Shouldn't a Supreme Court nominee receive at least as much scrutiny over allegations of possible criminal conduct as immigrants seeking US residency or citizenship do? How about some "Extreme Vetting" for Judge Kavanaugh?

Update: September 29 at 7:00 om

The latest news reports indicate that the White House has ordered such severe limits on the FBI investigation into sexual misconduct allegations against Kavanaugh as to render the entire process nothing but a fraud and a sham. See Washington Monthly, ,September 29:

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2018/09/29/the-white-house-is-running-a-sham-investigation-to-shield-kavanaugh/


















As the Senate Judiciary Committee, led by Charles Grassley (R-IA) a long time fierce opponent of legal immigration in the form of the H-1B visa, begins its questioning of D.C. Circuit Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh,) who has a record of hostility toward immigrants in dissenting opinions which I have referred to in a previous Immigration Daily comment) over allegations of possible criminal misconduct concerning claimed sexual assaults or molestation against various women, the Huffington Post points out that the questioning may be nothing more than a charade. See, September 26:

Democrats Worry They're Facing a Stacked Deck for Historic Senate Hearing

Each Senator is limited to five minutes of questions of a judge whose fitness to serve on the nation's highest court could determine the course of not only immigration (and even birthright citizenship!) law, but every aspect of American government society for a generation or more to come, There will be no witnesses permitted other than the accusers themselves, and no FBI or other outside investigation.

Moreover, the committee has already scheduled a confirmation vote for the following day, September 28, in effect prejudging the outcome of the hearing in Kavanaugh's favor

In contrast, every immigrant applying for permanent resident status or US citizenship has to answer the following question:

"Have you EVER committed a crime of any kind (even if you were not arrested, cited, charged with or tried or that crime)?"

Now imagine that a green card or citizenship applicant answers "no" to that question, but USCIS or a consular officer has information that the person may in fact have been involved in misconduct of some kind that is much less serious than what Judge Kavanaugh has been accused of . - say shoplifting, DUI, or possession of a small amount of drugs.

Can anyone conceive of that person's green card or citizenship application just sailing through with only a few minutes of questioning at most? It is more likely, especially in the light of the president's call for "extreme vetting" of all immigrants, that the background check could take months, or even years.

By way of anecdotal evidence only, a colleague of mine recently told me that in a citizenship application case for one of his clients with no criminal background or allegations whatsoever, the background check has taken three years (!) to date with no resolution so far.This may be an extreme case, but long delays in even the most routine background checks are becoming the rule rather than the exception. For just one example, see the New York Times: (April 29, 2017)

https:///www.nytimes.com/2017/04/29/us/united-states-citizenship-and-immigration-services-military-screening.html

Given the critically high stakes for the future of not only immigration, but so many other issues of great concern for the American people, wouldn't some "extreme vetting" be appropriate,not only for immigrants, but for Judge Brett Kavanaugh too?

Roger Algase
Attorney at Law

In view of what is at stake for the entire nation in the Kavanaugh nomination, should he not be receiving at least the same scrutiny that any ordinary immigrant would receive?

Roger Algase
Attorney at Law