Because You’re Supposed To Just Take Their Word For It
Friday, August 31st, 2007Well, that was anti-climatic.
The hearing was entertaining. Inconclusive, but entertaining. Why? Because 1) the Department of Homeland Security has fielded just about the most incompetent attorney I have ever seen, and 2) the Department of Homeland Security, we suspect, never did actually finish the “name check” that Judge Miller ordered them to.
That’s what had been holding up Zuhair Mahd’s citizenship application, see. DHS was apparently sitting on this oh-so-important name-check. So Zuhair took the federal government to court over it. And won. And then got his citizenship denied because… let’s see if I can remember exactly how Zuhair put it over lunch today… “It was essentially 5 pages of B.S.,” he said, “but the phrase that sticks in my mind is… ‘Attachment to the U.S. government.’” See, if you wanna be a citizen of the U.S.A., you’re supposed to prove that you’ve have ‘attachment,’ i.e. loyalty, to the values and ideals of the country. Which is perfectly reasonable–except for the part where Immigration & Naturalization Services conflates “attachment to the values of the county” with loyalty to the government.
Look, none of us are supposed to have perfect loyalty to the government. The government process, sure. But the government itself? We show disloyalty to the government every time we vote for a challenging candidate for a position (something which Mr. Bush actually had a problem with–how dare the Democrats field a challenger for the office of President during a war?). Or, as Zuhair did, every time we tell the people in office, “Hell with you, you can’t do anything you want, you are just as answerable to the law as anyone else!”
So, yes. By taking the U.S. government to court and upholding the U.S. ideal of rule of law rather than divine right of kings, Zuhair–who “ate, drank, slept, and woke up” U.S. law so that he could prosecute his case according to the system of government implemented in this country according to historical ideals of justice and equality–demonstrated that he was not sufficiently “attached” to the government of the country he seeks citizenship in.
I gave you an earful on how I feel about that earlier this morning.
Moving on to today’s hearing (click link for the Denver Post’s coverage of it, which has more accurate quotes than mine) and why it was anticlimactic:
I rode up in the elevator, as it turns out, with one of the DHS lawyers. He was very nice. I had just been to two other courthouses in Denver–there are three of them on the corner of 19th and Champa, whiskey-foxtrot-tango-over?!–and now I was late. So was he. And because my bookbag has more than the usual complement of electronics, and he was behind me in the security line, he was late too. But he very kindly helped my find the right courtroom, and we got in just as another attorney for the DHS, one not nearly so nice, was taking the stand.
I said she was really incompetent, and she was. She was easily discombobulated, and worse, she kept interrupting the freakin’ judge. Zuhair tells me that she’s like that all the time–every time he has to talk to her, she won’t let him finish a single sentence. The judge wasn’t down with that. “Look, this is very basic,” he told her. “I’m the judge. When I talk, you listen.” I didn’t catch her name. I’m going to call her Attorney Happy Apple. I have my reasons. And the reason Attorney Happy Apple was so damn discombobulated and rude was, the judge kept asking for proof that his order had been complied with, and she kept saying he didn’t need proof. The very fact that Zuhair’s application was denied was all the proof we should need that the DHS completed the required name check. Because the citizenship application could not, could not, could not have been decided without the name check being completed.
This went over with Judge Miller about how you’d expect. So this process, he says, is very very important, totally required for every single applicant for citizenship… and there’s no documentation for it?
Well, no, not saying that, says Happy Apple, in fact the information that the name check was completed was in fact forwarded to me–
Judge Miller’s all like, Well, how do I know it’s been forwarded to you? “Take my word for it,” is that what you’re asking me to do?
At this point Happy Apple tries to tell Judge Miller that, with all due respect, he has not the jurisdiction to see this documentation or to decide on Mr. Mahd’s citizenship. And Judge Miller lays the smack-down on her for it: “I think I have jurisdiction over whether my orders have been followed,” he says. (This is totally true. There is a law. Zuhair could tell you the exact title number, because he’s been studying this what with acting as his own lawyer, and in fact he rattled it off to us over lunch.)
Judge Miller returned to this theme quite a few times throughout the proceedings, because Attorney Happy Apple kept trying to tell him otherwise. And I totally *heart* Judge Miller for being fair, methodical, and an absolute sarcastic bastard where sarcastic bastardy was deserved: “I’m supposed to trust that the name check was done, because somebody told you it was done… That’s called hearsay, isn’t it?” Priceless. He was obviously also sympathetic to Zuhair’s case, informedly sympathetic, because, dude, INS and DHS have been screwing him over. Justice isn’t just about seeing both sides; sometimes it’s about calling B.S. on one side’s story. When he said to the attorney, point blank, “This man has rights; I’m not just going to rely on what you tell me,” I damn near applauded.
The best bit? Here’s the best bit. Judge Miller told the Happy Apple that, and I quote, “I’m not going to quibble with you anymore. I need proof that you have complied with my orders…. You have until September 14 to do so,” that is, to enter said proof into the record. “It is not acceptable that you’re telling me that you won’t tell me whether the name check was done.”
OK, says Happy Apple, but can I get that in writing?
Judge Miller gives her a look.
Well, says Happy Apple, you’re asking for documentation of a very delicate nature of great importance to national security. They’re not gonna show it to me without a written order.
OK, says Judge Miller, I’ll accommodate that. But can we take a moment to savor the irony of your request? That you require documentation of my order? After you’ve been arguing that I shouldn’t need documentation of that name check?
The entire courtroom erupted into giggles. Me, I erupted into bouncing-in-my-seat silently-applauding-wildly spasms. Because you can’t make this shtuff up.
“This is an open government, as far as I’m concerned,” said Judge Miller. “I have no objection to putting these proceedings in writing.”
And that’s it until September 14. Zuhair says he doubts there will be another hearing. It’s more likely that DHS will file the appropriate paperwork, or not, and if the judge isn’t satisfied that the name check has been done, he might simply give the order that Zuhair simply be naturalized without it.
But Zuhair did get to stand up and enter a couple statements after Happy Apple left the floor. First, he asked the judge to confirm that what was required was the actual results of the name check and not just some affidavit that it had been done. Second, he asked the record to show that the judge’s original order was that the name check be completed within 45 days, and those 45 days had indeed come and gone without proof (and indeed that Zuhair had submitted communication he had received that the name check had absolutely not been completed).
But before that, he had this to say. I’m gonna have to paraphrase it from memory, of course, but it went something like this:
“Your honor, I would just like to point out that there are many countries in which you cannot enter a courtroom if you are not a citizen, or you cannot enter a courtroom unless you are a lawyer, and I am neither, and yet here I am today. It is a credit to this nation that I can be here in this courtroom today, and I am thankful for the opportunity.”
May it so continue.