Immigrant Advocates Slam Texas Gov for Busing Migrants to NYC as Callous Political Ploy

On Friday, August 5, Governor Greg Abbott announced the arrival of the first group of migrants bused to New York City from Texas. The migrants are being dropped off this morning on a green bus at Port Authority Bus Terminal at Gate 14. In addition to Washington, D.C., New York City will now be a drop-off location for the busing strategy as part of the Governor's response to the Biden Administration's open border policies overwhelming Texas communities. "Because of President Biden's continued refusal to acknowledge the crisis caused by his open border policies, the State of Texas has had to take unprecedented action to keep our communities safe," said Governor Abbott. "In addition to Washington, D.C., New York City is the ideal destination for these migrants, who can receive the abundance of city services and housing that Mayor Eric Adams has boasted about within the sanctuary city. I hope he follows through on his promise of welcoming all migrants with open arms so that our overrun and overwhelmed border towns can find relief." In April 2022, Governor Abbott directed the Texas Division of Emergency Management to charter buses to transport over 5000 migrants from Texas to Washington, D.C. Many of the migrants have continued their journey to New York City. As a result, New York has seen an uptick of new asylum seekers who need shelter and other services in a few short months. As one of the few cities in America with the right to housing laws, New York City must provide emergency shelter for every unhoused person. Murad Awawdeh, Executive Director, New York Immigration Coalition: "Texas Governor Greg Abbott continues to prove he's a cold-hearted publicityseeking bigot, bent on bolstering his polling numbers no matter who pays the cost. In this case, it's vulnerable asylum seekers who have been dragged into his games of political retribution. His callousness has real consequences and hurts the individuals and families who have come to the United States fleeing persecution, violence, and climate disaster as they are lawfully entitled to do. This crisis is self-manufactured and puts vulnerable immigrant families in the crossfire. The New York Immigration Coalition will continue to work with NYS Governor Hochul, NYC Mayor Eric Adams, and the NYC City Council to ensure that everyone who makes their way to our city can transition and integrate successfully. Greg Abbott may not value the safety and well-being of newcomer immigrant families, but New York always has and always will be a welcoming city for all immigrants." Mayor Adam Press Secretary Fabien Levy said Abbott was using "human

Gov Abbott. Editorial credit: Carrington Tatum / Shutterstock.com beings as political pawns," calling it "a disgusting, and an embarrassing stain on the state of Texas." Levy said New York would continue to "welcome asylum seekers with open arms, as we always have, but we are asking for resources to help do so," calling for support from federal officials. Manuel Castro, Commissioner of the Mayor's Office of Immigrant Affairs, said, "Governor Greg Abbott is continuing to play with the lives of human beings. We think this is cruel, disgusting, and pure cowardice." Castro explained that some migrants were confused about arriving in the Big Apple and relief workers who met the buses said many had no idea they were coming to New York City. "I spoke to another family who thought they were coming to Maryland. And their paperwork from immigration says that they were going to these destinations, but they were lied to in Texas, and now they're being sent to New York City," Castro said. Meanwhile, the Border Network for Human Rights (BNHR), along with local immigrant and civil rights partners, held

continued on page 14

Judge Orders Redo for NYC Schools Budget After Cuts Challenged

BY REEMA AMIN, CHALKBEAT AND AMY ZIMMER, CHALKBEAT

AManhattan judge ruled Friday to throw out the New York City education department’s budget and allow the City Council and Mayor Eric Adams to reconsider how to fund schools this year. Judge Lyle Frank ruled in favor of two teachers and two parents who filed a lawsuit in Manhattan Supreme Court last month, claiming that the city violated state law when it approved the education department’s budget for this fiscal year. The extraordinary ruling means that until the City Council revisits the budget, New York City must fund the school system at the same levels it did last fiscal year, which could mean at least a temporary boost in funding for most city schools. As many advocates, educators and union leaders celebrated the ruling, the city filed a notice to appeal hours after the judge published his decision. “Obviously there are many, many court cases that have a huge impact on the city budget, but to implicate the process and require a redo or a do-over seems unprecedented,” said David Bloomfield, a professor of education, law, and public policy at Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center. Like several of his predecessors, schools Chancellor David Banks had used an “emergency declaration” to circumvent a vote on it by the Panel for Education Policy, a largely mayoral appointed board that approves spending and contracts. “What was most in question was whether the Emergency Declaration put forth by the Schools Chancellor on May 31 was a valid exercise of the Chancellor’s powers,” Frank wrote in his three-page decision. “The Court finds that it was not.” Though the lawsuit focused on the budget approval process, the push to take action was prompted by Adams’ $215 million cuts to schools, which he said were necessary because of declining enrollment. City Comptroller Brad Lander, who estimated the cuts were closer to $370 million, has said the city has enough stimulus funding leftover from last year to cover the cuts. City Council has also determined that the overall cut is closer to $365 million, based on data they received from the education department, according to new council analysis obtained by Chalkbeat. The education department budget last year was roughly $32 billion, about $1 billion greater than this year, largely propped up by federal stimulus dollars that are now drying up. The judge’s decision only affects the education department’s portion of the budget, and does not make recommendations on how much funding should have gone to schools this year. However, budget experts said altering the education department’s budget could result in changes to other parts of the city’s overall financial plan. Frank also said that his ruling should not prevent the allocation of additional funds from sources such as the federal government going to schools, nor should it prevent the implementation of the dyslexia program the education department is creating. (The education department had argued that funding for such programs would be held up because of the lawsuit.) “Students, teachers, and parents need finalized budgets to ensure they are on track for a smooth opening next month,” City Hall spokesperson Amaris Cockfield said in a statement. “We are disappointed in the judge’s ruling, and will be taking immediate steps to appeal.” Principals may find it helpful to receive a boost of funding now, as many may still be hiring and planning out classes. However, funding levels could potentially change again after city lawmakers reconsider the budget.

More School Aid Likely Adams had planned to phase in the cuts over two years, using some stimulus dollars to soften the blow, and argues that cuts are necessary now in order to avoid even sharper slashes if enrollment continues to fall. However, many educators and advocates have questioned the precision of the city’s enrollment projections, and have argued that schools still need all possible dollars as students continue to recover from the pandemic. The City Council overwhelmingly approved the budget in June, but many council members apologized for their vote after public outcry over the school cuts. It’s likely that the majority of council members will push to reverse the cuts. Forty-one of the city’s 51 council members have called on the mayor to use stimulus funding to restore the cuts. But it remains to be seen how much money they’ll push for or where those dollars will come from — given that the city is legally required to have a balanced budget. The ruling offered no timeline for when or how the city needs to redo the education budget. While the judge’s order said the city must return to expenses and “spending levels” from last fiscal year, there’s no specific language on how the city should do that. City officials, who are appealing, did not comment on how they would comply with the order. The city’s overall financial plan could suddenly be out of balance, said Andrew Rein, president of the fiscal watchdog, Citizens Budget Commission Additionally, depending on the city’s interpretation, officials could distribute funding the same way as they did last year. That would send increases to more than three-quarters of the city’s roughly 1,600 public schools and cuts for the rest, according to an analysis from Lander. Or the city could do something different, such as spend the same amount of money from last year but distributes it differently. “I don’t think the wording in the order is clear enough for us to understand that,” said Ana Champeny, vice president of research for the Citizens Budget commission. Many schools, in the meantime, have spent the summer excessing staff and cutting back certain programs as they dealt with smaller budgets. Nina Demos, principal of P.S. 503 in Brooklyn’s Sunset Park, said she would welcome more funding, but it’s late in the summer to drastically alter how she would spend money without more certainty. Her school saw 20% less funding for hiring staff and building classes, according to a Chalkbeat analysis. Demos may get money back in the winter because she’s already enrolled 40 more students than the city projected. Between declining enrollment and lack of funding for hiring new staff, she’s cut three classes from her school. For now, she’s put several clubs, such as dance, and after-school programs on hold until she’s sure she has the money to operate them. The news of the judge’s ruling and lack of clarity over what happens next, she said, means that “nothing is certain,” including whether her school might get more money before the school year starts in about a month. “Then you get a windfall of money, and it’s like, well how to spend it now?” she said. “You could get it in January when the spending deadline is March.”l

Parents and education advocates rally on Thursday, Aug. 4, in front of a Manhattan courthouse before a hearing on the lawsuit against NYC schools budget process.Reema Amin / Chalkbeat

This story was originally published by Chalkbeat, a nonprofit news organization covering public education. This story was published on August 5, 2022 by THE CITY.

Bond Hearings for Asylum Seekers Are Latest Casualty of the Recent Supreme Court Term

BY EMMA WINGER

For almost two decades, asylum seekers taken into Border Patrol custody who passed a “credible fear” interview have been eligible to seek release from detention on bond while they go through the asylum process. But now that right is gone. On July 29, a federal district court in Washington erased a key legal victory which had kept the Trump administration from eliminating those bond hearings. The order was the inevitable result of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, which limited the power of courts to order bond hearings in class action cases. For now, certain people who pass asylum screening interviews may be detained for months or even years without the opportunity to ask an immigration judge to release them during their asylum proceedings.

Padilla v. ICE is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of people who enter the United States between ports of entry, are put in a fast-tracked deportation process called expedited removal, and who pass an initial screening interview about their requests for asylum. In April 2019, the Trump administration tried to eliminate bond hearings for these asylum seekers in a decision by thenAttorney General William Barr called Matter of M-S. But in July 2019, right as the decision was to go into effect, the district court in Padilla issued a preliminary injunction ordering the government to provide class members with bond hearings as part of their constitutional right to due process. This order remained in effect until last Friday, July 29. But its fate was sealed in the Supreme Court’s Aleman Gonzalez decision. In Aleman Gonzalez, the Supreme Court held that lower courts cannot issue class-wide injunctions to force the government to act (or not act), with respect to the implementation of certain immigration laws—including the immigration detention statutes. Since the Padilla injunction was similar to the one that the Supreme Court ruled against in Aleman Gonzalez, it too could no longer be upheld. Thankfully, the Padilla case is not over. The district court still has to reconsider its original decision that class members have a constitutional due process right to a bond hearing, following the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, which limited due process rights for certain recent arrivals. The district court will also need to consider whether to issue declaratory relief—a statement of what the law requires, without a specific order instructing the government to do something—or other relief on the remaining legal claims. In the meantime, these asylum seekers are left without bond hearings. While they may try to pursue individual habeas petitions demanding a bond hearing, this still leaves many people at risk of lengthy detention. But the government could still act. Nothing prevents the Biden administration from protecting the due process rights of asylum seekers by releasing these people—all of whom have been screened and found to have a credible fear of persecution—on parole.l