AAPI politicians want to see full Mueller Report, disagree with Atty General's interpretation: of its findings

UPDATED, APRIL 19, 1:30 a.m.

First take from your armchair lawyer: There may not be a smoking gun in the Mueller Report, but there is a hell of a lot of circumstantial evidence to show that Russia was interfering with the U.S. 2016 elections and the Trump campaign did nothing to curtail the kneecapping of our democracy.

Second take from your armchair lawyer: Mueller punted on the question of Trump's possible obstruction of justice  Mueller leaves it  to Congress on what to do with the findings of the report. 

The country is abuzz about the release of the redacted Mueller Report. 

This morning, Attorney General William Barr held a press conference prior to the report's release to soften the impact of the Mueller Report's contents. 

In his prepared statement, Barr pointed out that there is much in the report that will be used in ongoing and future court proceedings and therefore, he chose to redact essential parts of the report. Already, several House committees say they will ask Robert Mueller to testify.

At the press conference, Barr said:

"First, the report details efforts by the Internet Research Agency, a Russian company with close ties to the Russian government, to sow social discord among American voters through disinformation and social media operations. Following a thorough investigation of this disinformation campaign, the Special Counsel brought charges in federal court against several Russian nationals and entities for their respective roles in this scheme. Those charges remain pending, and the individual defendants remain at large. 

"But the Special Counsel found no evidence that any Americans – including anyone associated with the Trump campaign – conspired or coordinated with the Russian government or the IRA in carrying out this illegal scheme. Indeed, as the report states, “[t]he investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated with the IRA’s interference operation.” Put another way, the Special Counsel found no “collusion” by any Americans in the IRA’s illegal activity. 

"Second, the report details efforts by Russian military officials associated with the GRU to hack into computers and steal documents and emails from individuals affiliated with the Democratic Party and the presidential campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton for the purpose of eventually publicizing those emails. Obtaining such unauthorized access into computers is a federal crime. Following a thorough investigation of these hacking operations, the Special Counsel brought charges in federal court against several Russian military officers for their respective roles in these illegal hacking activities. Those charges are still pending and the defendants remain at large. 

"But again, the Special Counsel’s report did not find any evidence that members of the Trump campaign or anyone associated with the campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its hacking operations. In other words, there was no evidence of Trump campaign “collusion” with the Russian government’s hacking.

Barr's choice to hold a press conference to set the stage for the report's initial impact was highly criticized. Members of Congress tried, unsuccessfully, to cancel the presser.

Here is Barr's complete statement.

Reaction from some Asian American leaders, all of them Democrats were universally dissatisfied with Barr's conclusions and shock at the report's contents:

Sen. Kamala Harris

"Attorney General Bill Barr only released this redacted report after providing a copy to the president’s personal lawyers, and after he gave a press conference on national television filled with political spin and propaganda. Let’s be clear: Barr is acting more like Trump’s defense attorney than the nation’s Attorney General," Harris said. 

Harris added that Congress "has a constitutional duty to conduct oversight of the executive branch" and called for the "full, unredacted" report to be shared with lawmakers.

"The American people deserve the unvarnished truth -- without spin from the president’s hand-picked Attorney General. This redacted report is not enough," Harris wrote in the email. "Congress needs to see the full, unredacted Mueller report and all of the investigation’s underlying evidence -- and Special Counsel Robert Mueller must testify publicly before Congress."

Sen. Tammy Duckworth

“Attorney General Barr’s biased press conference this morning was a low point for our nation and the rule of law. It’s sad to see the Attorney General of the United States acting as if he were the President’s personal lawyer. The American people deserve the opportunity to read the complete findings of Robert Mueller and to hear from the Special Counsel, who must testify before Congress in a public hearing as soon as possible so he can fully explain the report and the context behind its findings.”

Sen. Mazie Hirono

“Despite the Attorney General’s attempt to spin the Mueller Report in Donald Trump’s favor, it’s clear the Special Counsel’s investigation found serious wrongdoing by the President and many of his associates.

“The Special Counsel’s report lays out, in meticulous detail, evidence that Donald Trump obstructed justice. Among the many rich details in the report, Robert Mueller shows how Donald Trump fired James Comey to end the investigation into his campaign; how the President instructed Don McGahn to order Rod Rosenstein to fire the Special Counsel; and how Donald Trump sent messengers to Jeff Sessions to ‘unrecuse’ himself in order to limit the scope of the investigation.

“If not for existing Department of Justice policy, the Special Counsel had ample evidence to indict Donald Trump for obstruction.

“The Special Counsel also confirmed what our intelligence community had already unanimously concluded: that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 election to elect Donald Trump.

“Although the Special Counsel felt he couldn’t meet the high bar necessary to prove criminal conspiracy with the Russians, he demonstrated that Donald Trump and his campaign were willing to engage with our foremost adversary to gain an advantage in the 2016 election. This is just wrong, plain and simple.

“The Special Counsel’s report in no way exonerates the President. In fact, it implicates the President in criminal activity. Congress has an obligation to act like the separate branch of government it is and conduct serious oversight of this administration. Everything should be on the table.”

Rep. Pramila Jayapal

“From day one, Congress and the American public have demanded release of the full Mueller report and all underlying documents; anything less is unacceptable,” said Congresswoman Jayapal. “Congress has a right and responsibility to review the Special Counsel’s full investigation without omissions to determine what steps must be taken – and whether further action is necessary. 

“I am troubled by Donald Trump’s hand-picked Attorney General’s apparent protection of a President who could not be exonerated by the Special Counsel on at least ten counts of obstruction of justice, and the numerous willing contacts documented between the Trump Campaign and a foreign power that was explicitly out to influence our last elections and likely our upcoming elections. 

“Congress has a duty – rooted firmly in the Constitution – to safeguard the justice system and prevent obstruction of justice. To do this, we must have the full report. Attorney General Barr’s refusal to release the full report and underlying materials prevents Congress from doing our constitutional duty. Barr should be acting as the nation’s Attorney General not Trump’s personal attorney. Anything less is unacceptable.”

Rep. Mark Takano

___________________________________________________________________

Sunday Read: AAPI condemn, challenge Trump's emergency declaration

SCREEN CAPTURE

Donald Trump:' I didn't need to do this.'

After declaring a "national emergency" in a vain attempt to secure funding to build his Damn Wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, Trump went golfing for the weekend.

After signing a bipartisan bill that contained $1.36 billion for border security, not the $5.7 billion Trump wanted for a physical wall, the current White House occupant declared a national emergency along the southern border so that he can draw money from other parts of the government to pay for the wall.

After saying, the "current situation at the southern border presents a border security and humanitarian crisis that threatens core national security interests and constitutes a national emergency."

Later, he seemed to contradict the urgency of the declaration when he said, "I didn't need  to do this." After his Rose Garden announcement, Trump flew to Mar-a-lago to spend the Presidents Day weekend at the Florida golf resort that he favors.

As he predicted in a sing-song delivery, lawsuits have been filed to prevent what critics say is an unconstitutional action. Within hours after his announcement, the ACLU and public watchdogs Public Citizen and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed separate legal actions against Trump's declaration. California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced his intention to also join the legal fray.

Public Citizen's suit, urges the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to "bar Trump and the U.S. Department of Defense from using the declaration and funds appropriated for other purposes to build a border wall." The suit also includes three Texas landowners who own land along the border with Mexico, who were told their property would be seized for a border wall if money was allocated to the project this year.

The CREW lawsuit  targets the Justice Department and revolves around a Freedom of Information Act request regarding the emergency order. 

The watchdog group claims that Trump's administration failed to show the legal authority for his declaration by refusing to turn over public documents that includes communications, including legal opinions, from the Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Defense over whether Trump had the authority to declare an emergency to build a wall.

"Americans deserve to know the true basis for President Trump’s unprecedented decision to enact emergency powers to pay for a border wall," CREW Executive Director Noah Bookbinder said in a statement. "We’re suing because the government has so far failed to produce the requested documents or provide an explanation for their delay."

ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said the civil rights group plans to file suit next week in the following statement:

“By the president’s very own admission in the Rose Garden, there is no national emergency," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero in a statement. "(Trump) just grew impatient and frustrated with Congress, and decided to move along his promise for a border wall ‘faster.’

"This is a patently illegal power grab that hurts American communities and flouts the checks and balances that are hallmarks of our democracy," continued the statement. "We will be filing a lawsuit early next week. As the country’s premier defender of civil liberties and civil rights, the ACLU will always fight to ensure a robust system of checks and balances on the power of the executive, which is critical to safeguarding our democracy and defending rights.”

California's Gov. Newsom said his state plans to join several other states in a lawsuit to challenge Trump's national emergency declaration. California has already filed at least 45 lawsuits against the Trump administration on a variety of issues and secured 26 wins, although some cases are still ongoing, according to the office of state Attorney General Xavier Becerra.

“If the president tries to use a made-up emergency to pay for his border wall, then California will see him in court,” Newsom and Becerra said in a joint statement.

Concurrently, the AAPI communities and leaders did not remain silent on Trump's national emergency declaration:

Senator Mazie Hirono, D-HI: “At today’s announcement, Donald Trump lied about walls, borders, crime, and legal immigration to justify his declaration of a fake emergency at our southern border. With this desperate action, Donald Trump is putting his vanity wall above the Constitution and the American people. As usual, his announcement was long on lies and short on justification. Let’s call today’s action what it is: a blatant, illegal power grab that steals money from our military to advance Donald Trump's personal agenda. Diverting billions of dollars from planned investments in critical military projects across the world doesn’t make us safer. The President has demonstrated time and again that he doesn’t care that the chaos he creates results in wasted time and resources being expended to clean up his mess – including those spent on court challenges. Republicans need to say enough is enough and join us in acting like a separate branch of government by terminating this so-called emergency declaration as soon as possible, and focusing instead on the real needs of all Americans.”

Senator Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill:  "This #FakeTrumpEmergency is a reckless & unprecedented abuse of presidential power, not to mention a waste of billions of taxpayer dollars. It would steal money from our military & critical drug apprehension efforts to construct a needless, medieval wall. This is terrible policy."

Senator Kamala Harris, D-CA:"Declaring a national emergency over this President's vanity project is ridiculous. We don't need a wall. Instead, we should address the actual emergencies facing our country — everything from gun violence to the opioid crisis. The President’s national emergency declaration is completely unnecessary and a waste of taxpayer resources. This is a crisis of his own making."

Rep. Judy Chu, D-CA, chair of Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus: "I am troubled by the President’s declaration of a national emergency. This declaration blatantly circumvents the will of Congress and is an obvious overreach that flies in the face of the Constitution and other existing laws. National emergencies should be saved for actual emergencies, not failing to get what you want out of Congress. And he can only justify it through a completely false narrative that a wall will have any impact on curbing crime or drug trafficking. This declaration will certainly be challenged in the courts but I fear the precedent that is being set by Republicans ceding constitutional authority to a dangerous executive.”

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-HI: "Every time a president declares a 'national emergency' in order to get his way on a particular issue, the closer we are to a dictatorship. Who needs Congress or the people if the president can make the decision on issues by himself? Very dangerous precedent."

Rep. Ted Lieu, D-CA: “Trump's proposed Declaration of a National Emergency is an authoritarian power grab that will be struck down in the courts. The Constitution gives the House of Representatives the ‘Power of the Purse’, and Trump cannot override the Constitution with a fake declaration. There is no national emergency. Based on the Trump Administration's own data, border apprehensions are down 75% from 2000 to 2018; both violent and property crime are down across the US; and 80% to 90% of illegal drugs come through legal checkpoints."

Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-WA: "A national emergency declaration for a non-emergency is not legal. @realDonaldTrump is trying to get around our constitutional and thinks we’re stupid enough not to notice. Not today. We won’t stand for this. The only crisis at our border is the one Trump manufactured through his inhumane immigration policies. This #FakeNationalEmergency is a gross abuse of power. @HouseJudiciary will hold the administration accountable and determine the "supposed" legal basis for these actions."

Rep. Grace Meng, D-NY: “President Trump is a petulant man-child who has decided to plunge our nation into yet another national crisis by declaring a ‘national emergency’ over a supposed immigration crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border,” said Meng. “Let me be crystal clear: there is no emergency. Illegal immigration is at record lows. The only emergency is the one in the president’s head. President Trump misled the American people when he said that Mexico would pay for the wall—which was never going to happen. Now he wants to weaken our national security by stealing defense funds to build his medieval border wall. President Trump should be ashamed of his actions today.”

Rep. T.J. Cox, D-CA: “President Trump’s emergency declaration to sidestep the Constitution is short-sighted, irresponsible, and lawless. Our Founding Fathers constructed a system of checks and balances to protect the people from executive overreach," the Filipino American lawmaker said in a statement. "The President overstepped his constitutional authority to declare he will divert scarce taxpayer dollars to a project we all know is unnecessary and ineffective.”

Rep. Stephanie Murphy, D-FL: "It is wrong for President Trump to bypass Congress just so he can advance his own political agenda. I agree that we need to do more to secure our ports and protect our borders, but the President needs to work with us to do this, not take unilateral action."

Rep. Ami Bera, D-CA: "The president has overstepped his authority by taking money away from the military and counternarcotics efforts. Congress must reassert its authority. This is unacceptable. In his announcement, the president said, 'I didn’t need do this.' I agree."Asian Americans Advancing Justice: “President Trump’s shameful declaration is a clear-cut abuse of presidential power and a threat to our democracy. The President manufactured a crisis at the border to drum up support for his failed and unpopular campaign promise. The President is only trying to circumvent the Constitution. After Congress refused to give him all the money that he asked for, the President is now trying to funnel billions of taxpayer dollars into an anti-immigrant, xenophobic border wall project that a majority of Americans continue to oppose. Asian Americans Advancing Justice is in solidarity with communities at the border who live under oppressive conditions, facing separation and danger every day. That is why we urge Congress to stand firm for our immigrant communities by revoking Trump's illegal emergency declaration.”

Margaret Fung, Executive Director, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund: “The President has shown that he will go to any lengths to fund his border wall and mass deportation agenda. AALDEF believes that this unilateral action is an unconstitutional abuse of authority and will not survive the legal challenges that are certain to follow.”

Suman Raghunathan, executive director of South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT): “In just the last 10 days we’ve been hearing firsthand about the cruel treatment towards nine South Asian men currently on hunger strike in a detention facility in El Paso. Despite their asylum requests, they’ve been subject to violent force-feeding, solitary confinement, and constant threats of deportation. What’s particularly devastating is that we’ve seen similar treatment occur previously in this same facility and we have received accounts of abuse of detainees in several facilities across the country. This bill does nothing to address the systemic issues with our detention system, and only serves to perpetuate abusive situations like the ones we are witnessing now.”

Monica Thammarath, National President, Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance: "We denounce the fabricated state of emergency the President has declared when our communities are facing real crises. Our Southeast Asian refugee siblings along with other immigrant communities are increasingly threatened to be ripped apart from their families and communities, workers in growing cities are struggling to keep their homes because of corporate greed, and students and educators across the nation are faced with under resourced classrooms - these and more are the people's priorities and our state of emergency. We will continue to push and fight for our communities’ real needs, especially in the face of fabricated emergencies from this Administration’s White Supremacist agenda.”

Sung Yeon Choimorrow, National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum Executive Director: ​"President Trump today has shown us all just how racist and xenophobic he and his administration is. That he is willing to break the law, circumvent the separation of powers and the will of Congress, to intimidate immigrants and communities of color, including AAPI women and girls, is not just disgusting, it is illegal. This is a desperate and last-ditch effort to thwart the will of voters and the rule of law. We stand firmly in solidarity with immigrant communities and communities of color in boldly opposing this act of blatant racism. We know that our lives, our families, and communities are strong to withstand this repulsive attack. Make no mistake: the President's imaginary and manufactured emergency is nothing more than wildly irresponsible political theatrics."

Greg Orton, National Council of Asian Pacific Americans (NCAPA) National Director: “The President’s national emergency declaration sets a dangerous precedent that undermines the integrity of our democracy-- all for an ineffective solution to a manufactured problem. Congress’ newly passed border security bill will provide over a billion dollars in funding towards border security and reflects a compromise from Congress. Bypassing the Constitution, which is clear about which branch of our government is responsible for determining appropriations, reflect a President who is more committed to keeping a foolish campaign promise, than upholding our democratic principles. President Trump is right that there is a national emergency upon us. But it is not a caravan of people we should fear that spurs us to action-- it is the naked power grab by the Executive Branch, coupled with complicity of those in Congress who choose to stand by and do nothing out of political gain. Members on both sides of the aisle must do more than simply speak in opposition. They must act.”

Value Our Families: Trump’s remarks and action declaring a national emergency is an astounding display of xenophobia and racism. It is a reckless stunt to rile up his base and endanger our democracy and countless communities along the border. There is no national security emergency at the border, and yet Trump is fear-mongering to justify wasting billions of dollars on an immoral border wall. The real crisis is Trump’s self-made humanitarian crisis that separated and jailed thousands of immigrant families. ... We cannot allow our nation’s immigration policies to be hijacked by false nations of security and nationalism. We urge Congress to protect our border and immigrant communities and to end this so-called “national emergency.”

Jonathan Paik, director of the Korean Resource Center: “This is a reckless move and endangers the future of our country. Our democracy is in incredible danger- this is the true national emergency. We call on all our fellow Americans to resist these abuses of power and reclaim our democracy!”

Quyen Dinh, executive director of SEARAC: “The Southeast Asian American refugee community has been devastated by the expansion of our detention and deportation system, and our families continue to be torn apart at unprecedented rates. Our organizations understand that this is a difficult position for our policymakers to be in, and none of them should be forced to make this choice. But our communities elected our policymakers to represent our interests, and Asian Americans have declared in no uncertain terms that we oppose the passage of this bill and the president’s unconstitutional and falsely justified national emergency. We remain vigilant and committed to working with our Congressional partners to protect the rights of our refugees and immigrants.”

Council of American-Islamic Relations: “CAIR condemns President Trump’s declaration of emergency powers to construct a border wall that is primarily motivated by an anti-immigrant ideology designed to ‘make America white again.’ Such a declaration is an abuse of executive authority and will immediately be challenged by in the courts and in Congress. Refugee asylum seekers, unaccompanied children or undocumented immigrants seeking work or to reunite with their families do not constitute a ‘national emergency.’ There is no invasion, only the manufactured rhetoric of a racist President who failed to get what he wanted.”

_______________________________________________________________________________

Duckworth opposes Supreme Court ruling on trans people serving in the military

The Supreme Court’s order Tuesday (Jan. 22) allows Donald Trump’s discriminatory ban on transgender service members to take effect, but leaves open the ruling to further legal challenges.

Immediately after the ruling, Iraq war combat veteran and U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) released a blistering response:

“When I was bleeding to death in my Black Hawk helicopter on that dusty field in Iraq, I didn't care if the American troops risking their lives to help save me were gay, straight, transgender, black, white, male or female. All that mattered was they didn't leave me behind. If you are willing to risk your life for our country and you can do the job, you should be able to serve—no matter your gender identity or sexual orientation.

SEN. TAMMY DUCKWORTH

“Today’s decision is disheartening not only because it will help the Trump Administration discriminate against an ever-shrinking portion of our population who are willing to serve in uniform, but also because it enables the Administration to further disrupt to our military and weaken our national security," said Duckworth.

Duckworth, a Purple Heart recipient and former Assistant Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, was among the first Army women to fly combat missions during Operation Iraqi Freedom. She was shot down on a mission and lost her legs and partial use of her right arm.

The court's ruling will probably not be the final say on the policy. The justices took no stance on the legality of the ban, but their action clears the way for the policy to take effect while lower courts hear additional arguments.

“I hope the Court takes up this case and loudly and clearly tells the Administration that this sort of discrimination has no place in our military, and I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in Congress will send the same message and show our servicemembers that we have their backs,” said Duckworth.

The 5-4 decision was an ideological split, with the conservatives forming the majority.
The four liberal justices objected to allowing the administration's policy banning most transgender people from serving in the military to go into effect.

The policy, first announced by Donald Trump in July 2017 via Twitter, and later officially released by then-Secretary of Defense James Mattis in 2018, blocks transgender  individuals from serving with limited exceptions. 

After the Supreme Court action, the Pentagon released a statement to clarify that its policy is not a ban on all transgender persons from the military.

"As always, we treat all transgender persons with respect and dignity. (The Department of Defense's) proposed policy is NOT a ban on service by transgender persons. It is critical that DoD be permitted to implement personnel policies that it determines are necessary to ensure the most lethal and combat effective fighting force in the world. DoD's proposed policy is based on professional military judgment and will ensure that the U.S. Armed Forces remain the most lethal and combat effective fighting force in the world," Lt. Col. Carla Gleason, a Pentagon spokesperson, told CNN.

There are currently about 15,500 transgender individuals serving in the military, according to a highly cited UCLA study.

______________________________________________________________________________

Senators seek to stem deportation of Southeast Asian refugees

Senators Kamala Harris, left, and Mazie Hirono.

SENATORS Mazie K. Hirono, D-Hawaii, and Kamala Harris, D-Calif., on Jan. 4 led a group of  senators in urging Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen to re-examine her department’s “arbitrary detention and deportation” of many long-term U.S. residents from Southeast Asia, including those who fled war and genocide.

Sen.Tammy Duckworth, D-Illinois, the third Asian American senator. was also among the 15 signers.

Hirono and Harris, both members of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, noted with particular concern that the Trump Administration’s targeting of Vietnamese refugees who arrived in the country prior to the re-establishment of diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Vietnam in 1995 violates a 2008 repatriation agreement between the two countries. The agreement provided legal protection for hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese refugees who fled to the U.S. following the Vietnam War.

“In Fiscal Year 2018, there was an increase in deportations of Southeast Asian immigrants with more than 350 Laotian, Cambodian, and Vietnamese immigrants who were ordered to be deported,” the senators wrote. “Those processed for deportation by the Trump Administration’s recent, aggressive deportation efforts include legal permanent residents who have lived in the United States for decades after fleeing violence and genocide in their home countries.

“We urge you to reexamine policies on the arbitrary detention and deportation of Southeast Asian immigrants who prove no threat to public safety, are interwoven into our communities, and support United States citizen families.”

Several leading justice and advocacy groups have spoken out against the administration’s actions, including the Southeast Asia Resource Action Center, Vietnamese Anti-Deportation Network, Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC), AAJC Atlanta, and AAJC Chicago. Hawaii is home to more than 140,000 foreign-born residents from Southeast Asia.

Also signing the letters were Democratic Sens. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., Cory Booker, D-N.J., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Jack Reed, D- R.I., Ed Markey, D-Mass), Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., Mark Warner, D-Va., and Tim Kaine, D-Va.

The full text of the letter follows:

“We write to express our deep concern about recent reports that the Trump Administration is pursuing the deportation of many long-term U.S. residents who emigrated from Southeast Asian countries, including lawful permanent residents from Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam.

“We are particularly troubled by the administration’s reported efforts to deport Vietnamese immigrants who arrived in the country before the re-establishment of diplomatic relations between the United States and Vietnam on July 12, 1995, in clear violation of the 2008 repatriation agreement between the countries.

“In Fiscal Year 2018, there was an increase in deportations of Southeast Asian immigrants with more than 350 Laotian, Cambodian, and Vietnamese immigrants who were ordered to be deported. Those processed for deportation by the Trump Administration’s recent, aggressive deportation efforts include legal permanent residents who have lived in the United States for decades after fleeing violence and genocide in their home countries.

“Upon arriving in the United States, many found themselves in struggling neighborhoods. While most made the best of their new circumstances, a small subset made mistakes and entered the criminal justice system. Some of these mistakes date back to when they were teenagers and young adults. They have served their time and have been out of the criminal justice system for decades.

“The detention and deportation of these lawful permanent residents effectively re-punishes them and ignores ways they may have transformed their lives to become productive community members, business owners, and loving parents supporting their families.

“As noted, the administration’s efforts to deport pre-July 1995 Vietnamese immigrants is particularly troubling. The United States and Vietnam entered into a repatriation agreement in 2008. The agreement takes into account the long and complex history between the two countries and provides a level of protection for the hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese immigrants who fled their home country to seek refuge in the United States in the aftermath of the Vietnam War.

“Many of those who fled were South Vietnamese citizens who had fought alongside or otherwise supported the United States during this conflict. Accordingly, the agreement makes clear that Vietnamese immigrants ‘are not subject to return to Vietnam under this Agreement if they arrived in the United States before July 12, 1995, the date of which diplomatic relations were re-established between the U.S. government and the Vietnamese government.’

“Recent reports suggest that the Trump Administration unilaterally interpreted the 2008 agreement in the spring of 2017 to enable it to deport certain Vietnamese refugees who arrived in the United States before July 1995 — despite the agreement’s clear terms. We understand that the Department of Homeland Security is again relying on this faulty interpretation to detain Vietnamese immigrants who arrived prior to July 1995 and process them for removal.

“It is troubling to see Southeast Asian families being targeted in this way. We urge you to re-examine policies on the arbitrary detention and deportation of Southeast Asian immigrants who prove no threat to public safety, are interwoven into our communities, and support United States citizen families. Your agency’s finite resources should not be wasted to tear families apart and deport individuals who have transformed their lives after serving their sentences.

“We further urge you to restore the protections provided by the 2008 U.S.-Vietnam repatriation agreement and stop the deportation of Vietnamese refugees who arrived in the country prior to July 12, 1995.”
________________________________________________________________________________

What's up, 2019?: Trump wants to deport public benefit recipients

INSTAGRAM / TAMMY DUCKWORTH

Illinois' Sen. Tammy Duckworth with her parents, depended on public assistance when they first arrived in the U.S.

FOR ILLINOIS Sen. Tammy Duckworth, this fight is personal. When she, her brother and father arrived in Hawaii in 1984, they had to seek government assistance.

"We showed up in Hawaii with like $300 to our name," Duckworth told CBS News. "If my family did not have access to food stamps, I would've dropped out of high school and I don't know where I would be today — but I would probably not be a United States senator."

“This proposal is as heartless as it is dangerous. My family teetered on the brink of homelessness when I was in high school and relied on food stamps to survive. My own mother is an immigrant—and if this proposal had been in place during those years, my family could’ve been forced to choose between her citizenship and going hungry," Duckworth continued in a statement.

EDITOR'S NOTE: What's Up, 2019: is part of series of posts about issues facing the AAPI community in the coming year.

“No family should have to face that choice. No one should have to decide between seeking urgently needed health care—or shelter, or food—and getting ripped away from their loved ones. This proposal isn’t just unfair. It’s cruel, unacceptable and un-American,” she said.

Duckworth's opposition to a proposed rule by the Trump administration that would prevent many low-income immigrants who use public benefits from obtaining U.S. residency is deeply rooted in her personal experience.

The Trump administration is now considering a rule change that would significantly expand the definition of a "public charge" and would make it more difficult for certain low-income immigrants to secure permanent residency or temporary visas.

“This is an issue because a lot of the immigrants when they first come here, they need a little bit of federal assistance in order to get their foot in America and build themselves up and so this policy proposal, if it passes, will affect 23 million immigrants who are looking to get a green car,.” said Thu Nguyen, senior communications associate at OCA-Asian Pacific American Advocates, one of about a dozen of non-profit organizations participating in the campaign, named OneNation,

In its war against immigrants -- especially low-income immigrants -- is not only directed against  undocumented immigrants. He wants strict enforcement of the law that would kick out immigrants who receive public assistance.

The "public charge" term is used by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to describe a person whom the government believes will rely on government welfare programs for subsistence. People who fall into this category are deemed inadmissible to the U.S. "on public charge grounds."

“The public charge, simply put, is a way to prevent immigrants from becoming legal permanent residents based on whether or not they use public support, even if temporarily,” said Dr. Tung Nguyen, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco and the former chair of the President's Advisory Commission on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders during the Obama administration.

My parents often would "sponsor" family members who wished to immigrate to the U.S. under the H-1B or student visa and there was a question that asked my parents to guarantee that the person they were sponsoring would not be a burden to the U.S. So I grew up with a steady stream of immigrants transitioning to the U.S. or waiting for school to start or a job to begin or just acculturating themselves to a new country. Thank goodness for a convertible couch.

Under current policy, immigration officers can deny green cards if, among other things, an applicant has used cash aid like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, also known as welfare, or Supplemental Security Income, which helps the elderly, blind and disabled who have little or no income.

But the Trump administration wants to expand who could be defined as a public charge — it wants to include past or current use of Medicaid, food stamps, Section 8 housing assistance, and a Medicare low-income subsidy for prescription drugs.

To be clear, immigrants will not be penalized for use of those safety net programs before the final rule is published, if it survives its legal challenges. Immigrants will be given 60 days after publication to drop programs they believe will affect their immigration case, according to the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, a national nonprofit legal advocacy group.

Trump administration officials say the proposal is just enforcing a rule that was already in place.  The old rule was aimed at promoting what they call “self-sufficiency” for those admitted into the U.S.

“Self-sufficiency has long been a basic principle of the United States immigration law,” the proposal says.

Kirstjen Nielsen, DHS secretary, told NBC News recently that the rule would “promote immigrant self-sufficiency and protect finite resources by ensuring that they are not likely to become burdens on American taxpayers.”

THE CHILDREN'S PARTNERSHIP

"The proposed public charge regulations pose a cruel choice for families who now have to balance keeping their families together with seeking medical care, putting food on the table, or keeping a roof over their heads," said Doreena Wong, Health Access Project Director at Advancing Justice-LA. "We know there's a lot of fear, but we urge everyone to stay enrolled in any public benefit program you need to keep your family healthy."

Annually, about 40% of green card holders are from Asian and Pacific Island nations, and family sponsorship accounts for most of them. Many community members have heard about the proposed changes, which have caused much confusion, anxiety, and fear. Already, the proposed regulation has cast a "chilling effect" on the community.

"Seventy-seven percent of our patients are on Medi-Cal, 62% are Asian, and they're primarily low-income," said Penny Chen, member and Community Service Manager at Asian Pacific Health Care Ventures. "Many of our patients are scared and confused because of the proposed public charge rule. Even patients who are green card holders do not want to apply for Medi-Cal. These proposed rules will only make our broken health care system worse."

"Even before the proposed public charge rules were posted, many members of our South Asian clients were not applying for public benefits in fear that it would adversely affect their immigration status," said Shikha Bhatnagar, executive director of South Asian Network. "Even mothers are refusing to get food stamps for their U.S. citizen children because they are so frightened."

Sherry Hirota, CEO of California-based Asian Health Services, called the proposed regulation both “unfair” and “un-American.”

“This country is built on immigrants, and that to deny immigrants — legal immigrants, tax-paying immigrants — the ability to access services when they need it, even in a small amount, is really something that will be detrimental to our country,” Hirota said.

________________________________________________________________________________

Trump signs bill awarding Congressional medals to Chinese American WWII veterans

A Chinese American unit marched during a WWII-era Veterans Day Parade.

ASAM NEWS

DUE TO THE overwhelming support of veterans and members of Congress, Donald Trump has officially signed the Chinese American World War II Veteran Congressional Gold Medal Act. The Act will make it possible for over 20,000 World War II Chinese American Veterans to receive the Congressional Gold Medal. 

The medal is considered one of the highest civilian honors. Senators Mazie Hirono, D-HI, and Tammy Duckworth, D-IL, along with Representatives Ed Royce,R-CA) and Ted Lieu, D-CA, introduced the bill which both the Senate and the House unanimously passed.

According to NBC News, the House passed the bill three days after the 75th anniversary of the Magnuson Act, which repealed the Chinese Exclusion Act. Despite facing discrimination and economic hardship, Chinese Americans prospered and built a life for themselves, believing in the American Dream. Over 20,000 Chinese American men and women enlisted into the military during the war to serve their country.

“The United States remains forever indebted to the bravery and sacrifice that the Chinese American veterans of World War II displayed,” said Royce in a statement.

“From the Flying Tigers, to their service in the Pacific and across Europe—these heroes answered the call of duty when our nation needed them the most and are worthy of recognition,” he said.

“The president’s signature on this bill reaffirms this administration’s recognition of the contributions minorities make in protecting our nation,” the Department of Education said in a statement. The Gold Medal dedicated to Chinese American WWII veterans will be displayed in The Smithsonian Institute. They are also hoping to display the medal at other locations as well.

The bill collectively awards a Congressional Gold Medal to Chinese-American Veterans of World War II, which includes individuals of Chinese ancestry who served honorably in active duty at any time during the period Dec. 7, 1941, and ending Dec. 31, 1946 under the command of the U.S. Armed Forces.

“This month, as the nation reflects on the 75th Anniversary of the Magnuson Act, which ended 61 years of discrimination towards Chinese Americans, it is poignant and bittersweet, said Davace Chin, National President of Chinese American Citizens Alliance. "Tens of thousands of Chinese American men and women enlisted at a difficult juncture in American history, when the Chinese Exclusion Act was still in effect. We are grateful and appreciative for Congress’s recognition of service and sacrifice made by Chinese American veterans."

Views From the Edge contributed to this report.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Chinese American WWII veterans await Trump's signature for medals

Chinese American soldiers march in Boston's Veterans Day Parade during World War II.

ALL THE BILL needs to honor Chinese American WWII veterans is Donald Trump's signature.

The U.S. House of Representatives unanimously passed S. 1050, the Chinese American World War II Veterans Congressional Gold Medal Act last Wednesday. 

This bipartisan legislation – led by Senators Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) and Mazie Hirono (D-HI) and Congressmen Ed Royce (R-CA) and Ted Lieu (D-CA) – will recognize the unheralded contributions made by more than 18,000 Chinese American World War II veterans and award them with the Congressional Gold Medal. 

“Despite facing outright discrimination, more than 18,000 brave Chinese Americans volunteered to risk their lives to protect their fellow Americans during World War II. I’m proud my colleagues from both sides of the aisle have chosen to recognize this brave group of Veterans’ unwavering commitment and honor them with a Congressional Gold Medal,” said Duckworth.

The bill unanimously passed the Senate earlier this year and now awaits the President’s signature. 

Chinese American veterans are the latest group of Asian American veterans to receive the long-delayed recognition. Japanese Americans who fought in the famed 442nd Regiement were the first to be honored fofllowed last year by Filipino American WWII veterans.

"Like other minority service members, their contributions were not appropriately recognized during or immediately after World War II," said Hirono.

In fact, the Chinese are the only U.S. minority group that has not been recognized for their service. Native Americans and Navajo Code Talkers; Tuskegee Airman; Montford Point Marines; Women Air Force Service Pilots; have all been recognized for their service during World War II with Congressional Gold Medals along with the Japanese American and Filipino American vets.

"By proudly serving their country, even in the face of the shameful Chinese Exclusion Act, Chinese American veterans exemplified patriotism and demonstrated a deep commitment to the United States," said Lieu.
______________________________________________________________________________

How the 3 AAPI senators voted on Kava-NO!

United States Senators Tammy Duckworth, Kamala Harris and Mazie Hirono.

THE THREE U.S. Senators of Asian American and Pacific Islander descent are all Democrats, all are women, all are disappointed and all are angry. 

Not surprisingly, they voted 'No!" But the GOP-controlled Senate voted 50-48 Saturday (Oct. 6) to send  Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

Senators Kamala Harris and Mazie Hirono were on the Senate Judiciary Committee who interviewed Brett Kavanaugh for the 9th seat on the Supreme Court. They heard and questioned Dr. Christine Blasey Ford who accused Kavanaugh of attempted rape when they were both in high school Harris and Hirono questioned Kavanaugh on the alleged assault, during which it was discovered that the nominee often engaged in heavy drinking. His excessive drinking and inebriation was confirmed by former classmates.

Democrats called the FBI investigation of the sexual misconduct allegations said the White House limited was inadequate, interviewing only nine people in five days. Most notably, the principals, Ford and Kavanaugh were not interviewed.

Harris and Hirono were two of six senators interviewed by The Atlantic:

Kamala Harris of California connects the #MeToo Movement to the history of domestic violence:

"([Sexual assault" is an issue right now that is where the issue of domestic violence was about 30 years ago. There was a perception about domestic violence, that I hope we have gotten beyond, but there was a perception about domestic violence: oh, you know, what happens in the king's castle is the king's business. That's private business. That's not our business. But then we evolved as a society and we realized, no, if she's walking around with a black eye or a busted lip, that's everybody's business. She deserves to be safe and we must stand up for her. I believe this is an inflection moment on the issue of sexual assault, and I hope and I pray that this is a moment where everyone will agree—no one should silently suffer. Let’s talk about this…

"Judge Kavanaugh has made it very clear to the American public that he is biased, that he is receiving information and perceives it through the lens of a partisan and through the lens of the person he has been his entire career, which is a partisan operative. And there were moments, perhaps, during his initial testimony, where he may have distracted us from that part of his history, where he talked, you know, in a calm voice about certain things. He certainly knows case law and talked about it. But when the issues got hot, when it became about fundamental issues, the veneer was stripped away, and Brett Kavanaugh showed us who he really is."

Mazie Hirono of Hawaii says Kavanaugh does not understand indigenous law:

"Judge Kavanaugh, separately, in addiction to working on this amicus brief, wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, quote, “Are Hawaiians Indians?,” end quote, that made false and offensive arguments. In his op-ed, and amicus brief, Judge Kavanaugh relied on incorrect facts and misstatements, ignoring obvious truths that contradict his position. He relied on these incorrect facts in order to reach his political conclusion that native Hawaiians and, arguably, other indigenous communities who do not fit his limited view of tribal structure are not afforded any special protections by the constitution. He called OHA’s voting structure into question under the 14th Amendment calling it, quote, 'naked racial spoils system,' end quote. In describing the native Hawaiian community, he went out of his way to ignore their history. He cobbled together blatant falsehoods and called into question their status as an indigenous people. His op-ed argued that native Hawaiians were not entitled to the constitutional protections given to indigenous Americans because, as he put it, quote, 'they don't have their own government, they don't have their own system of laws, they don't have their own elected leaders, they don't live on reservations or in territorial enclaves. They don’t even live together in Hawaii,' end quote. 

"Judge Kavanaugh is saying that native groups in the US derive their rights from having been herded onto reservations and cheated out of their land. and that they surrender their rights when they move outside of these artificial official boundaries. It is not only factually wrong but deeply offensive."

Brett Kavanaugh was sworn in Saturday night as Supreme Court Justice by retired Justice Kennnedy.

Tammy Duckworth of Illinois goes through stages of grief: heartbroken, horrified, furious and determined.

Tammy Duckworth, D-Illinois is not on the Judiciary Committee but she still had plenty to say:



In her speech on the Senate floor before the final vote, she expressed her sentiments:

By the time Dr. Ford was done sharing her story last Thursday afternoon, I was heartbroken.

Then, by the time Judge Kavanaugh was done speaking just a few hours later, I was horrified

Dr. Ford spent her time talking about the laughter she still hears ringing in her ears from that night: the night that an older, stronger, drunker boy forced her to learn what it was like to feel helpless.

Her voice quivered. But she herself never wavered. Steadfast in the truth—in the memory of those few moments that changed her life forever.

Judge Kavanaugh, meanwhile, spent his time interrupting and attacking the committee members. Shouting over Senators and dressing them down—appearing belligerent and outraged that anyone would dare keep him from getting what he feels entitled to.

As though he—or anyone—is entitled to a seat on the United States Supreme Court.

Time after time, he made brazenly political statements that should disqualify any candidate from serving as a federal judge.

Over and over again, he told what appeared to be blatant lies, despite being under oath.

He seems to have lied about the meaning of his yearbook page. About when he learned of some of the recent accusations. About what he knew at age 53 and what he did at age 17.

Sadly, this was hardly even surprising:

Kavanaugh has a habit of appearing to lie under oath—as we know from when he was questioned about his role in the Bush Administration’s torture policy back in 2006.

This consistent dishonesty—this disregard, even distaste for the truth—should be unacceptable in any judicial nominee. Let alone one nominated to serve on the highest court in the land.

And let’s be clear: How Republicans went about restricting the FBI investigation this past week was questionable at best, sabotage at worst.

But the reality is that that suspiciously limited background check wasn’t even necessary to prove that he’s unfit.

It was his inappropriate public outbursts and his lack of candor that are so deeply troubling—that should be so obviously disqualifying.

This has nothing to do with his conservative beliefs.

This has to do with the fact that the belligerent partisan operative who revealed himself last week is wholly unsuited for a job that demands level-headed temperament.

And it’s not just me saying that—it’s a sentiment that some of Kavanaugh’s own former law clerks have expressed in the wake of his hostile outbursts.

No one is entitled to a Supreme Court seat.

Not even someone who went to Yale College or Law School, as he reminded us one, two, three, four times last Thursday.

And in this “Me Too” moment we’re living through, we need to recognize the bravery it took for these women—Dr. Ford, but also Deborah Ramirez—to speak out. Not deride them and shame them, like some on the other side of the aisle—and even the President—are doing.

The other night Trump stood in the middle of a political rally in Mississippi and told joke after joke about Dr. Ford and the worst moment of her life.

Mocking a survivor. Making fun of her trauma. Riling up thousands of people to laugh at her just like she says Brett Kavanaugh did in that bedroom that night.

That makes me sick. That makes me furious.

Donald Trump may sit in the Oval Office, but it’s obvious he cannot live up to the even the minimal standards of what we should expect of any President.

He doesn’t even understand or care how cruel it is to try to bully a survivor back into the shadows.

You know, I have two daughters. The younger, Maile, was just born in April. The older, Abigail, is nearly four now.

Her drawings line the walls of my Senate office. Her smile is the first thing I see in the morning.

Well, I just can’t stop thinking about how Dr. Ford was also once that age.

She too probably had her hair brushed then braided by her mother.

She too probably loved that too-big set of Crayola crayons and proudly brought her mom drawing after drawing.

I can’t stop thinking about how that little girl, just a decade later, found herself cornered and alone and scared. Outnumbered and overpowered and terrified. Hearing that boy’s laughter that she’d remember all these years later.

I’m voting against Brett Kavanaugh because I believe Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.

Because I believe Deborah Ramirez.

Because we need a nominee who won’t cover up, abet and lie about torture.

But also because I know the American people deserve a fair-minded Supreme Court justice who actually cares about honesty and the truth.

That’s the bare minimum we should expect from a nominee to the Supreme Court, and Brett Kavanaugh can’t even clear that hurdle.

_____________________________________________________________________________