Plaintiff- Appellant below. Francis Cissna, in his official capacity as Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; Kevin McAleenan, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; and Loren K. Miller, in his official capacity as Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Nebraska Service Center, were the Defendants in the District Court. Kenneth Cuccinelli, in his official capacity as Acting Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and Chad Wolf, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, were substituted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d) and were the Appellees in the Circuit Court. Ur Jaddou, in her official capacity as Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and Alejandro Mayorkas, in his official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, are currently in the respective positions and have been substituted pursuant to Rule 25(d). Accordingly, Ur Jaddou, Alejandro Mayorkas, and Loren K. Miller are the Respondents before this Court. iii RELATED CASES There are no related cases other than the opinions identified below in this matter: Khalil v. McAleenan, et al., No. 2:18-cv-07903-DMG- KS, United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division. Judgment entered Jan. 21, 2020. Khalil v. Cissna, et al., No. 20-55323, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judgment entered Mar. 12, 2021. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED .......................i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING ............... ii RELATED CASES .............................iii TABLE OF CONTENTS.........................iv TABLE OF APPENDICES ......................vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................... vii INTRODUCTION................................1 OPINIONS BELOW..............................3 JURISDICTION .................................3 CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED .....................3 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ....................5 A. Statutory and Legal Background .............5 B. Factual and Administrative Background .....8 C. Lower Court Proceedings . 11 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION.....14 v Table of Contents Page I. THE DECISION BELOW CONFLICTS WITH JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS OF IDENTICAL LANGUAGE . .14 II. THE DECISION BELOW BUILDS ON AN EXISTING CIRCUIT SPLIT...........16 III. THE DECISION BELOW IS WRONG ......19 IV. THE DECISION BELOW BETRAYS WAR-TIME ALLIES AND MAKES AMERICA LESS SAFE ...................28 CONCLUSION .................................32 vi TABLE OF APPENDICES Page APPENDIX A — OPINION OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, FILED MARCH 12, 2021 ....1a APPENDIX B — ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, FILED JANUARY 21, 2020 ....................5a APPENDIX C — DECISION OF THE U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, DATED MARCH 21, 2019 .........13a APPENDIX D — 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)..........32a APPENDIX E — NOTICE OF INTENT TO DENY OF THE U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, DATED NOVEMBER 16, 2018 ........................37a APPENDIX F — NOTICE OF INTENT TO DENY OF THE U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, DATED FEBRUARY 14, 2019 .........................47a vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) SUPREME COURT CASES Barber v. Gonzales, 347 U.S. 637 (1954)............................19 Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., 534 U.S. 438 (2002) ...........................19 BFP v. Resol. Tr. Corp., 511 U.S. 531 (1994) ............................22 Bostock v. Clayton Cty., 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020) ..........................21 Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470 (1917) ............................20 Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009)............................19 Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)............................27 Dep’t of Revenue of Or. v. ACF Indus., 510 U.S. 332 (1994) ............................14 Fong Haw Tan v. Phelan, 333 U.S. 6 (1948)..............................27 viii Table of Authorities Page(s) Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson, 525 U.S. 432 (1999)............................21 INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987)............................27 INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001)........................ 24, 25 Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. Bonjorno, 494 U.S. 827 (1990)............................23 Landgraf v. Usi Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (1994) ........................ 24, 25 Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (1997)............................25 Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683 (2020)...........................5 New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, 139 S. Ct. 532 (2019)...........................21 Pa. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare v. Davenport, 495 U.S. 552 (1990)............................22 Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37 (1979) .............................21 ix Table of Authorities Page(s) Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 138 S. Ct. 816 (2018) ...........................22 Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018)..........................27 United States v. Curtiss-Wright Exp. Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936)............................30 United States v. Ron Pair Enters., 489 U.S. 235 (1989)............................20 Vartelas v. Holder, 566 U.S. 257 (2012)............................25 CIRCUIT COURT CASES Adrien v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 194 F. App’x 748 (11th Cir. 2006) ................15 Amrollah v. Napolitano, 710 F.3d 568 (5th Cir. 2013)................passim Janjua v. Neufeld, 933 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2019)...............passim McAllister v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 444 F.3d 178 (3d Cir. 2006) ......................7 Moran v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2005) ...................15 x Table of Authorities Page(s) Muratoski v. Holder, 622 F.3d 824 (7th Cir. 2010).....................15 Sanchez v. Holder, 560 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2009) ...................15 Soc’y for the Propagation of the Gospel v. Wheeler, 2 Gall. 105, 22 F. Cas. 756, F. Cas. No. 13156 (C.C.N.H. 1814) ...............................24 Ventura v. Sessions, 907 F.3d 306 (5th Cir. 2018).....................24 STATUTES 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) ..............................12 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(v) .........................9 8 U.S.C. § 1182 .............................passim 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a).................................5 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3).........................5, 23, 31 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B) ........................4, 5, 6 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(I) .....................9, 10 xi Table of Authorities Page(s) 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(VII) .....................7 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(VIII)...............passim 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(V) ......................7 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI) .....................7 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi) ......................4, 23 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III) .....................6 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C) ...........................23 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(II) ..................15, 16 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)...........................14 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)(iii)........................14 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(11)..........................14, 15 8 U.S.C. § 1227................................5, 28 8 U.S.C. § 1229a.................................28 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)................................5 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)................................5 xii Table of Authorities Page(s) 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) ........................12
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Britton, Theodore R. Jr. – 1981
    The Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training Foreign Affairs Oral History Project Ralph J Bunch Legacy: Minority Officers AMBASSADOR THEODORE R. BRITTON, JR. Interviewed by: Ruth Stutts Njiiri Initial interview date: July 16, 1981 Copyri ht 2008 ADST TABLE OF CONTENTS Ambassador to Barbados and Grenada' Special Representative to Antigua, Dominica, St Christopher-,evis-Anguilla, St Lucia, and St -incent 1.70-1.77 Bac1ground of appointment Barbados environment 2S presence and facilities Relations Foreign diplomatic community Family Being a blac1 Ambassador Embassy staff Relations with State Department Marriott Corporation Consular offices Loss of son South Carolina and New 5or1 bac1ground ,omination as Ambassador H2D in South Carolina Residence in New 5or1 City Confirmation Hearing Government officials British Cubans 2S Airline problem Grenada relations Churches Personal sources of inspiration The 6ueen7s visit Family INTERVIEW 1 &: This is an interview with Ambassador Theodore R. Britton, Jr. as part of a Phelps, Sto-es Fund oral history project on former Blac- Chiefs of Mission, funded by the Ford .oundation. Ambassador Britton served in Barbados and the State of 1renada and as 2.S. Special Representative to the States of Anti ua, Dominica, St. Christopher, Nevis, An uilla, St. Lucia and St. 4incent. He served in these countries from 1977 to 1977. He is presently Actin Assistant to the Secretary for International Affairs, Department of 5ousin and 2rban Development. The interview is bein conducted on Thursday, July 16, 1981 in the
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Leg Agenda February 12
    LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE MEETING Committee Members Mayor Pro Tem Michael A. Cacciotti, Chair Council Member Joe Buscaino, Vice Chair Dr. William A. Burke Senator Vanessa Delgado (Ret.) Supervisor V. Manuel Perez Supervisor Janice Rutherford February 12, 2021 9:00 a.m. Pursuant to Governor Newsom’s Executive Orders N-25-20 (March 12, 2020) and N-29-20 (March 17, 2020), the South Coast AQMD Legislative Committee meeting will only be conducted via video conferencing and by telephone. Please follow the instructions below to join the meeting remotely. INSTRUCTIONS FOR ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION AT BOTTOM OF AGENDA Join Zoom Webinar Meeting - from PC or Laptop https://scaqmd.zoom.us/j/99574050701 Zoom Webinar ID: 995 7405 0701 (applies to all) Teleconference Dial In +1 669 900 6833 One tap mobile +16699006833,, 99574050701# Audience will be able to provide public comment through telephone or Zoom connection during public comment periods. PUBLIC COMMENT WILL STILL BE TAKEN AGENDA Members of the public may address this body concerning any agenda item before or during consideration of that item (Gov't. Code Section 54954.3(a)). If you wish to speak, raise your hand on Zoom or press Star 9 if participating by telephone. All agendas for regular meetings are posted at South Coast AQMD Headquarters, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California, at least 72 hours in advance of the regular meeting. Speakers may be limited to three (3) minutes each. South Coast AQMD -2- February 12, 2021 Legislative Committee CALL TO ORDER - Roll Call DISCUSSION ITEMS (Items 1 through 2): 1. Update and Discussion on Federal Legislative Issues Gary Hoitsma (No Motion Required) Carmen Group Consultants will provide a brief oral report of Federal legislative pgs 5-12 activities in Washington DC.
    [Show full text]
  • Amended Complaint
    Case 3:21-cv-00065 Document 71 Filed on 06/01/21 in TXSD Page 1 of 59 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS GALVESTON DIVISION STATE OF TEXAS; STATE OF MONTANA; STATE OF ALABAMA; STATE OF ALASKA; STATE OF ARIZONA; STATE OF ARKANSAS; STATE OF FLORIDA; STATE OF GEORGIA; STATE OF KANSAS; COMMONWEATH OF KENTUCKY; STATE OF INDIANA; STATE OF LOUISIANA; STATE OF Civ. Action No. 3:21-cv-00065 MISSISSIPPI; STATE OF MISSOURI; STATE OF NEBRASKA; STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA; STATE OF OHIO; STATE OF OKLAHOMA; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA; STATE OF UTAH; STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA; and STATE OF WYOMING, Plaintiffs, v. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., in his official capacity as President of the United States; ANTONY J. BLINKEN, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of State; MERRICK B. GARLAND, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States; Case 3:21-cv-00065 Document 71 Filed on 06/01/21 in TXSD Page 2 of 59 ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; DEB HAALAND, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Interior; JENNIFER GRANHOLM, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Energy; MICHAEL S. REGAN, in his official capacity as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; THOMAS J. VILSACK, in his official capacity as the Secretary of Agriculture; PETE BUTTIGIEG, in his official capacity as Secretary of Transportation; SCOTT A. SPELLMON, in his official capacity as Commanding General of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Final CERD Follow up Report
    THE PERSISTENCE OF RACIAL AND ETHNIC PROFILING IN THE UNITED STATES A FOLLOW-UP REPORT TO THE U.N. COMMITTEE ON THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION BY THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION AND THE RIGHTS WORKING GROUP JUNE 30, 2009 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Chandra Bhatnagar, staff attorney with the ACLU Human Rights Program, is the principal author of this report. Jamil Dakwar, director of the Human Rights Program, reviewed and edited drafts of the report. Nicole Kief of the ACLU Racial Justice Program also provided significant material and valuable editing assistance. Mónica Ramírez of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project provided substantial material and reviewed sections of the report. Reggie Shuford of the Racial Justice Program; Lenora Lapidus of the ACLU Women’s Rights Project; and Michael Macleod-Ball, Jennifer Bellamy, and Joanne Lin of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office also reviewed drafts and contributed to the report, as did Ken Choe of the ACLU LGBT Project. Rachel Bloom and Nusrat Jahan Choudhary of the Racial Justice Program; Mike German and John Hardenbergh of the Washington Legislative Office; and Dan Mach of the ACLU Program on Religion and Belief all made contributions as well. Two law students, Elizabeth Joynes (Fordham Law School) and Peter Beauchamp (New York Law School), provided substantial editorial support and research assistance; Aron Cobbs from the Human Rights Program also contributed. Many ACLU affiliates made available extremely valuable material about and analyses of their state-based work, including Arizona, Arkansas, Northern California, Southern California, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Eastern Missouri, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and West Virginia.
    [Show full text]
  • Under the Radar: Muslims Deported, Detained, and Denied on Unsubstantiated Terrorism Allegations (New York: NYU School of Law, 2011)
    CHRGJ and AALDEF ABOUT THE AUTHORS The Center for Human Rights and Global Justice (CHRGJ) at New York University School of Law was established in 2002 to bring together the law school’s teaching, research, clinical, internship, and publishing activities around issues of international human rights law. Through its litigation, advocacy, and research work, CHRGJ plays a critical role in identifying, denouncing, and fighting human rights abuses in several key areas of focus, including: Business and Human Rights; Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; Caste Discrimination; Human Rights and Counter-Terrorism; Extrajudicial Executions; and Transitional Justice. Philip Alston and Ryan Goodman are the Center’s Faculty Chairs; Smita Narula and Margaret Satterthwaite are Faculty Directors; Jayne Huckerby is Research Director; and Veerle Opgenhaffen is Senior Program Director. The International Human Rights Clinic (IHRC) at New York University School of Law provides high quality, professional human rights lawyering services to community-based organizations, nongovernmental human rights organizations, and intergovernmental human rights experts and bodies. The Clinic partners with groups based in the United States and abroad. Working as researchers, legal advisers, and advocacy partners, Clinic students work side-by-side with human rights advocates from around the world. The Clinic is directed by Professor Smita Narula of the NYU faculty; Amna Akbar is Senior Research Scholar and Advocacy Fellow; and Susan Hodges is Clinic Administrator. The Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF), founded in 1974, is a national organization that protects and promotes the civil rights of Asian Americans. By combining litigation, advocacy, education, and organizing, AALDEF works with Asian American communities across the country to secure human rights for all.
    [Show full text]
  • Perspectives from the Dhs Frontline: Evaluating Staffing Resources and Requirements
    S. Hrg. 115–159 PERSPECTIVES FROM THE DHS FRONTLINE: EVALUATING STAFFING RESOURCES AND REQUIREMENTS HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION MARCH 22, 2017 Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/ Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 27–014 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri ROB PORTMAN, Ohio THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware RAND PAUL, Kentucky JON TESTER, Montana JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming GARY C. PETERS, Michigan JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire STEVE DAINES, Montana KAMALA D. HARRIS, California CHRISTOPHER R. HIXON, Staff Director GABRIELLE D’ADAMO SINGER, Chief Counsel BROOKE N. ERICSON, Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy JOSE´ J. BAUTISTA, Senior Professional Staff Member MARGARET E. DAUM, Minority Staff Director CAITLIN A. WARNER, Minority Counsel J. JACKSON EATON IV, Minority Senior Counsel HANNAH M. BERNER, Minority Investigator LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk BONNI E. DINERSTEIN, Hearing Clerk (II) C O N T E N T S Opening statements:
    [Show full text]
  • Billing Code: 9111-97-P DEPARTMENT OF
    This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 08/20/2021 and available online at Billing Code: 9111-97-P federalregister.gov/d/2021-17779, and on govinfo.gov DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 8 CFR Parts 208 and 235 [CIS No. 2692-21; DHS Docket No. USCIS-2021-0012] RIN 1615-AC67 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Executive Office for Immigration Review 8 CFR Parts 1003, 1208, and 1235 [A.G. Order No. 5116-2021] RIN 1125-AB20 Procedures for Credible Fear Screening and Consideration of Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and CAT Protection Claims by Asylum Officers AGENCY: Executive Office for Immigration Review, Department of Justice; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) (collectively, “the Departments”) are proposing to amend the regulations governing the determination of certain protection claims raised by individuals subject to expedited removal and found to have a credible fear of persecution or torture. Under the proposed rule, such individuals could have their claims for asylum, withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA” or “the Act”) (“statutory withholding of removal”), or protection under the regulations issued pursuant to the legislation implementing U.S. obligations under Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”) initially adjudicated by an asylum officer within U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). Such individuals who are granted relief by the asylum officer would be entitled to asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under CAT, as appropriate.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nativist Lobby Three Faces of Intolerance
    The Nativist Lobby Three Faces of Intolerance A Report from the Southern Poverty Law Center Montgomery, Alabama February 2009 The Nativist Lobby Three Faces of Intolerance By Heidi BeiricH • edited By Mark Potok the southern poverty law center is a nonprofit organization that combats hate, intolerance and discrimination through education and litigation. Its Intelligence Project, which prepared this report and also produces the quarterly investigative magazine Intelligence Report, tracks the activities of hate groups and the nativist movement and monitors militia and other extremist anti- government activity. Its Teaching Tolerance project helps foster respect and understanding in the classroom. Its litigation arm files lawsuits against hate groups for the violent acts of their members. MEDIA AND GENERAL INQUIRIES Mark Potok, Editor Heidi Beirich Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Ave., Montgomery, Ala. (334) 956-8200 www.splcenter.org • www.intelligencereport.org • www.splcenter.org/blog This report was prepared by the staff of the Intelligence Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center. The Center is supported entirely by private donations. No government funds are involved. © Southern Poverty Law Center. All rights reserved. southern poverty law center Table of Contents Preface 4 The Puppeteer: John Tanton and the Nativist Movement 5 FAIR: The Lobby’s Action Arm 9 CIS: The Lobby’s ‘Independent’ Think Tank 13 NumbersUSA: The Lobby’s Grassroots Organizer 18 southern poverty law center Editor’s Note By Mark Potok Three Washington, D.C.-based immigration-restriction organizations stand at the nexus of the American nativist movement: the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), and NumbersUSA.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 113 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 113 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION Vol. 159 WASHINGTON, FRIDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2013 No. 182 House of Representatives The House was not in session today. Its next meeting will be held on Monday, December 23, 2013, at 10 a.m. Senate FRIDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2013 The Senate met at 9 a.m. and was Eternal Spirit, who has blessed us of the lost, last, lonely, and least, called to order by the President pro with every spiritual blessing in heav- bringing deliverance to captives and tempore (Mr. LEAHY.) enly places, we give reverence to Your permitting the oppressed to be un- holy name. Thank You for choosing us shackled. Dwell in the hearts of our PRAYER to labor for liberty during these chal- Senators, enabling them to be rooted lenging times. Lord, keep us from the and grounded in Your love. The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, of- temptations that would thwart our ef- fered the following prayer: fectiveness as You deliver us from evil. We pray, in Your powerful Name. Let us pray. Use our lawmakers to lift the burdens Amen. NOTICE If the 113th Congress, 1st Session, adjourns sine die on or before December 24, 2013, a final issue of the Congres- sional Record for the 113th Congress, 1st Session, will be published on Tuesday, December 31, 2013, to permit Members to insert statements. All material for insertion must be signed by the Member and delivered to the respective offices of the Official Reporters of Debates (Room HT–59 or S–123 of the Capitol), Monday through Friday, between the hours of 10:00 a.m.
    [Show full text]
  • What a Biden Harris Administration Could Look Like
    President Biden’s Team Confirmed choices of the 46th President Secretary of Secretary of State Secretary of Treasury Homeland Security Antony Blinken Janet Yellen Alejandro Mayorkas Former Deputy Former Chairwoman of Former Deputy Secretary of State the Federal Reserve Secretary of Homeland Board Security Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra Current Attorney General of California President Biden’s Team Rumored choices of the 46th President Secretary of U.S. Attorney Secretary of Defense General Interior Lloyd Austin Xavier Becerra Steve Bullock Retired General, former head of U.S. Central Current Attorney General of California Governor of Montana and former presidential Command candidate Tammy Duckworth Raul Grivalja Member of the Armed Services Committee Amy Klobuchar Congressman from Arizona and Chair of the and former U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Senator from Minnesota and former Committee on Natural Resources presidential candidate that gave key Michele Flournoy endorsement to Biden in the primaries Deb Haaland Former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Congresswoman from Arizona, one of the first Doug Jones Jeh Johnson Native American women elected to Congress Former Senator from Alabama and former U.S. Former Secretary of Homeland Security, and Attorney Martin Heinrich former General Counsel of the Department of Junior Senator from New Mexico Defense Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall Sally Yates Tom Udall Former Coordinator for Defense Policy, Former acting AG under Obama and outspoken Retiring Senator from New Mexico and son of Countering WMDs, and Arms Control under critic of Trump’s Department of Justice the former U.S. Secretary of Interior in the Obama 60’s, Stewart Udall Secretary of Secretary of Secretary of Agriculture Commerce Labor Marcia Fudge Ursula Burns Andy Levin Congresswoman from Ohio, Chair of the Member of the Board of Directors of Uber Congressman from MI, former labor organizer House Ag.
    [Show full text]
  • The Honorable Joseph Biden Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas President of the United States Department of Homeland Security Amb. Su
    The Honorable Joseph Biden Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas President of the United States Department of Homeland Security Amb. Susan Rice Jake Sullivan Domestic Policy Council National Security Advisor Cc: Secretary Antony Blinken Secretary Xavier Becerra Department of State Department of Health and Human Services Submitted via email August 13, 2021 Re: Joint Letter to President Biden on Expulsion Flights to Southern Mexico and Forthcoming Changes to Asylum Processing Dear President Biden, Secretary Mayorkas, Amb. Rice and Advisor Sullivan: We, the 102 undersigned organizations, write to express our profound disappointment at Secretary Mayorkas’s remarks yesterday that outlined plans to increase prosecutions of families and individuals arriving at our border and maximize expulsions. Far from fulfilling its commitment to build a “safe, orderly, and humane immigration system,” your administration continues to pursue cruel, unlawful, and ineffective deterrence-based policies that extend rather than dismantle the previous administration’s approach to migration. Since your administration took office in January 2021, there have been more than 3,000 documented kidnappings, extortions, rapes, and other attacks suffered by families and individuals expelled from the southern border. We are gravely concerned by reports that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) plans to send 24 expulsion flights per month of Central American families and adults seeking protection at the U.S.-Mexico border to southern Mexico. In the last week, hundreds of migrants expelled on the first such flights have reportedly been denied access to protection and forced by Mexican authorities into remote areas of Guatemala. DHS has also resumed lateral expulsion flights along the U.S.-Mexico border and expulsion flights to Haiti.
    [Show full text]
  • Revised Draft the G-2 Chimera
    REVISED DRAFT THE G-2 CHIMERA: FUSION OR ILLUSION?1 Harry Harding Dean Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy University of Virginia The title and subtitle of my talk, “The G-2 Chimera: Fusion or Illusion?,” may require some explanation. The title refers to two concepts – G-2 and “Chimerica” – that embody, in different ways, the proposition that the bilateral relationship between the United States is uniquely important – that, as Hillary Clinton wrote during the 2008 presidential election campaign, it is “the most important bilateral relationship in the world in this century.”2 The concept “G-2” is associated most prominently with C. Fred Bergsten, the director of the Peterson Institute of International Economics.3 This concept focuses on the roles of China and the United States in the broader international trade and financial system, and their unique ability to set the agenda and possibly forge agreements on a wide range of international issues. China and the U.S. form a G-2, according to Bergsten, because they are the world’s two largest economies, and because they represent the interests of the developing and developed worlds respectively. The term “chimera,” in turn, is a reference to the etymology of the concept of “Chimerica,” which in turn is most closely associated with the Harvard historian Niall Ferguson and, more recently, with author Zachary Karabell.4 This second concept focuses less on the two countries’ role in the world than on their high degree of mutual integration, despite their differences in structure and values, such that one country’s economic circumstances strongly influence the other’s.
    [Show full text]