Huffington Post
By Roque Planas
August 24, 2015
The
federal judge who called for the Obama administration to shut down
family detention centers knows the issue of immigration personally.
U.S.
District Court Judge Dolly Gee, whose parents came to the U.S. from
China, has built a record as a defender of immigrants and ethnic
minorities in California, the
state with the country's largest foreign-born population and perhaps
the most liberal policies towards the undocumented. Now on the federal
bench, Gee is among the least sympathetic judges when it comes to the
administration's policy of detaining Central American
mothers with their children in an effort to discourage more families
from making the dangerous trip across the southern border of the U.S.
Last
year, some 68,000 mothers crossed the border illegally with their
children, along with a similar number of unaccompanied minors. The vast
majority came from the violence-plagued
Central American countries of Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, and
many of them have applied for asylum or other immigration relief. The
Obama administration responded to the crisis by widely expanding family
detention, a practice it had all but abandoned
back in 2009.
Immigrant
rights groups have widely protested family detention, arguing that
asylum-seeking mothers and their children should be allowed to pursue
their claims outside
of immigrant detention. Both of the detention centers in South Texas,
where most of the women and children are locked up, have faced repeated
allegations of mistreatment, including sexual harassment, threats of
separating mothers from their children and neglecting
detainees who need medical treatment.
Gee
seems to share the concerns of groups protesting these centers. In
July, she sharply rebuked the administration in a ruling describing the
treatment of immigrant children
as "deplorable." Her ruling said that family detention violated the
1997 Flores Settlement, which says that federal authorities must detain
children in the least restrictive setting possible and should generally
favor a policy of releasing them.
“It
is astonishing that defendants have enacted a policy requiring such
expensive infrastructure without more evidence to show that it would be
compliant with an agreement
that has been in effect for nearly 20 years,” Gee said in her ruling.
Government
lawyers responded earlier this month to the ruling, saying that the
Department of Homeland Security had already begun expediting the
screening of women and
children for asylum. But the lawyers also said they need to keep
detaining the families, in order to prevent "another surge in illegal
migration across our Southwest border by Central American families,
including by incentivizing adults to bring children with
them on their dangerous journey as a means to avoid detention and gain
access to the interior of the United States."
Gee fired back on Friday.
“This
statement is speculative at best, and, at worse, fear-mongering,” she
wrote in Friday’s order, which opened with a quote from Mahatma Gandhi.
("An error does not
become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become
error because nobody sees it.")
Gee
said the government's response was "rehashing many of the same
arguments which the Court previously rejected." She wrote that the
attorneys had "utterly failed to
satisfy the requirements for a motion for reconsideration," and ordered
the government to release the children from family detention by Oct.
23. Government lawyers may appeal the decision.
Gee’s
perspective might, to some degree, reflect her background. After
graduating from law school at the University of California at Los
Angeles in 1984, Gee launched
a career as a labor lawyer, inspired by an urge to reform the
exploitative conditions that her immigrant mother experienced while
working as a seamstress in the Los Angeles clothing industry, according
to a 1999 article by The Associated Press.
She
joined the firm Schwartz, Steinsapir, Dohrmann & Sommers in 1986,
focusing on workplace harassment and employment discrimination issues,
according to the firm’s bio.
By 1990, she had become a partner. Through the 1990s and up until 2006,
Gee also worked as a regional coordinator for the Teamsters union,
where she supervised elections and investigated allegations of election
rule violations.
Gee
has also played an active role in professional associations that
represent ethnic minorities. She co-founded the Asian Pacific American
Bar Association of Los Angeles
and the Multicultural Bar Alliance, and served as a president of the
Southern California Chinese Lawyers Association, the AP reported. In
March of 1991, she wrote an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times
calling for a “police chief who appreciates the diversity
of our community and who can train its law-enforcement officers to deal
more evenhandedly with its citizens.”
“When
statistics indicate that one of every four young African-American males
is or has been incarcerated and that a majority of those in prison have
been convicted of
drug-related offenses, it is time to take a critical look at our system
of justice and its goals,” Gee wrote. “Leveling blame at immigrant or
minority communities, imposing harsher penalties and constructing more
jails are desperate solutions of shortsighted
policy-makers who do not have the energy or resources to tackle
problems of poverty, ignorance, racism and the misallocation of
resources. Neither victims of crime nor society as a whole benefit from
such policies of avoidance,” the piece says.
It
was Obama who appointed Gee as a U.S. District Court judge for the
Central District of California. Gee’s ascension was one of several
appointments aimed at bolstering
the diversity of the federal bench. The U.S. Senate confirmed her
appointment in December of 2009 unanimously, making her the first
Chinese-American to serve as a federal district court judge, according
to a press release issued at the time by U.S. Sen. Barbara
Boxer (D-Calif.).
“Dolly
Gee has an exemplary record and she will be an outstanding addition to
the federal bench,” Boxer said in the 2009 release. “As a daughter of
immigrants from rural
China, she personifies the American dream. She used her position as a
prominent attorney in Los Angeles to promote racial tolerance and fight
for those who face discrimination.”
In
one of her most widely reported rulings prior to the family detention
decision last month, Gee ordered the federal government to offer free
legal services to detained
immigrants with mental disabilities. The 2013 ruling also said that
immigrant detainees with mental illnesses must receive a bond hearing
within 180 days.
A
child's artwork is seen on a table as Cristian, 6, and Alexus, 11,
immigrants who entered the United States illegally with their mothers
from Guatemala, eat breakfast
at a respite house, Tuesday, Aug. 18, 2015, in San Antonio.
Gee’s
ruling on family detention might be seen as an ironic twist for the
administration, since the judge whom Obama appointed is ordering an end
to an immigration enforcement
method that administration officials have staunchly defended.
Gee’s
personal background and career trajectory would appear to mark her as
the polar opposite of Judge Andrew Hanen, the federal judge in Texas who
enjoined Obama’s executive
actions on immigration in November, including the ambitious Deferred Action for Parents of U.S. Citizens program. If implemented, the
executive actions would shield an estimated 4.4 million undocumented
immigrants from deportation and allow them to work legally
in the United States.
Prior
to blocking the implementation of DAPA, Hanen intimated that the Obama
administration had encouraged the smuggling of children by allowing
unaccompanied minors to
be released to family members in the U.S.
"Instead
of arresting (the child's mother) for instigating the conspiracy to
violate our border security laws, the (Homeland Security Department)
delivered the child to
her — thus successfully completing the mission of the criminal
conspiracy," Hanen wrote in a ruling on a child smuggling case in 2013,
the AP reported.
For more information, go to: www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment