A 1-year-old baby appeared in immigration court without legal representation this week in Arizona and received an instruction: File an asylum application before the next hearing or face deportation.
An attorney from the U.S. Committee for Refugees, one of the groups with a new contract to represent migrant children, was silent as it happened, according to filings Thursday in the legal dispute between a network of nonprofits and the Trump administration.
“The USCRI attorney did not speak up—let alone suggest that it is facially absurd to ask an unrepresented baby to do anything—despite knowing the baby would be ordered deported if unable to file the complicated application by the next hearing,” one filing says.
The baby is one of the unaccompanied migrant children who have had to represent themselves in immigration court since July 31, when a contract between the federal government and a network of nonprofits that provided legal services ended, the groups say in the court filings.
[...]
The end of the contract with the Acacia Center for Justice, which distributed the government funds to nearly 100 legal providers representing more than 24,000 kids, has led to confusion, the groups say. Minors are showing up unrepresented, despite two new contracts the Department of Health and Human Services awarded to the USCRI for $20 million and Our Rescue, an anti-human-trafficking organization, for $158 million.
[...]
In court declarations, attorneys and leaders of the nonprofits that previously were contracted to represent children say they’ve witnessed USCRI attorneys remain mum during immigrant children’s court proceedings.
[...]
In another instance on Aug. 6, an unaccompanied minor without legal representation in a California court requested to voluntarily leave the country while the USCRI attorney present didn’t say anything, according to a declaration from Cristel Stefany Martinez, managing director of California immigration law firm MNM Law Offices.
This is a principle law in the Netherlands: the law of reasonability and fairness/equity. It states that there is an expectation that people and companies treat each other with honesty and...
This is a principle law in the Netherlands: the law of reasonability and fairness/equity.
It states that there is an expectation that people and companies treat each other with honesty and fairness, and for the sake of being reasonable it is possible to set aside rules and laws. This example would've been thrown out based on that principle alone. You cannot reasonably expect a baby to file for asylum.
This principle prevents the "law is just because justice is the law" type of rulings.
Does the US not have an equivalent? I'm aware of the political capture of the supreme court so I suppose even if you would challenge this ruling there's no guarantee it would go the other way. But still, nothing of the sort that's able to throw out clearly unreasonable rulings?
I'm sure the US has laws saying you need to be 18 to do a bunch of legal stuff, but I'm sure they declared this is different because it's an entirely new kind of court that doesn't use the...
I'm sure the US has laws saying you need to be 18 to do a bunch of legal stuff, but I'm sure they declared this is different because it's an entirely new kind of court that doesn't use the criminal or civil rules.
An equivalent in concept? Not that I’m aware of (perhaps an attorney could chime in or correct me). That said, American judges tend to have a very broad authority, so they can exercise...
An equivalent in concept? Not that I’m aware of (perhaps an attorney could chime in or correct me). That said, American judges tend to have a very broad authority, so they can exercise reasonableness to some degree.
Clearly, this result is absurd and unjust. But maybe the judge knew that? Maybe it's their way of calling attention to the injustice of the system? That's pure speculation about the motives of a...
Clearly, this result is absurd and unjust. But maybe the judge knew that? Maybe it's their way of calling attention to the injustice of the system?
That's pure speculation about the motives of a perfect stranger and I don't consider it particularly likely that I guessed right. But you're doing the same. We all speculate sometimes, but we shouldn't be confident that our speculations are correct. "Must certainly be" seems a bit much?
We shouldn't judge people without an investigation, and it's unreasonable and no fun to expect readers to investigate most of what we read in the news. I think that usually means saying "that sounds terrible" and moving on.
Consider this today's daily reminder that immigration judges are executive branch employees, not Article III judges. (Or as I've heard one immigration lawyer put it: immigration court is just...
Consider this today's daily reminder that immigration judges are executive branch employees, not Article III judges. (Or as I've heard one immigration lawyer put it: immigration court is just traffic court but with life and death consequences.)
To be more generous than @gryfft's read (albeit perhaps less generous than yours, @skybrian), the Board of Immigration Appeals comprises almost exclusively Trump appointees (the Biden appointees having been purged), so terrible rulings like these are permitted and championed, and when immigration judges try to resist, they are often fired. (For another example of unjust policy, see the BIA's ruling on mandatory detention.) More likely, the judge either supports this administration's immigration objectives or feels obligated to rule as if they do, lest they lose their job.
From the article:
[...]
[...]
[...]
Christ, what an asshole.
Person who literally has the authority to declare something unconscionably stupid and malign chooses the direct opposite.
Edit: Maybe the judge is a really nice guy.
This is a principle law in the Netherlands: the law of reasonability and fairness/equity.
It states that there is an expectation that people and companies treat each other with honesty and fairness, and for the sake of being reasonable it is possible to set aside rules and laws. This example would've been thrown out based on that principle alone. You cannot reasonably expect a baby to file for asylum.
This principle prevents the "law is just because justice is the law" type of rulings.
Does the US not have an equivalent? I'm aware of the political capture of the supreme court so I suppose even if you would challenge this ruling there's no guarantee it would go the other way. But still, nothing of the sort that's able to throw out clearly unreasonable rulings?
I'm sure the US has laws saying you need to be 18 to do a bunch of legal stuff, but I'm sure they declared this is different because it's an entirely new kind of court that doesn't use the criminal or civil rules.
Bingo. Here's a John Oliver video about it
An equivalent in concept? Not that I’m aware of (perhaps an attorney could chime in or correct me). That said, American judges tend to have a very broad authority, so they can exercise reasonableness to some degree.
Clearly, this result is absurd and unjust. But maybe the judge knew that? Maybe it's their way of calling attention to the injustice of the system?
That's pure speculation about the motives of a perfect stranger and I don't consider it particularly likely that I guessed right. But you're doing the same. We all speculate sometimes, but we shouldn't be confident that our speculations are correct. "Must certainly be" seems a bit much?
We shouldn't judge people without an investigation, and it's unreasonable and no fun to expect readers to investigate most of what we read in the news. I think that usually means saying "that sounds terrible" and moving on.
Consider this today's daily reminder that immigration judges are executive branch employees, not Article III judges. (Or as I've heard one immigration lawyer put it: immigration court is just traffic court but with life and death consequences.)
To be more generous than @gryfft's read (albeit perhaps less generous than yours, @skybrian), the Board of Immigration Appeals comprises almost exclusively Trump appointees (the Biden appointees having been purged), so terrible rulings like these are permitted and championed, and when immigration judges try to resist, they are often fired. (For another example of unjust policy, see the BIA's ruling on mandatory detention.) More likely, the judge either supports this administration's immigration objectives or feels obligated to rule as if they do, lest they lose their job.
That scenario seems pretty plausible too.
Thank you for your kind guidance.
That sounds terrible. I'll move on.