Friday, September 30, 2016
It is an anniversary of sorts today. On September 30, 1996, the U.S. Congress enacted the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), dramatically changing U.S. immigration policy and setting in motion a massive expansion of the detention and deportation system by more tightly linking the criminal justice system to the federal immigration system. These laws not only criminalized immigrants, but created programs like 287g, establishing agreements to give local law enforcement agencies federal immigration authority. The results have been nothing less than dramatic for immigrants and their communities.
Joan Walsh writes for the Nation:
It’s no accident that three of Trump’s victims—[Alicia] Machado, the Khan family and Judge Gonzalo Curiel—are not white. Hostility to minorities is the animating energy of the campaign. But the candidate’s derangement over Machado surpasses his prior breakdowns—for a good reason. A woman he once controlled, quite literally—making her exercise in front of the media, to prove she was taking his demands to lose weight seriously—is defying him publicly. Another woman, Hillary Clinton, refused to slink into obscurity after her husband humiliated her (last year Trump shared a fan’s tweet asking “If Hillary Clinton can’t satisfy her husband what makes her think she can satisfy America?”) and is currently leading him in the race for the presidency.
Thursday, September 29, 2016
Of possible interest for immigration scholars:
The University of Maryland Law School’s Journal of Race, Religion, Gender, and Class is seeking an immediate submission for its current volume. The journal publishes on a wide range of topics related to race, religion, gender, and class. If interested, please e-mail Robin Cleland at clelandr[at]umaryland[dot]edu. The journal aims to provide a one-day turnaround time with offers on submissions.
The Supreme Court today granted certiorari in Lynch v. Dimaya. The question presented in that case is whether 18 U.S.C. 16(b), as incorporated into the Immigration and Nationality Act's provisions governing an immigrant's removal from the United States, is unconstitutionally vague. The Ninth Circuit, in an opinion by Stephen Reinhardt (joined by judge Kim McLane Wardlaw with a dissent by Judge Consuelo Callahan), held that it was. The court specifically held that a statutory reference to a "crime of violence" was unconstitutionally vague. ImmigrationProf blogger Jennifer Koh previously blogged an analysis of the Ninth Circuit ruling. In addition, here is a summary of the ruling.
The Black Alliance for Just Immigration, along with New York University Law School’s Immigrant Rights Clinic, released a trailblazing report on the experience of Black immigrants in the U.S. The State of Black Immigrants sheds light on the unique challenges facing the nearly 3.5 million immigrants in the U.S. from Africa, the Caribbean, Afro-Latino countries, and elsewhere, due in large part to their race.
Part I of the report provides recently updated demographic data on immigration status, country of origin, geographic location within the U.S., educational attainment, household income, labor force participation, and eligibility for forms of immigration relief for Black immigrants.
Part II focuses on the impact of mass criminalization, providing newly released data on detention and deportation rates for Black immigrants.
Key findings of the report include:
- The number of undocumented Black immigrants in the U.S. increased by nearly 50% from 389,000 in 2000 to 602,000 in 2013.
- Nearly 1 in 5 Black immigrants live below the poverty line.
- Black immigrants have the highest unemployment rates amongst all immigrant groups.
- More than one out of every five non-citizens facing deportation on criminal grounds before the Executive Office of Immigration Review is Black.
- Black immigrants are more likely to be detained for criminal convictions than the immigrant population overall.
- Black immigrants in removal proceedings for a criminal conviction often have lived in the U.S. for a long time and established strong community ties; many are apprehended and placed in deportation proceedings long after the triggering criminal conviction occurred.
- Black immigrants are much more likely than nationals from other regions to be deported due to a criminal conviction.
Adolfo Flores on Buzzfeed reports that California yesterday became the first state to require that undocumented immigrants be told of their right to an attorney before being interviewed by federal immigration authorities while in custody.
The Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds Act (TRUTH) Act, parts of which goes into effect in 2017, was signed by Gov. Jerry Brown. The law, also requires that police departments give an immigrants’ attorney or advocate the same information they shared with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). A public forum must also be held every year to disclose local law enforcement’s role in federal immigration policy. Immigrants will also be advised that they don’t have to speak with ICE agents.
“Behind closed doors, ICE has inserted itself into the fragile relationship between local police and immigrant communities by requesting local police take on the role of federal immigration agents,” said California Assemblyman Rob Bonta, who authored the Truth Act. “With today’s action, California leads the nation with sensible immigration policies that protect the rights of immigrants and shine a light on flawed federal priorities.” Click here to see Assemblyman Bonta's full press release. For the response of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON) to the new law, click here.
In addition, Governor Brown also signed into law SB 1139, authored by Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, which will prevent a person from being denied into medical school solely based on his or her immigration status. Known as the Medical DREAMER Opportunity Act, it will also ensure that undocumented students, pursuing medical professions, have the ability to compete for scholarships and access the state’s loan forgiveness programs regardless of citizenship status.
While immigrant rights organizations praised Brown for signing these two bills, they also criticized him for his decision to veto a bill known as the Dignity not Detention Act, also sponsored by Lara. The bill, SB 1289, would have made it illegal for a city, county, or a local law enforcement agency from entering into a contract with a private corporation to detain immigrants in civil immigration proceedings for profit.
"Donald Trump's immigration reform is a raging version of the status quo. His vacillations between toughness and softness—designed to reap the political payoff of the moment—are not unique. They are, however, central to his business model and deal-making strategy in which he places himself and his corporate interests before the public good. Trump is not unlike other politicians, including President Obama, who've walked the political tightrope of immigration. It was Obama—once called the "deporter-in-chief"—who ramped up the most devastating deportation machine in U.S history, while at the same time executing deferred action on deportation for undocumented youth who migrated as children and attempting to do so for undocumented parents of U.S. citizens.
At this stage it seems clear that softening on immigration will be limited to Trump's sporadic pandering. Instead, the centripetal force of his racist populism and his inability to retract or apologize will always lead him into murkier, more racist, and unconstitutional waters. As November 8 lurches into view, those of us hoping for a new page to be turned on US immigration policies, have many reasons to be worried."
“They Were Scattered Everywhere, All Drowning.” How a Lampedusa Optician Became a Hero of the Migrant Crisis
A boat carrying nearly 600 migrants capsizes in the Mediterranean in May 2016. 562 were rescued and 5 died. Photo: Italian Navy
Emma Jane Kirby interviews an optician who dramatically rescued many migrants on the high seas. She is the author of the book, The Optician of Lampedusa, which describes itself as "PERHAPS THE MOST DEVASTATING FIRST-PERSON ACCOUNT OF THE REFUGEE CRISIS YOU'LL EVER READ."
Here is an abstract of the book:
The only optician on the island of Lampedusa in the Mediterranean is an ordinary man in his fifties, who used to be indifferent to the fate of the thousands of refugees landing on the coast of the Italian island. One day in the fall of 2013, the unimaginable scale of the tragedy became clear to him, and it changed him forever: as he was out boating with some friends, he encountered hundreds of men, women and children drowning in the aftermath of a shipwreck. The Optician and his seven friends managed to save 47 people (his boat was designed to hold ten people). Hundreds died. This is a poignant and unforgettable account about the awakening of conscience: more than that, it brings home the reality of an ongoing refugee crisis that has resulted in one of the most massive migrations in human history.
More than 360 people died in the disaster off the coast of Lampedusa on October 3, 2013. The original interview with Carmine Menna, the basis for this book, can be heard here.
Wednesday, September 28, 2016
Shock Peace: The Search for Freedom by Ciecie Tuyet Nguyen
With the anniversary of the start of the Vietnam War occurring on November 1, we will take the time to stop and remember those who served and lost their lives for our country. But do we ever stop to think of those who were impacted on the other side of the war? Shock Peace: The Search for Freedom by author and refugee CieCie Tuyet Nguyen explores the war from a different perspective: that of a survivor in the fall of Saigon who unflinchingly recounts the horrors of life after the Vietnam War.
A fictional account based on historical facts and the personal experiences of the author, Shock Peace follows young Trinh’s journey as she searches for freedom. A Vietnamese teenager, Trinh has lived through the dark days that led to the fall of Saigon in 1975 and three years under the new regime. The book follows Trinh as she witnesses human rights and freedom stripped brutally away from herself, her family and her countrymen. After struggling with poverty, starvation, desperation, and control, the yearning for freedom propels Trinh and her family to make a daring move - an attempt to escape by boat and face the threat of attack by pirates. At the cost of freedom, 500,000 of her countrymen had perished, most by drowning as they tried to flee. Will Trinh's family be able to find the freedom they seek?
A moving statement on the strength of the human heart, themes recounted in Shock Peace: The Search for Freedom include:
- The true account of what had happened to South Vietnam during the first decade after the fall of Saigon
- The life stories of Saigon's refugees and their tragedies in Vietnam's darkest period, when peace, prosperity and reunification were supposed to emerge from the ashes.
- How human rights, peace and freedom are the best gifts your country has given you.
- While unexpected circumstances might change one’s life for the worse, with the resilience to survive, one might be able to get back to where they once were.
- That cruelty should be exposed not to bring about revenge or to lead to war, but to bring empathy and change.
Immigration Article of the Day: Jennifer Chacón, A New Hope: Bringing Justice Back into Removal Proceedings
Former ImmigrationProf blogger Jennifer Chacón has this thoughtful reply ("A New Hope: Bringing Justice Back into Removal Proceedings") to Jason Cade's provocative article, Return of the JRAD, on NYU Law Review Online. My response to Cade's article can be found here.
Here is an abstract of Professor Chacón's article:
In his article, Return of the JRAD, Professor Jason Cade makes a strong and viable case that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) can and should take into account nonstatutory Judicial Recommendations Against Deportation (JRADs) and other criminal justice signals of diminished criminal culpability when deciding whether or not to charge a noncitizen with deportability. Professor Cade’s proposal is a good one. The overall effects of his proposal will be modest. It can neither eliminate racial disparities in the criminal justice system and deportations nor end capricious distinctions between similarly situated criminal defendants in removal proceedings. On the other hand, it has no notable downsides and some significant potential upsides. Part I explains why exercising discretion along the lines that Cade proposes is firmly within DHS’s discretion and why such modest and rational exercises of discretion are unlikely to spark political backlash. Part II elaborates upon the potential benefits of Cade’s proposal. First, by encouraging criminal sentencing judges to issue nonstatutory JRADs, the Cade proposal promises to provide DHS with useful information otherwise unavailable at the charging stage, thus increasing charging fairness. At the same time, his proposal would make a positive change in the way that at least some criminal sentencing judges think about immigration consequences in criminal sentencing. Ultimately, it might even change the way that we talk, think, and write about the nexus of immigration and criminal law—better exposing the common failings and the interconnections of these systems to scholars and practitioners other than those who routinely work at their intersection.
World leaders convened in New York last week for a pair of summits focused on multilateral responses to the growing challenge of refugee crises and unmanaged migration flows. Even before the summits convened by the United Nations and a day later by the Obama administration were concluded, assessments of their outcomes were underway. In a new commentary, Migration Policy Institute (MPI) President Emeritus Demetrios Papademetriou and Policy Analyst Susan Fratzke weigh the results. "While score cards for these types of events are difficult to keep, it is clear that the summits offered reasons for both disappointment and hope," they write. On the plus side of the ledger, the two summits offered evidence of the high priority being placed on these issues by national leaders. The meetings also may have set the stage for the next, and possibly more substantive, conversation initiated when UN Member States agreed to forge a pair of compacts on better management of migration flows and coordination of equitable responses to refugee crises by 2018. The U.S.-led summit and an affiliated CEO roundtable also produced results, with more than $1.1 billion in pledged assistance and investments directed at refugees and migrants, and commitments to double refugee places. On the downside, the authors note that the commitments—including on responsibility sharing—fell short of the concrete outcomes that architects of the UN summit and advocates had envisioned, and that it remains to be seen whether the $4.5 billion in pledged government financial commitments to humanitarian agencies represents new money or a repackaging of older promises. What does seem clear, they write, is that there will be a tug of war between the multilateralism on parade at the summits and the national sovereignty inherent in the ways in which governments view issues of migration and international protection. I invite you to read this thought-provoking commentary.
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), with other leading senators, pressed the Obama administration earlier this week on the use of private prisons and contract facilities by the Department of Homeland Security. The letter comes amid an internal review at DHS regarding its use of private prisons, and the senators urged DHS to ensure the review was meaningful and genuine.
In their letter to DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson, the senators state that “we strongly oppose the use of for-profit prison companies in immigration detention” and raise alarm about the lack of transparency in detention contracts, which has too often led to poor conditions and exorbitant costs to the taxpayers.
“For far too long, the contracting process and the management of contract facilities housing immigrant detainees have been opaque. The lack of transparency has led to a lack of accountability. Unlike federally-run institutions, these facilities are not obligated to provide to DHS or Congress information about their cost, operational efficiency, or ability to provide adequate detention conditions. And the results are unacceptable,” the senators wrote.
The senators also expressed concern about the pivotal role the private prison industry has played recently in institutionalizing mass family detention and increasing detention of asylum seekers.
In addition to Leahy, the letter is signed by Senators Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii.).
The letter comes less than a week after the director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Sarah Saldaña, told the House Judiciary Committee that ICE’s prisons are “almost completely contractor run” and closing them would “turn our system upside down.” A subcommittee of DHS’s Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) is expected to provide Secretary Johnson and Director Saldaña a report of its review by November 30, 2016, including a recommendation of whether the agency should end its use of private immigration detention.
A copy of the September 26 letter to DHS Secretary Johnson is below and online.
The American Immigration Council released, Access to Counsel in Immigration Court by Ingrid Eagly and Steven Shafer, Esq. The authors conducted the first national study of access to counsel in immigration courts and analyzed 1.2 million individual removal cases in immigration court between fiscal years 2007 and 2012. They found that access to legal counsel was uneven across geographic locations and nationalities. They also found that having a lawyer results in better outcomes for immigrants and that represented immigrants were more likely to be released from detention, more likely to apply for relief, and to obtain the relief they sought.
These important findings highlight some of the disparities in the immigration court system. Whether or not immigrants obtain a lawyer varies widely depending on whether they are detained, where their court proceeding takes place, and what nationality they are. These inequalities and barriers to obtaining legal counsel need to be addressed because having an attorney is also strongly associated with positive outcomes. Overall, the study found that only two percent of those who applied for relief from deportation succeeded without an attorney.
The main findings of this study include:
Access to counsel is scarce and unevenly distributed across the United States
- Nationally, only 37 percent of all immigrants secured legal representation in their removal cases.
- Immigrants in detention were the least likely to obtain representation. Only 14 percent of detained immigrants acquired legal counsel, compared with two-thirds of nondetained immigrants.
- Representation rates varied widely by court jurisdiction.
- New York City’s representation rate for nondetained cases (87 percent) was a full 40 percent higher than that of Atlanta (47 percent).
- Immigrants with court hearings in small cities were more than four times less likely to obtain counsel than those with hearings in large cities (11 percent in small cities versus 47 percent in large cities).
- Immigrants of different nationalities had very different representation and detention rates.
- Mexican immigrants had the highest detention rate (78 percent) and the lowest representation rate (21 percent) of nationalities examined. In contrast, Chinese immigrants had the lowest detention rate (4 percent) and highest representation rate (92 percent).
Immigrants with attorneys fare better at every stage of the court process
- Represented immigrants in detention who had a custody hearing were four times more likely to be released from detention (44 percent with counsel versus 11 percent without).
- Represented immigrants were much more likely to apply for relief from deportation.
- Detained immigrants with counsel were nearly 11 times more likely to seek relief such as asylum than those without representation (32 percent with counsel versus 3 percent without).
- Immigrants who were never detained were five times more likely to seek relief if they had an attorney (78 percent with counsel versus 15 percent without).
- Represented immigrants were more likely to obtain the immigration relief they sought.
- Among detained immigrants, those with representation were twice as likely as unrepresented immigrants to obtain immigration relief if they sought it (49 percent with counsel versus 23 percent without).
- Represented immigrants who were never detained were nearly five times more likely than their unrepresented counterparts to obtain relief if they sought it (63 percent with counsel versus 13 percent without).
Huffington Post reports that on 19 September 2016, Heads of State and Government from around the world gathered together in the United Nations and adopted the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants, a historic document that seeks to address the urgent questions posed to the international community by the growing global phenomenon of large movements of refugees and migrants.
The New York Declaration has been adopted in the context of the United Nations Summit for Refugees and Migrants, a one-day event organized by the President of the General Assembly of the United Nations on behalf of Member States, and attended by Heads of State and Government, Ministers, and leaders from the UN System, civil society, private sector, international organizations, and academia, among others.
Newsweek summarizes on the challenges in convincing 193 nations to agree on how best to handle the twin problems of migrants and refugees; while refugees already have legal protection and rights under international conventions, there is no such consensus on economic migrants, and many richer countries are resistant to changing that.
The key negotiators of the U.N.’s New York Declaration on Migrants and Refugees were Jordanian Ambassador Dina Kawar—concerned with millions of refugees pouring into Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Africa—and Irish Ambassador David Donoghue, whose primary focus is the influx of people to the European Union. Among the main breakthroughs, the negotiators say, was that they brought migrants, not just refugees, into the U.N.’s purview.
The 22-page outcome document, which forms the basis for this new agreement, is composed of 12 pages plus two annexes—one for refugees and one for migrants—and sets out a two-year timetable to negotiate specific actions. “
Among those elements: programs for countries to absorb migrants and protections for them; provisions to educate migrant children; and burden sharing of existing migrant populations. What’s more, the document makes a case that migrants can have a positive effect on society.
View the full text of the New York Declaration.
Here is a United Nations' summary of the New York
What are the commitments?
The New York Declaration contains bold commitments both to address the issues we face now and to prepare the world for future challenges. These include commitments to:
- Protect the human rights of all refugees and migrants, regardless of status. This includes the rights of women and girls and promoting their full, equal and meaningful participation in finding solutions.
- Ensure that all refugee and migrant children are receiving education within a few months of arrival.
- Prevent and respond to sexual and gender-based violence.
- Support those countries rescuing, receiving and hosting large numbers of refugees and migrants.
- Work towards ending the practice of detaining children for the purposes of determining their migration status.
- Strongly condemn xenophobia against refugees and migrants and support a global campaign to counter it.
- Strengthen the positive contributions made by migrants to economic and social development in their host countries.
- Improve the delivery of humanitarian and development assistance to those countries most affected, including through innovative multilateral financial solutions, with the goal of closing all funding gaps.
- Implement a comprehensive refugee response, based on a new framework that sets out the responsibility of Member States, civil society partners and the UN system, whenever there is a large movement of refugees or a protracted refugee situation.
- Find new homes for all refugees identified by UNHCR as needing resettlement; and expand the opportunities for refugees to relocate to other countries through, for example, labour mobility or education schemes.
- Strengthen the global governance of migration by bringing the International Organization for Migration into the UN system.
What will happen next?
The New York Declaration also contains concrete plans for how to build on these commitments:
- Start negotiations leading to an international conference and the adoption of a global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration in 2018. The agreement to move toward this comprehensive framework is a momentous one. It means that migration, like other areas of international relations, will be guided by a set of common principles and approaches.
- Develop guidelines on the treatment of migrants in vulnerable situations. These guidelines will be particularly important for the increasing number of unaccompanied children on the move.
- Achieve a more equitable sharing of the burden and responsibility for hosting and supporting the world’s refugees by adopting a global compact on refugees in 2018.
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
The San Diego Union Tribune writes about one nonprofit organization's efforts to reach DACA-eligible members of the Filipino community in San Diego. The article describes Alliance San Diego's outreach to Filipino and other Asian immigrants, and notes Asian immigrants' relatively low application rates for DACA since the creation of the program.
"Felons, not families," said President Obama in his November 2014 speech outlining the Administration's prosecutorial discretion policies in immigration.
But data obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the Marshall Project casts doubt on the contention that the Administration has actually deported individuals with serious crimes:
The majority — roughly 60 percent — were of immigrants with no criminal conviction or whose only crime was immigration-related, such as illegal entry or re-entry. Twenty-one percent were convicted of nonviolent crimes other than immigration. Fewer than 20 percent had potentially violent convictions, such as assault, DUI or weapons offenses.
The articles concludes by quoting Grace Meng of Human Rights Watch: "When you’re aiming for a high number [of deportations], you’re necessarily going to get a lot of people with minor offenses...How is this a smart form of crime control?”
This past weekend the University of North Dakota School of Law was privileged to host the annual Central States Law Schools Association conference. CSLSA is a generalist conference, yet it still managed to secure the participation of two fabulous immprofs: Stella Elias (Iowa) and Regina Jeffries (Minnesota).
Stella spoke on what she has termed "Refugee Federalism." During the last two years, some state officials have been at the forefront of a movement to block the resettlement of refugees from the Middle East and asylum seekers from Central America in their jurisdictions. Others have been in the vanguard of an initiative to welcome those fleeing persecution on humanitarian grounds. Stella is currently exploring the perils and promises of state engagement with refugee and asylee protection.
Regina discussed how Central American women and children seeking asylum in the United States should have more support during processing at the border and should not be placed in expedited removal proceedings. She argued that the U.S.'s treaty commitments -- under the U.N. Refugee Convention of 1951 and its 1967 Protocol (which the U.S. signed in 1968) -- to non-refoulement of refugees fleeing persecution means that the country is obliged to provide these potential refugees with more support and more due process than they currently receive.
I hope other immprofs will considering joining us for the 2017 CSLSA conference at Southern Illinois University School of Law in Carbondale!
Of the fifteen IJs most recently sworn into office, five come from the private bar. They include:
- IJ Valerie A. Burch of the San Francisco Immigration Court, whose past experience is with The Shagin Law Group, the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, and the Pennsylvania Immigration Resource Center.
- IJ Robin Kandell Paulino of the San Francisco Immigration Court, who has worked with Microsoft Corporation, Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy, as well as Korenberg, Abramowitz & Feldun, and Swanson & Swanson.
- IJ Jennifer I. Peyton of the Chicago Immigration Court, who had her own immigration firm and who taught as an adjunct at both Case Western University School of Law and Cleveland State University Cleveland-Marshall College of Law.
- IJ Walter Hammele Ruehle of the Buffalo Immigration Court, who worked for the Legal Aid Society, the Neighborhood Legal Services, the Farmworker Legal Services, and taught as an adjunct professor at the Cornell Law School.
- IJ Elizabeth Young of the San Francisco Immigration Court who led the University of Arkansas immigration clinic.
In addition, IJ Nancy J. Paul of the Omaha Immigration Court and IJ G. William Riggs, of the Miami Immigration Court, come to the position after years in military service - IJ Paul with the Air Force and IJ Riggs with the Marines.
Here is the debate in three minutes:
The first of three scheduled debates between Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump and Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Many observers predicted that immigration would be a topic of discussion, with fireworks likely. The only safe bet was that debate moderator Lester Holt would be calm, cool, and collected (which in fact was the case).
Here is the transcript to the debate. There were no questions directly on immigration. According to a poll of debate watchers, Clinton prevailed. Patrick Healey and Jonathan Martin of the New York Times summarized the debate as follows:
"In an antagonistic debate, Donald J. Trump and Hillary Clinton clashed over trade, his refusal to release his tax returns and her use of a private email server."
"He repeatedly interrupted her, and she often chided him for bungling his facts."
The first topic of the debate was "Achieving Prosperity," with the initial question on job creation and improving wages. Hillary Clinton, among other things, suggested increasing the minimum wage. Trump complained repeatedly about jobs leaving the United States and going to Mexico, China, and other countries: "We are losing good jobs"; jobs are "being stolen from us." Trump said that, as President, he would reduce taxes, which he claimed would create jobs. He also called for renegotiating trade deals, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, which he attacked as unfair to the United States.
The was a lengthy give-and-take about (1) Clinton's e-mails sent from a private server and (2) whether and when Trump would produce his tax returns. Clinton repeatedly suggested that Trump was hiding something in his tax returns. Trump repeatedly said that Clinton had done little to solve the nation's problems in her 30 years in government.
The second topic of the debate was "America's Direction." Holt asked the candidates how they would heal the deep racial divide in the United States. Not responding to the question directly, Trump emphasized the need for "law and order" and suggested that protesters were part of the problem. He highlighted the crime problems in the United States afflicting Blacks and Hispanics, including the crime problem created by "illegal immigrants." Trump endorsed stop-and-frisk policies and the need to protect minorities in our cities. Clinton acknowledged that implicit bias is a problem among people generally, not just the police. She also mentioned that stop-and-frisk policies had been found to be unconstitutional and a form of racial profiling. Clinton acknowledged the need to address the racism in our criminal justice system.
The Birther Issue. Lester Holt asked Donald Trump about his claim that President Obama was not a natural born U.S. citizen. Trump, who credited himself with forcing the President to produce his birth certificate, said that he admitted that President Obama was born in the United States once he saw President Obama's birth certificate. Trump stated that, after the President's place of birth was settled, he wanted to move on to other things, such as building the wall along the U.S./Mexico border. He said that he would "say nothing" to those who asked him why he continued to press the birther issue after President Obama's birth certificate was produced. Clinton highlighted that Trump became politically visible through publicizing the birther "lie. " Clinton also mentioned that Trump had been sued for racial discrimination.
The last segment was on "Securing America." Trump mentioned his many military endorsements and the ICE endorsement. ISIS, cybersecurity, and home-grown terrorism were topics of discussion. Clinton pounted out that Trump's attacks on Muslims has made it difficult to fight terrorism. Clinton questioned Trump's temperament to be commander in chief.
Trump brought up immigration in the last segment of the debate, with the reasoning difficult to follow:
"HOLT: Mr. Trump, very quickly, same question. Will you accept the outcome as the will of the voters?
TRUMP: I want to make America great again. We are a nation that is seriously troubled. We’re losing our jobs. People are pouring into our country.
The other day, we were deporting 800 people. And perhaps they passed the wrong button, they pressed the wrong button, or perhaps worse than that, it was corruption, but these people that we were going to deport for good reason ended up becoming citizens. Ended up becoming citizens. And it was 800. And now it turns out it might be 1,800, and they don’t even know."
The next presidential debates are scheduled for October 9 at Washington University in St. Louis and October 19 at the University of Nevada Las Vegas.