The government’s data, however, tell a far different story."
Check out the op/ed and the take down of President.
Saturday, October 31, 2020
Former Trump administration official Miles Taylor has been in the news. He penned a scathing anti-Trump op-ed in the New York Times and book under the pen name “Anonymous” revealed himself earlier this week as a former chief of staff at the Department of Homeland Security.
Hamed Aleaziz, Ryan Mac, Adolfo Flores, and Salvador Hernandez for BuzzFeed News add to the story, highlifting that, before his op-ed and book, Taylor served as "a top official at the Department of Homeland Security while it imposed some of the most restrictive US immigration policies in decades." He was chief of staff for then–DHS secretary Kirstjen Nielsen. "[A]ccording to internal emails and former colleagues, Taylor worked on some of the most critical immigration policies of the Trump administration and either remained silent on, or actively worked to push through, the agenda." The policies included the controversial family separation and remain in Mexico policy for asylum seekers.
“On multiple occasions, I sat within inches of Miles Taylor during meetings solely focused on 'zero tolerance' policy, and he was neither silent nor vocally opposed to the weighty decisions before us,” one current Trump administration official told BuzzFeed News on the condition of anonymity.
A former administration official said Taylor was part of a group close to Nielsen, a tight inner circle that included the likes of Chad Wolf, the current acting head of DHS and also a former chief of staff to Nielsen."
Trump once said this to me & others in an early 2019 Oval Office meeting, grossly faking a Hispanic accent. Vote him out. pic.twitter.com/DOdCxZMzpo— Miles Taylor (@MilesTaylorUSA) October 29, 2020
Voice of America boils down some of the immigration issues in the 2020 presidential campaign. The Trump administration has "issued more than 400 executive actions that changed America's immigration system. Some of those measures are being discussed in the days before the U.S. presidential election." the issues include
Supreme Court immigration cases
Friday, October 30, 2020
As the Trump Administration keeps introducing new categorical limits on asylum, its opponents have countered that asylum decisions have to be made on an individualized basis. The government, they claim, cannot categorically exclude groups like former gang members or victims of gender-based violence from protection against persecution. Successful as this insistence on case-by-case adjudication has been, it stands in tension with past cases in which groups like nuclear families or gay men were categorically deemed eligible for asylum. The litigation and rulemaking now reshaping asylum law suggest that neither side in the debate fully understands whether, when, and why case-by-case rather than categorical decision-making is required. What seems at first like confusion over procedure actually stems from confusion about the substantive tests being adjudicated: the “social distinction” and, especially, the “particularity” requirements that are currently (mis)used as the primary reason for denying asylum claims, especially those brought by the tens of thousands of refugees fleeing gang and gendered violence. Properly understanding these tests allows us to understand whether they can be categorically applied—either to bar asylum claims or, perhaps in a future administration, to make them possible.
A new fact sheet by Nina Siulc and Noelle Smart of the Vera Institute of Justice summarizes new evidence showing that most immigrants appear for their immigration court hearings. The report includes data from Vera's Safety and Fairness for Everyone (SAFE) Initiative that provides free representation through a universal access model of representation. Vera researchers found that 98 percent of SAFE clients released from custody have continued to appear for their court hearings. Read the full report for additional information on related research, including Vera's ongoing evaluation of the New York Immigrant Family Unity Project (NYIFUP).
Documents lives of those deported to Mexico with no actual connection to the country
The University of California, Davis, has released a short documentary highlighting the work of Spanish Professor Robert Irwin. Humanizing Deportation/Humanizando la Deportación is a community-based, digital storytelling project that Irwin and his team began in 2016 to show the human toll of forced displacement. The documentary is mostly in Spanish with English subtitles. Media are welcome to use the footage all or in part, with credit to UC Davis.
A UC Davis video crew traveled to Tijuana, Mexico to document the work Irwin and his graduate students were doing to share the stories of people who had been deported to Mexico yet often had no connection to the country.
"Neither media coverage nor political discourse adequately accounts for the degree of human suffering that deportations have generated," Irwin said. "Our project aims to communicate its human consequences in all their complexity."
Earlier this week, " U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced . . . the results of a five-day targeted enforcement operation that resulted in the apprehension of more than 100 at-large aliens in communities spanning from the country’s northern to southwest borders.
ICE officers in Minnesota, Ohio, Missouri, Kansas, Michigan and Texas, conducted the enforcement actions Oct. 19 through Oct. 23, focusing on aliens subject to removal who pose a threat to public safety. More than 70% of aliens arrested had criminal convictions or pending criminal charges at the time of arrest."
Tony Pham, acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, took aim at local jurisdictions that don’t cooperate with immigration officials in announcing in Minnesota the arrests of more than 100 people.
Amanda Holpuch for the Guardian reports that the architect of Donald Trump’s immigration policy, senior adviser Stephen Miller, has a series of executive orders ready to be signed if Trump is re-elected.
According to the story, the former homeland security department chief of staff Miles Taylor said this wishlist was saved for the second term because it included policies that were too unpopular for a president seeking re-election.
"Those items are expected to include attempting to eliminate birthright citizenship, making the US citizenship test more difficult to pass, ending the program which protects people from deportation when there is a crisis is their country (Temporary Protected Status) and slashing refugee admissions even further, to zero."
NBC News later reported that "In a 30-minute phone interview Thursday with NBC News, Miller outlined four major priorities: limiting asylum grants, punishing and outlawing so-called sanctuary cities, expanding the so-called travel ban with tougher screening for visa applicants and slapping new limits on work visas."
Hamed Aleaziz for BuzzFeed News reports that the "Department of Homeland Security has expelled unaccompanied immigrant children from the US border more than 13,000 times since March, when the Trump administration gave the agency unprecedented powers to close off access at the border during the coronavirus pandemic, according to an internal document obtained by BuzzFeed News.
The figure represents a major jump in child expulsions since the CDC issued an order allowing border officials to expel nearly all immigrants crossing from Mexico as the coronavirus was spreading rapidly across the world in March."
Previously, unaccompanied children were sent to government-run shelters as they attempted to pursue their asylum cases. But the Trump administration has argued that the policy is necessary to prevent the spread of the coronavirus in the United States.
Expulsions are legally different than deportations, which would mean an immigrant had actually undergone the immigration process and found to not be legally allowed to stay in the US. Critics say the government is using the public health orders as an excuse to violate federal laws that govern the processing of unaccompanied minors at the border.
Thursday, October 29, 2020
Marcia Brown for the American Prospect looks at the experiences of the immigration lawyer in the time of Trump. The sub-title of the article encapsulates it well: "Immigration attorneys say they’re battling Trump’s ‘war of attrition.’ If he’s re-elected, some may reconsider the work altogether."
In the body of the article, Brown summarizes her interviews with immigration attorneys as follows:
"Four years into this migration crisis, there’s a parallel migration under way—of immigration lawyers out of the profession. Survey data and interviews the Prospect conducted with more than a dozen lawyers around the country reveal the physical, mental, and financial toll endured by members of the bar. Given the extreme violence, trauma, and inhumanity their clients often endure, immigration attorneys don’t like to talk about how it affects them. But secondary trauma also leaves a mark, making it impossible to continue for some attorneys. Although numerical data is limited, there is evidence that some attorneys are cutting back on some types of cases, such as deportation defense work, or even leaving immigration law altogether. Removal defense casework is one of the most time-intensive, emotional, and exigent parts of lawyers’ loads. It’s also where the administration has aimed much of its cruelest policymaking, severely limiting lawyers’ efficacy." (bold added).
Campaign news from New Jersey. Laura Schwartz was running errands in Montclair, New Jersey when a Trump 2020 sign in the window of a local boutique made her take a second look; the “Make America Great Again” campaign sign was a backdrop to a cage, holding a dozen brown baby dolls in diapers. Next to it, a TV screen shows images of migrant children in detention centers.
The artwork is part of a larger body of political artwork y artist Amy Putman, whose art is inspired by Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign rhetoric and immigration policies, including a zero-tolerance policy that led to family separations at the U.S./Mexico border.
Wednesday, October 28, 2020
TRAC Immigration has updated its nuch-anticipated annual judge-by-judge asylum reports for Fiscal Year 2020 along with a report of the highlights.
TRAC’s Report titled “Asylum Denial Rates Continue to Climb”: Despite the partial court shutdown during the COVID-19 pandemic, this year immigration judges managed to decide the second highest number of asylum decisions in the last two decades. The rate of denial continued to climb to a record high of 71.6 percent, up from 54.6 percent during the last year of the Obama Administration in FY 2016.
Immigration Judge Reports: Check out asylum grant/denial rates for individual immigration court judges.
The Young Center for Immigrant Children’s Rights has released “Reimagining Children’s Immigration Proceedings: A Roadmap for an Entirely New System Centered around Children.” With the support of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the report sets out to reimagine the ways in which the federal government welcomes children at the border and adjudicates their requests to remain permanently in the United States.
“In the absence of a ‘best interests’ mandate for all immigrant children, immigration authorities have been able to separate children from parents, and even turn children away at the border without asking a single question about where they will go or whether they will be safe,” said Young Center Executive Director Maria Woltjen. “It is not enough to reform a broken system. We must imagine and invest in an entirely new system that sees immigrant children as children.”
Reimagining is based in part on a symposium in which the Young Center brought together experts in child welfare, juvenile justice, child development, immigration law, and international migration. The goal was to learn lessons from efforts to develop and reform other systems where children’s rights are at stake, and propose a model tailored to children’s needs, capacities, and experiences.
With bold recommendations that include extending childhood to the age of 21, ending adversarial court hearings for all children, and prohibiting the deportation of children until the government has proved they will be safe, the Reimagining report focuses both on process and substantive protections. Other recommendations include: ending the separation of children from trusted adult caregivers such as grandparents, adult siblings, aunts and uncles; providing attorneys to all children, at government expense if needed; creating a dedicated corps of government judges and attorneys assigned to children’s cases; commencing immigration proceedings only after children are living with family or placed in a family-like setting; and requiring that decisions be made in a reasonable timeframe.
Seven guiding principles are identifed in the report. These principles represent a radical change in the policies and practices embedded in the existing adjudicatory process for children.
1: A Child’s Best Interests Is a Primary Consideration in Every Decision
In every decision made about a child, from the moment the child is identified or apprehended by immigration officials until a final decision is made, the child’s best interests shall be a primary consideration. This does not preclude other considerations, such as the child’s stated interests, a parent’s stated interests, concerns for the safety of others or national security. But consideration of the individual child’s best interests—which includes consideration of the child’s stated interests—must inform every decision, with decisionmakers held accountable for meeting this obligation.
Principle 2: Safety and Family First
When any child is identified by immigration authorities (at the border or internally) the sole focus shall be finding a safe placement with family, minimizing any time spent in institutional, government care. Children apprehended with parents or other family members—whether at the border or internally—shall not be separated for purposes of immigration enforcement absent a determination that the parent or family member poses an imminent danger to the child’s safety, a determination that would be subject to prompt review by a judge with expertise in family law. The initiation of an immigration case to determine whether the child will remain in the United States or return to home country will begin only after the child’s safe reunification with family or placement in a family- or community-based setting such as foster care.
Principle 3: A Fundamentally Fair Process
After safe placement in the community, children who wish to remain in the United States will participate in a holistic process of decision making which places the child at the center. Children will not be subject to repeated inquiry about past traumatic events and there will be timely but not rushed decision-making. All children will be represented by counsel and vulnerable children will be appointed a child advocate to help identify the child’s best interests.
Principle 4: Specialization
Every participant and decisionmaker in a child’s case will have specialized training in child development and the impact of trauma on children, as well as training and experience working with children from different cultural backgrounds.
Principle 5: No Repatriation to Unsafe Situations
A child may fail to prove eligibility to remain in the United States. However, before repatriation, the government must demonstrate to an independent adjudicator that the child will be safe upon return. If a child will not be safe upon return, the child will be permitted to remain in the United States until adulthood.
Principle 6: Childhood Continues to Age 21
There is consensus in the scientific community that children continue to develop and mature well into their 20s. An increasing number of legal systems have recognized this principle, extending the age of childhood or youth to 21. All immigrant youth will be recognized as children and will be able to avail themselves of child-specific protections until they reach the age of 21.
Principle 7: All Children Share the Same Rights and Protections
All children placed in immigration proceedings, whether arriving at the border or encountered within the United States after being here for any period of time, hold the same rights. These include the rights to express their own wishes, to safety, to liberty, to be protected from family separation, to develop, to maintain their identity, to have their best interests considered in all decisions, to be treated with dignity and respect, and to have a fair opportunity to seek protection from harm.
“The past few years have crystalized the many ways in which our immigration system harms children. Reimagining presents a strong argument in favor of an overhaul of immigration proceedings for all migrant children, and shows how this systemic change is possible,” said Jennifer Nagda of the Young Center. “We hope this report will be the first step in a collaborative process with other advocates, policy-makers, Members of Congress, and the federal government to reimagine how we welcome and evaluate children’s protection claims and begin the work of implementation.”
On Wednesday, October 28, at 7:00pm ET/4:00pm PT, the Young Center will host an online conversation about the Reimagining report and initiative. Registration for the event, which will feature Woltjen, Nagda, Young Center Child Advocate Program Director Gladis Molina Alt, and Advocate for Youth Elvis Garcia Callejas, is available here.
The Young Center for Immigrant Children’s Rights is a non-profit organization that protects and advances the rights and best interests of immigrant children and advocates for an immigration system that treats children as children first. For press inquiries, please contact Noorjahan Akbar at email@example.com or 202-725-7184.
Immigration lawyers are often all that stands between immigrants and deportation. A new nationwide survey of immigration attorneys finds that despite their diversity, immigration attorneys agree on one thing: the immigration system is deeply flawed. Indeed, over half (53.3%) of the attorneys participating in the study reported being “extremely dissatisfied” with current U.S. immigration law.
Before the Trump administration, immigration lawyers rarely made the news. But key Trump policy changes, from the Muslim ban to the workplace raids, have thrust many of them into the spotlight as they fight on the front lines to protect their clients from deportation.
But who exactly are these immigration attorneys and why are they so dissatisfied? Dr. Katherine Abbott (University of New Hampshire), Dr. Maya Barak (University of Michigan-Dearborn), and Dr. Austin Kocher (TRAC Syracuse) created the National Immigration Lawyers Survey to examine the perceptions and experiences of attorneys working within the immigration system. “We wanted to better understand the understudied immigration lawyer. Who were they?” Dr. Abbott remarks. The research team gathered survey and interview data in 2018, with a total of 334 attorneys from across the country participating.
“Having all studied or worked on immigration issues in various capacities over the past decade, none of us were surprised by the finding that immigration attorneys are generally dissatisfied with the immigration system,” says Dr. Barak, “however, we were surprised by just how dissatisfied they seem to be, as well as the fact that this dissatisfaction cuts across race and gender.”
In interviews with the researchers, immigration attorneys expressed finding it more difficult to prepare their cases or explain the immigration process to their clients in recent years because of the numerous changes to immigration policy and practice since President Trump took office. “For attorneys, change often equates to unpredictability,” explains Dr. Barak. “When the law is unpredictable, attorneys may be less effective, and their clients' chances of success in court may decrease--however, it’s still too soon to know for sure.” Further research is needed to understand the effects of such legal uncertainties on both attorneys and their clients.
Still, the outlook is not entirely negative. Increasing frustration with the immigration system may be spurring some attorneys to engage in increased advocacy and activism. For example, around 1/4 of those surveyed stated that they had plans to engage in various immigration advocacy efforts, including strategic removal defense campaigns.
To learn more about the study and its upcoming release, visit the NILS website.
ImmigrationProf blog previously posted that Department of Homeland Security has proposed a rule change that would limit international students and other temporary visa holders to fixed terms betwee two and four years. Twenty-two state attorneys general are now opposing the rule.
In a letter sent Monday to acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf, the attorneys general criticized the agency for rushing through the process implementing the rule. They said that it discourages foreign students and media from coming to the U.S. and possibly violates federal law, including the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The proposed rule is “arbitrary and capricious, and therefore cannot withstand scrutiny under the APA, on several grounds, including faulty logic, defective data, and tenuous reasoning,” the letter said. In addition,t he 22 attorneys general criticized the move as “xenophobic” and the time limits are “unduly burdensome.”
The letter was led by District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine (D) and Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey (D). Racine and Healey were joined on the letter by the state attorney generals for California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.
DHS, in its notice of the proposed rule, said that the two-year visa restriction will depend on if a student was born in a country that is designated as a state sponsor of terrorism; if a student is from one of 55 countries that has an immigration overstay rate of more than 10 percent; and whether a school or program sponsor is in an “E-verify participant in good standing.” E-verify is a federal program that requires enrollment by employers who contract with the government. Separately, USCIS sent 700 letters to OPT recipients to alert them that their permits will be revoked and another 400 permits will not be renewed when they expire as part of a crackdown on the program last week. ICE also arrested 15 students for claiming to work with companies that do not exist, in violation of the program.
Each day, tens of thousands of noncitizens are caged in immigration prisons and jails across the United States. Locked up and separated from their families and the outside world, detained noncitizens experience the pain and suffering associated with criminal incarceration without any of the same salient procedural safeguards. One of the most crucial missing protections is access to legal representation. Empirical studies show that legal representation makes all the difference in allowing noncitizens to challenge their imprisonment and gain freedom. Yet, the vast majority of detained noncitizens never receive legal representation. As a result, for many people in immigration detention, the only exit options that appear realistic are those worse than detention itself: deportation or death.
Despite legal scholarship arguing for a right to appointed counsel in removal proceedings, comparatively little attention has been devoted to access to legal representation for the specific purpose of seeking freedom from detention. This Article aims to fill that gap by examining two structural pathways to increasing access to legal representation for people seeking release from immigration detention. First, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment demands a right to appointed counsel for the purpose of challenging detention (the “constitutional pathway”). A direct application of the procedural due process test established in Mathews v. Eldridge and expounded in Turner v. Rogers make immigration detention the natural extension for the right to appointed counsel. While courts have yet to recognize a constitutional right to appointed counsel in criminal bail hearings, the comparative dearth of procedural protections in immigration detention proceedings justify identifying the right in that context. Second, “legal representation” is not limited to each detainee getting her own lawyer: the class action, a device that allows a small group of detained noncitizens to litigate on behalf of a larger group of detainees, is a powerful but underappreciated tool for allowing detained noncitizens their day in court (the “procedural pathway”). Recent developments, specifically Justice Alito’s dicta on the viability of the class device in Jennings v. Rodriguez and debates over whether the immigration statute prohibits classwide injunctions, threaten the existence and efficacy of class actions for seeking freedom. The first, questioning the class device’s viability, mistakenly conflates the flexible nature of due process with the requirements for class certification; the second, doubting the permissibility of classwide injunctions, reveals the risk of undermining the utility of the class device for detained noncitizens if declaratory relief is the only possible remedy.
Immigration detention is unique among the crises currently plaguing the U.S. immigration system. The impact of the coronavirus pandemic on people in detention has only made this problem more apparent. Access to legal representation is crucial to prevent unlawful imprisonment, lessen the economic and human costs of detention, and fight forces of xenophobia and racial prejudice that have for far too long influenced immigration law’s understanding of “who belongs.” In dialogue together, the constitutional and procedural pathways chart two broad solutions, present benefits and limitations, and raise further ideas for roads to a fairer, more just system.
In his new book, Stuck Here: African Immigrants Tell Their Stories, educator Marvin Opiyo shares fascinating and heart-wrenching accounts from years of his diligent research. The process of immigration is one which marks a crucial turning point in one’s life. Although one leaves one’s home country, he/she does not leave behind the traditions, languages, experiences, and values.
In the variety of accounts in Stuck Here: African Immigrants Tell Their Stories, we see the significant benefits Africans experience by immigrating to the U.S. However, Dr. Opiyo also paints a contrasting picture of how precious African values are challenged as immigrants adjust to their new lives. Many times, these values, such as the importance of family support, respect, and togetherness, become diminished and even break down altogether.
In his foreword to Stuck Here, University of California, Irvine Distinguished Professor and award winning author Ngugi Wa Thiong’o states that, “They [immigrants] flee the continent, thinking of America, and the West, as their heaven from the hell, real and imagined, of their social conditions. Some find their haven, a good job and a house in the Suburbia, and are able to send remittances back home; others sink into the hell of prostitution, prison, drug use, and homelessness. But all face the racism that is the fate of black people in the Western world.”
In the chapter “Indispensable Professional Skills,” Opiyo highlights the stories of individuals who experience this and other challenges. How will individuals like George, Dr. Kanuma, and Mr. Chibanda adapt to their lives in America? Will they even consider returning back home? Even after their spouses and children have begun to finally adjust? This interesting and engaging reading answers these and other questions.
Tuesday, October 27, 2020
IMMIGRATION LEGAL FELLOWSHIP ANNOUNCEMENT
The Immigration Legal Fellowship is the first-ever state funded legal fellowship program. The Fellowship aims to develop the organizational capacity of legal service providers and increase the number of qualified immigration attorneys able to provide legal services in underserved areas of the state such as the Central Coast and Central Valley.
California ChangeLawyers is partnering with the California Department of Social Services, immigrant rights organizations, including Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC), to provide two-year fellowships to up to 10 attorneys or law graduates committed to providing immigration legal services in either California’s Central Coast or Central Valley. There will be a strong preference for candidates pursuing legal careers in those regions beyond the term of the Fellowship.
Immigration Legal Fellows will receive intensive legal training on immigration law, particularly removal defense representation, and immigrant rights as well as hands-on experience representing clients before federal agencies and the immigration court.
Fellows will be placed in host organizations in either the Central Coast or Central Valley region. Each host organization will act as the Employer of the Fellows for the duration of the Fellowship. Each Fellow may be assigned a Mentor Attorney who will provide guidance, technical assistance, and mentorship through the two-year fellowship. Fellows will be treated as a cohort and have access to leadership development and networking opportunities provided by California ChangeLawyers as well as ongoing legal training with the ILRC.
Fellowship Duties will include:
*Please note these activities will likely be virtual for the first portion of the fellowship and shift to in-person meetings and court appearances as permitted by health and safety standards.
- Law school graduate including those who recently took the October 2020 bar exam.
- California or other state bar license preferred but not required.
- Record of experience or demonstrated commitment to serving immigrant communities.
- Prior experience working in an immigration legal service organization preferred but not required.
- Strong ties to California’s Central Coast and/or Central Valley regions, with a preference for those pursuing long-term careers in those regions.
- Willing to live and work in the Central Coast or Central Valley. Fellows must be open to working in any of the host organizations’ locations.
- Willingness and flexibility to be as responsive to community needs as needed.
- Able to travel frequently to the Bay Area and other locations for training and for legal representation.
- Must be fluent in Spanish.
- Strong writing skills and attention-to-detail.
- Diverse candidates from groups historically underrepresented in the legal profession are strongly encouraged to apply.
Position Details, Salary & Benefits
This is a two-year fellowship that will start in January 2021. Fellowship salary range is $65,000 p/year for recent law graduates and $70,000 p/year for licensed attorneys with prior experience. Medical benefits may be included.
To apply, please create a Submittable account below. If you are already a submittable user, please sign in below. In addition to the application itself, you will also be asked to upload an updated resume, and contact information for two references.
Applicants are encouraged to apply as early as possible. Applications will be considered on a rolling basis. The deadline to apply is Wednesday, November 4, 2020 at 5:00 PM PST.
"In just three years, the Supreme Court’s shadow docket has had a profound impact on the American immigration system. In a series of unsigned emergency orders – far removed from the court’s usual deliberate process – the court has overturned the rulings of district judges and allowed the administration to enact exclusionary immigration policies. The number of requests alone and the rate of success for the administration is breathtaking. It is my hope that a new administration will minimize its use of the shadow docket and return immigration policymaking to the realm of legislation, notice-and-comment rulemaking and regular court process."
The surprising story of Pilates—the man and the method. Part biography, part history, and part memoir, Caged Lion untangles for the first time Joseph Pilates’s life story and the perilous journey of his exercise program known the world over as Pilates.
This is the story of Joseph Pilates, a gifted man who immigrated to the United States from Germany at forty-three with no assets or credentials. He not only invented an exercise regimen—which today is practiced by more than ten million people—but in the process, reinvented himself. John Howard Steel brings Joseph Pilates and his eponymous exercise regime to life from his unique perspective as a student, friend, and confidant. Joe’s influence profoundly changed Steel’s life; in turn, Steel was crucial for the survival of the Pilates Method and Joe’s legacy. Steel’s vivid account traces the expansion of Pilates from a small cadre of dedicated adherents, through two periods of near extinction, to the global sensation it is today. Steel describes Joseph Pilates’s years as a prisoner during World War I, Joe’s motivation to discover his system of exercises, his inspirational teaching technique, and the unique attraction of the Pilates Method. It’s quite a story.