According to the article the person that said that was then repeatedly asked if they really meant it and they said they did with reference to their prior utterance.
Later they back-pedaled on the statement (presumably because of the fall-out) but at the moment of the original statement they were very much aware of what they were saying and the context seems to be accurate.
And if I told that I have live edited mission critical production code on the server, and I mean it - there are two readings - 1) I am crazy 2) My company is so broken that it was inevitable.
After all - he was TEACHING them immigration law. With patience. I have no experience with USA legal system but teaching law does not seem like a item on a judge's jobs description list.
The shameful part was that said kids were brought before him.
There is literally no way for you to know that, because the facilities you would have needed to know it only grew in later. Your memory is not at all definitive here, because we make up memories to make things make sense, at this level.
I'll take a stab and say that at 3-4 years old I had a pretty decent idea that other people had a mind of their own. It wasn't so easily learned but oddly enough I picked it up around 3 that I knew my mind was wholly separated from my sister, mom, dad, and grand parents. I can't explain how I got the concept down I just did. A better way to explain it is that it's also when my memories become far more concrete was around 3 years old (about the time I got into Transformers and He-man. An odd way to place it but it was definitely when things got more like what they are now, before then it was a mushy blur of noise and color tbh.).
This is crazy - which is to say, if the quotes are reasonably accurate, I would literally doubt the sanity of the person who said them.
"I can teach a three-year-old immigration law sufficient to represent themselves in court" is about on the same level as "I can cure cancer by hopping on one foot and squinting real hard" or "the Earth is actually hollow and the inside is inhabited by escaped Nazis".
Should I continue with links? Because that last one really bums me out beyond belief. Fetzer seriously seems like a body that inherited the respect of an intellectual but deteriorated under the stress of an undiagnosed paranoid psychosis.
There was an elaborate flat earth society parody in Canada for a few decades. I saw an exhibit at the art gallery in my hometown. Maybe this is a continuation/something similar?
I'm sure the "immigration law" in question was either simple evidence standards ("there's a difference between things you saw, and things somebody told you about"), or rules about what qualifies for refugee status.
The thing is, if the court does appoint an attorney, the attorney will need to explain these same concepts to the child as part of preparing a defense.
> if the court does appoint an attorney, the attorney will need to explain these same concepts to the child as part of preparing a defense.
There are lightears of space between doing your best to see that someone who can't defend themselves in court has qualified representation (even if there are difficulties that the representative will face in conducting defense), and pitting the same person against an expert litigation team without a qualified advocate.
The former situation is a good faith effort to give the defendant a fair trial. The latter situation is a sham trial.
I've served on a jury in one criminal case, and watched the beginning of another case without being on the jury. One thing that stood out was how few objections ever included a reason, and the ones that did were usually described in one word: attorney: "objection," judge: "sustained"/attorney: "objection, speculation," judge: "overruled." It felt mechanical. Based on how quickly the judges ruled, it was obvious they knew what the objection would be before the attorneys opened their mouths. I would be OK if the judge were to accept responsibility of allowing only acceptable questions, especially since the judge decides what's acceptable. Please note, I have no idea if a judge can accept that responsibility in an immigration hearing; but if they could, I would be fine with it.
The obvious danger, in a criminal hearing, would be for the accused to say something that they weren't required to say, and that hurt their case. That is one obvious reason people have a right to an attorney. I don't know enough about immigration law to say whether that's a possibility. In a criminal case, you have a right to remain silent. You don't have that right in a civil case (you can punished for contempt, and the judge is allowed to assume the reason you want to remain silent is that the truth would hurt your case ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_Unite... )). I have no idea if you have the right to remain silent in an immigration hearing, but it wouldn't surprise me if the right is severely limited. If you have a right to remain silent in an immigration hearing, then it would be impossible to guarantee a fair hearing without providing an attorney.
I guess my point is, if you think that it's not possible to explain immigration law to children, then appointing a lawyer won't change that. If you think it's not possible to have a fair hearing without an attorney, I may agree with you, but I can imagine ways to a dress that.
To be honest, there are several things in the legal system that I don't think should be resolved through an adversarial process. Immigration hearings are a good example.
Well, but that's part of the issue, isn't it? The whole point of a trial is that, at least in theory, the two sides of the scale are balanced. If you remove the balance aspect, then you remove the purpose of having a trial in the first place.
I would say that these unbalanced trials are pretending toward fairness, fairness theater. If your primary concern is the cost of these proceedings, then don't argue for taking away only one of the costly, yet crucial, aspects of the trial [taxpayers already pay for the judges and the state's attorneys (both of whom are likely making much more than state appointed defense attorneys would be), so refusing to pay for defendant's attorneys doesn't save a heck of a lot of cost]. Rather get rid of the unfair trial altogether and make the thing an administrative proceeding. If you think a fair trial is justified, then you've got to provide qualified representation for those who can't come up with it themselves. That's just the minimum bar for fairness in an adversarial trial. Meet it, or get rid of the trial altogether.
I don't have enough information to really have a strong opinion on whether these situations should be handled administratively or whether the state should provide attorneys. However, it does seem that the current solution is on the order of the most expensive possible solutions without managing to meet a minimum bar for fairness. It's a worst of both worlds compromise.
The only way I could see that statement as making some kind of sense is that the children were rote-learning the correct answers to the judge's questions. But then you could ask who is supposed to teach the child the answers and why that person couldn't simply act as its defense attorney in the first place.
Even if you accept the insanity, I don't see how some persons being able to defend themselves (the children who miraculously learned immigration law) implies that all persons are able to, and therefore aid is never needed. This seems like a basic logical fallacy to me.
Why? The argument is about giving them (taxpayer funded) court appointed lawyers. The worst that can happen here is that someone gets a lawyer. Meh.
Sure, misrepresentation of age might be a problem as far as deportation etc are concerned, but that's completely orthogonal to what's being discussed here.
(Now deleted parent post (that Manishearth replies to) claimed large numbers of adults lie about their age and claim to be children in order to get advantageous treatment.
> We have a flood of unaccompanied 9 years old with beards.
It's a bit more complicated than that.
Many children, (genuinely children, under 16) declare themselves to be adults. They do this because if they are identified as children they are taken to camps.
> The youthfulness of the faces is striking. Many fled Eritrea to avoid being conscripted into indefinite military service, but none will admit to being under 18 for fear the authorities will place them in a centre for unaccompanied migrant children, dashing their hopes of reaching northern Europe.
> The EU’s Dublin Regulation means that once fingerprinted in Italy, they would have to remain in the country while their asylum claims are being processed or risk being returned there. Countries in northern Europe, however, may hold better job potential, better asylum odds or even the chance of being reunited with family members.
The camps are not pleasant. There is considerable abuse that happens in the detention centres.
No, children are still lying about their age to avoid being detained in camps.
I'm not trying to suggest that there aren't any adults also lying about their age, but it's a bit more complicated than you suggest, and it's not true to suggest that child migrants get an easy ride. They do not.
With all due respect, I don't see how that argument made sense even before. Yes, court has to follow due process, but that doesn't mean you can throw your brain out. Call an expert witness and have the age determined, if you must.
In murder cases, courts are expected to find out whether a killing was intentional or not and, if it was, whether the reasons were justifiable (self-defense). How can this be no problem, yet disproving the claim of a bulky, bearded man that he is 9 years old is impossible?
Just checking: Is the judge saying that you should listen to the views of children, even very young children, during court cases about those children? (Because that seems reasonable, so long as those children also have full and proper representation from skilled qualified legal professionals).
Or is the judge actually saying that the children don't need lawyers?
The latter. He's saying that the American taxpayer should not pay for lawyers for immigrant children, and he goes as far as to say that he personally trained 3 and 4 year old children in immigration law to a point where they could defend themselves in court.
Since I am not a lawyer, could someone please explain (given the subject, perhaps, "Explain like I am five") how this bit from the article:
"Unlike in felony criminal cases in federal court, children charged with violating immigration laws have no right to appointed counsel, even though the government is represented by Department of Homeland Security attorneys."
is allowed when we have this (from a Wikipedia entry)?
"The Sixth Amendment (Amendment VI) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions. The Supreme Court has applied the protections of this amendment to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
That isn't true. The sixth amendment relates to criminal law and not civil proceedings. The Constitution applies to everyone in the United States. Plenty of cases of illegal aliens have been thrown out due to Miranda violations, etc but a deportation hearing is civil.
Deportation hearings aren't to determine the legality of your presence (That's already been established, hence the hearing to decide whether you should be deported). So the "criminal" part is already decided, deportation hearings are administrative and AFAIK court appointed representation is not required for administrative hearings
Deportation isn't a punishment for entering the country illegally. Deportation is the administrative removal of a person who doesn't have a right to be here.
An analogous example is trespass. A landowner can call the police to kick you off his property. That's not a criminal proceeding. But then the state might then prosecute you for criminal trespass, punishing you by depriving you of liberty (jailing) or property (fines). That is a criminal proceeding.
Sure. GOV has no obligation to represent either side in a bit between private parties. The curve for me is that the children in question are on the other side of the "v." from United States.
I have to agree with that. Pitting a child (or most people, really) with no representation against the government in an immigration case is a judicial charade.
On the other hand, the legislative powers have recognized that SLAPP lawsuits are a problem - there are certain issues that need to be decided equitably in court even though the power (read money) differential between plaintiff and defendant is just to great. Patent trolling is probably a subset of SLAPP.
Following that reasoning it's fair, I think, that a minor in immigration proceedings should be appointed a lawyer by the government.
it seems like the judge who made these preposterous claims stands to lose budget if these children had the right to council? which they should, of course, have.
> Weil is not just any immigration official. As an assistant chief immigration judge in EOIR’s Office of the Chief Immigration Judge — which sets and oversees policies for the nation’s 58 immigration courts — he is responsible for coordinating the Justice Department’s training of immigration judges.
This was taken out of context, wè havé no idea what he meant.
The judge may dislike such a situation and compensate for it by trying to teach the children the law. He mentioned it's inefficient, perhaps in the context of an argument that it would be cheaper to pay for the children's legal representative than waste all that time teaching them the law.
Q. It must be true that there's some children that are so young that even if they receive the notice and even if they're given an explanation by the judge, they're still not going to understand what's going on right?
A. I have to do a case-by-case basis determination. I've taught immigration law literally to three year olds and four year olds. It takes a lot of time. It takes a lot of patience. They get it. It's not the most efficient, but it can be done.
Q. I understand that you think it can be done. Are you aware of any experts in child psychology or comparable experts who agree with the assessment that three and four year olds ca be taught immigration law
A. I haven't read any studies one way or another.
Q. What about like a one year old?
A. I mean, I think there's a point that there has to be communication. There has to be communication at some point.
Q. So what do you train judges as to cases in which communication is impossible because the child is too young?
A. What we train is if a respondent, child or adult, cannot perform functions necessary for the hearing to be fair, the judge should not proceed.
I read it as a judge going onion. The fact that he teaches them means that they do have need for council. The fact that it is inefficient is "look at the stupid shit I have to do, to be able to do my job"
I may be wrong of course. But after all if the system wanted to protect said 3 years old - they would not have gone to hearing anyway.
Btw - can't the kids get protection under cruel and unusual punishment?
> can't the kids get protection under cruel and unusual punishment?
It's possible to be declared a refugee if you can prove you'll be persecuted in your home country for any number of reasons (gender, religion, ethnic group, etc.). I have no idea how difficult it is to do that.
I don't see how refugee status would work if it were only extended to citizens. The basic idea is that you ask one country to protect you from another, and the country you want protection from is usually the one you have citizenship in ( https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum ):
"Refugees are generally people outside of their country who are unable or unwilling to return home because they fear serious harm. ...
"You may seek a referral for refugee status only from outside of the United States. ...
"Asylum status is a form of protection available to people who:
* Meet the definition of refugee
* Are already in the United States
* Are seeking admission at a port of entry
"You may apply for asylum in the United States regardless of your country of origin or your current immigration status."
I wasn't sure if it was a joke or a deep misunderstanding. Sadly, there are enough people who don't understand "cruel and unusual punishment" that I figured that was more likely.
Thank you. The article mentions both the DoJ and Weil claimed that the comments were taken out of context, and then the article made no effort to add any context.
Oh why did I read the comments section on that article.
Why is everyone so afraid of immigration? I don't see the downside. We need to grow our tax base to support all of our borrowing against future tax revenue. There are two ways to do that: have kids, or allow immigration.
I always hear the argument "they're taking our jobs", but that's not true, is it? As the economy gets larger because of the influx of people, more jobs become available.
Watching this year's Presidential election makes me think I'm really out of touch with reality, living in a large city. But maybe everyone else is wrong and I'm right...
And even if you're afraid of immigration, why is allowing everyone to have fair representation in court so unappealing? I thought the whole point of America is that everyone is equal and everyone has a chance. That includes non-citizens; our laws apply, so our guarantee of a right to a fair trial should also apply. That's what separates us from North Korea, right?
There are different kinds of immigrants. There are ones who immediately add to the economy, typically professionals, and there are the uneducated undereducated who have low skills no skills whose contribution can take much longer to realize.
Many countries want the highly skilled to immigrate, and conversely countries don't want them to emigrate (brain drain). No one country with low skills emigrants puts of a fuss to keep them, they are happy to let them go and they have no concern about lowering population or concern for potential tax base loss.
In the end the question is, do you want to regulate immigration or just let anyone and everyone in? There is no reason to have two tracks where the ones who want to go the legal way have to wait years while others can just go the alternate route with few consequences.
And, w/re Mexico, they also deport a good number of illegal immigrants into their country, so it's not like they think one way and the US an Europe and Japan and China etc. think another way.
It means the minimum wage hasn't kept up with inflation. If people because of status or lack of skills are willing to work for low wages, this depresses the need of employers to hike their wages for our domestic low skills labor pool.
sure, that doesn't really help the low skill domestic labor pool (and the lack of a social security net makes it worse in the US), but in some cases, it might help the economy overall (at the expense of the low skilled domestic workers) e.g. in your example, by reducing the inflationary pressure of the minimum wage.
> Many countries want the highly skilled to immigrate, and conversely countries don't want them to emigrate (brain drain).
Not the US then? Even with degrees, skills & money (enough to live out a few lives) it is not easy to get in via 'conventional' means (i'm not aware of other means myself but I anticipate some 'if you pay x y z' you will get in). That always seems strange to me. Australia, New Zealand and the US have that and I don't know what they stand to lose to let people like that in without hindering them further; it adds taxes, skilled work, maybe starting companies etc. But if nothing else, taxes and not a burden.
In terms of large western democracies (ie: excluding city-states), Australia only has a lower immigration rate than Spain and Norway (pre- syria crisis) and basically shares a spot with Canada [1]. The US and New Zealand have half that rate. There's a persistent myth that Australia is anti-immigration, when we're taking in more through regular channels than most others. Curiously, Norway is another country perceived as isolationist and not big on accepting migrants.
> I always hear the argument "they're taking our jobs", but that's not true, is it? As the economy gets larger because of the influx of people, more jobs become available.
Not back in my hometown.
A rust belt city experiencing a population decline and real income growing slower than the national average after thirty years of factory closings - that is now an asylum city, and one of the largest in the country in terms of refugees per capita.
People there find themselves competing for a shrinking pool of jobs with hardworking immigrants willing to work for less, and who often receive government assistance.
Americans like to believe that there exists some bright line between citizens and non-citizens. As a US lawyer, I'll tell you there is no such line. There are dozens of different classes of citizenship, each with a unique set of rights. These kids are at the bottom of that list.
The world is most aware of the two highest-level citizenship classes, specifically the line between natural and naturalized citizens. The former is the higher, with the later not being allowed certain high offices (ie being president) and that their citizenship can be stripped. The next set of lines is between citizens of states (Ohio et al) and those residing in non-states such as DC, Guam and like territories. Such non-state citizens have various subset voting right depending on local. Some cannot serve on juries.
The next line down are people like convicted felons (non-voting) children (can be forced into delinquency proceedings) and members of the military (subject to different laws/courts). Some jurists would even list males as a subset since, unlike females, males are subject to selective service rules and can therefore be forced into the previous class.
At the bottom of this pile are these kids. Non-state non-citizens, under-age without guardians, the are treated like chattel (property). Their deportation proceedings read like the comical cases brought against property seized at boarder crossings (civil forfeiture). But even non-sentient objects, specifically guns, sometimes have the right to representation. Any US person facing criminal conviction is due adequate representation, but not facing criminal action and not being a citizen of any state or territory, the US justice system has little respect for these kids.
I believe GP is referring to asset forfeiture. Asset forfeiture is a legal fiction in which objects associated with a crime are charged. So if drug dealer was transacting drug deals in his car, the government could seize the car and charge the car with a crime. The owner would then have to try to represent the car and prove the car's innocence in the crime. But because asset forfeiture is normally a civil proceeding, the burden of proof is much lower for the government (preponderance of the evidence rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt). So even if the owner was found not guilty of the original crime, the asset can still be found "guilty" and seized.
There are several jurisdictions that forbid cops from destroying seized weapons. They must be sold to the public or used by police. In a couple of these jurisdictions, if they really want to destroy the weapons they need a court order. Getting that court order requires a hearing at which "the guns" are represented by an attorney. I haven't witnessed such a proceeding, but theoretically the state may have to provide that attorney. I presume the NRA could also stand in.
So yes, inanimate objects can sometimes have more of a right to representation by an attorney than these actual human children.
Some fun milestones:
- Understand the idea of same and different
- Follow 3 part commands
- Sort objects by shape and color
Yeah, that's pretty much all you need right?
A judge may ask, for example, if the child wants to leave the country voluntarily or would rather be ordered deported. If the child chooses either option, he or she cannot apply for other forms of immigration relief such as asylum in the United States.
Nope, they're fucked. Most adults probably have difficulty with this one.
What I find more shocking than the incident is its background:
According to Justice Department figures, 42 percent of the more than 20,000 unaccompanied children involved in deportation proceedings completed between July 2014 and late December had no attorney [...]
Susan J. Terrio, a Georgetown University anthropology professor, said she observed hundreds of children in various immigration court proceedings, many of whom couldn’t speak English, [...]
Some were as young as 10. They “were incredibly passive,” she said. And “they responded with monosyllabic answers.
So, if I read this correctly, it's already common practice in the US to have children put in court, without any aid or counsel and expect them to have a conversation with judges and attorneys about immigration law? Is this actually true?
It seems better than treating the child as property, but honestly I don't think the child should be forced to represent themselves w/o counsel. In fact, I honestly wonder why our immigration and deportation laws don't have a requirement to have legal counsel automatically assigned to children if their legal parents are not present. At that point, if they have parents then their parents should have some legal counsel to represent all affected. Either way, I just think this seems down right fishy for any judge to do mostly because it's a conflict of interest. Plus, children are easily manipulated into saying things they don't mean or never experienced. So, I'd rather the judge not have that power to manipulate children. If they must be deported then at least deport them w/ the proper authorities of their native country so they can be cared for. Otherwise, this just seems...weird.
Remember these children are a special category, with almost no rights. To fix this, we'd have to extend American rights to minor people of other countries, which is about the largest stretch I can imagine.
91 comments
[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 159 ms ] threadThey confuse what they think themselves with what they think the other thinks.
Later they back-pedaled on the statement (presumably because of the fall-out) but at the moment of the original statement they were very much aware of what they were saying and the context seems to be accurate.
After all - he was TEACHING them immigration law. With patience. I have no experience with USA legal system but teaching law does not seem like a item on a judge's jobs description list.
The shameful part was that said kids were brought before him.
"I can teach a three-year-old immigration law sufficient to represent themselves in court" is about on the same level as "I can cure cancer by hopping on one foot and squinting real hard" or "the Earth is actually hollow and the inside is inhabited by escaped Nazis".
Flat earth society: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/
James H. Fetzer's entire career after 1990: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_H._Fetzer
Should I continue with links? Because that last one really bums me out beyond belief. Fetzer seriously seems like a body that inherited the respect of an intellectual but deteriorated under the stress of an undiagnosed paranoid psychosis.
It's almost too scary to consider the alternative... Are there actually people that believe the earth is flat, and anything else is a conspiracy??
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_flat_Earth_societies#Ca...
Trump is your "flat earth society" by several hundred levels of magnitude
The thing is, if the court does appoint an attorney, the attorney will need to explain these same concepts to the child as part of preparing a defense.
There are lightears of space between doing your best to see that someone who can't defend themselves in court has qualified representation (even if there are difficulties that the representative will face in conducting defense), and pitting the same person against an expert litigation team without a qualified advocate.
The former situation is a good faith effort to give the defendant a fair trial. The latter situation is a sham trial.
The obvious danger, in a criminal hearing, would be for the accused to say something that they weren't required to say, and that hurt their case. That is one obvious reason people have a right to an attorney. I don't know enough about immigration law to say whether that's a possibility. In a criminal case, you have a right to remain silent. You don't have that right in a civil case (you can punished for contempt, and the judge is allowed to assume the reason you want to remain silent is that the truth would hurt your case ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_Unite... )). I have no idea if you have the right to remain silent in an immigration hearing, but it wouldn't surprise me if the right is severely limited. If you have a right to remain silent in an immigration hearing, then it would be impossible to guarantee a fair hearing without providing an attorney.
To be honest, there are several things in the legal system that I don't think should be resolved through an adversarial process. Immigration hearings are a good example.
I would say that these unbalanced trials are pretending toward fairness, fairness theater. If your primary concern is the cost of these proceedings, then don't argue for taking away only one of the costly, yet crucial, aspects of the trial [taxpayers already pay for the judges and the state's attorneys (both of whom are likely making much more than state appointed defense attorneys would be), so refusing to pay for defendant's attorneys doesn't save a heck of a lot of cost]. Rather get rid of the unfair trial altogether and make the thing an administrative proceeding. If you think a fair trial is justified, then you've got to provide qualified representation for those who can't come up with it themselves. That's just the minimum bar for fairness in an adversarial trial. Meet it, or get rid of the trial altogether.
I don't have enough information to really have a strong opinion on whether these situations should be handled administratively or whether the state should provide attorneys. However, it does seem that the current solution is on the order of the most expensive possible solutions without managing to meet a minimum bar for fairness. It's a worst of both worlds compromise.
Even if you accept the insanity, I don't see how some persons being able to defend themselves (the children who miraculously learned immigration law) implies that all persons are able to, and therefore aid is never needed. This seems like a basic logical fallacy to me.
Why? The argument is about giving them (taxpayer funded) court appointed lawyers. The worst that can happen here is that someone gets a lawyer. Meh.
Sure, misrepresentation of age might be a problem as far as deportation etc are concerned, but that's completely orthogonal to what's being discussed here.
It's a bit more complicated than that.
Many children, (genuinely children, under 16) declare themselves to be adults. They do this because if they are identified as children they are taken to camps.
http://www.irinnews.org/analysis/2015/07/27
> The youthfulness of the faces is striking. Many fled Eritrea to avoid being conscripted into indefinite military service, but none will admit to being under 18 for fear the authorities will place them in a centre for unaccompanied migrant children, dashing their hopes of reaching northern Europe.
> The EU’s Dublin Regulation means that once fingerprinted in Italy, they would have to remain in the country while their asylum claims are being processed or risk being returned there. Countries in northern Europe, however, may hold better job potential, better asylum odds or even the chance of being reunited with family members.
The camps are not pleasant. There is considerable abuse that happens in the detention centres.
http://www.irinnews.org/report/100741/migrant-detention-abus...
Anyway, I am not going to argue here, too many down votes. My point is irrelevant, I just live in Piraeus and my relatives work with refugees.
No, children are still lying about their age to avoid being detained in camps.
I'm not trying to suggest that there aren't any adults also lying about their age, but it's a bit more complicated than you suggest, and it's not true to suggest that child migrants get an easy ride. They do not.
In murder cases, courts are expected to find out whether a killing was intentional or not and, if it was, whether the reasons were justifiable (self-defense). How can this be no problem, yet disproving the claim of a bulky, bearded man that he is 9 years old is impossible?
Or is the judge actually saying that the children don't need lawyers?
"Unlike in felony criminal cases in federal court, children charged with violating immigration laws have no right to appointed counsel, even though the government is represented by Department of Homeland Security attorneys."
is allowed when we have this (from a Wikipedia entry)?
"The Sixth Amendment (Amendment VI) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions. The Supreme Court has applied the protections of this amendment to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/255281-yes...
https://reason.com/blog/2015/08/24/ilegal-aliens-have-second...
https://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2012/12/court-illegal-ali...
Guantanamo Bay is also different because it's also believed to be violating international law.
An analogous example is trespass. A landowner can call the police to kick you off his property. That's not a criminal proceeding. But then the state might then prosecute you for criminal trespass, punishing you by depriving you of liberty (jailing) or property (fines). That is a criminal proceeding.
Following that reasoning it's fair, I think, that a minor in immigration proceedings should be appointed a lawyer by the government.
> Weil is not just any immigration official. As an assistant chief immigration judge in EOIR’s Office of the Chief Immigration Judge — which sets and oversees policies for the nation’s 58 immigration courts — he is responsible for coordinating the Justice Department’s training of immigration judges.
The judge may dislike such a situation and compensate for it by trying to teach the children the law. He mentioned it's inefficient, perhaps in the context of an argument that it would be cheaper to pay for the children's legal representative than waste all that time teaching them the law.
Just another spin on a quote out of context.
https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/jefm-v-lynch-deposition-...
The comments in question start on page 18.
---
Q. It must be true that there's some children that are so young that even if they receive the notice and even if they're given an explanation by the judge, they're still not going to understand what's going on right?
A. I have to do a case-by-case basis determination. I've taught immigration law literally to three year olds and four year olds. It takes a lot of time. It takes a lot of patience. They get it. It's not the most efficient, but it can be done.
Q. I understand that you think it can be done. Are you aware of any experts in child psychology or comparable experts who agree with the assessment that three and four year olds ca be taught immigration law
A. I haven't read any studies one way or another.
Q. What about like a one year old?
A. I mean, I think there's a point that there has to be communication. There has to be communication at some point.
Q. So what do you train judges as to cases in which communication is impossible because the child is too young?
A. What we train is if a respondent, child or adult, cannot perform functions necessary for the hearing to be fair, the judge should not proceed.
I may be wrong of course. But after all if the system wanted to protect said 3 years old - they would not have gone to hearing anyway.
Btw - can't the kids get protection under cruel and unusual punishment?
I would think so. Particularly after being required to learn US immigration law.
It's possible to be declared a refugee if you can prove you'll be persecuted in your home country for any number of reasons (gender, religion, ethnic group, etc.). I have no idea how difficult it is to do that.
"Refugees are generally people outside of their country who are unable or unwilling to return home because they fear serious harm. ...
"You may seek a referral for refugee status only from outside of the United States. ...
"Asylum status is a form of protection available to people who:
* Meet the definition of refugee
* Are already in the United States
* Are seeking admission at a port of entry
"You may apply for asylum in the United States regardless of your country of origin or your current immigration status."
Why is everyone so afraid of immigration? I don't see the downside. We need to grow our tax base to support all of our borrowing against future tax revenue. There are two ways to do that: have kids, or allow immigration.
I always hear the argument "they're taking our jobs", but that's not true, is it? As the economy gets larger because of the influx of people, more jobs become available.
Watching this year's Presidential election makes me think I'm really out of touch with reality, living in a large city. But maybe everyone else is wrong and I'm right...
And even if you're afraid of immigration, why is allowing everyone to have fair representation in court so unappealing? I thought the whole point of America is that everyone is equal and everyone has a chance. That includes non-citizens; our laws apply, so our guarantee of a right to a fair trial should also apply. That's what separates us from North Korea, right?
Many countries want the highly skilled to immigrate, and conversely countries don't want them to emigrate (brain drain). No one country with low skills emigrants puts of a fuss to keep them, they are happy to let them go and they have no concern about lowering population or concern for potential tax base loss.
In the end the question is, do you want to regulate immigration or just let anyone and everyone in? There is no reason to have two tracks where the ones who want to go the legal way have to wait years while others can just go the alternate route with few consequences.
And, w/re Mexico, they also deport a good number of illegal immigrants into their country, so it's not like they think one way and the US an Europe and Japan and China etc. think another way.
Not the US then? Even with degrees, skills & money (enough to live out a few lives) it is not easy to get in via 'conventional' means (i'm not aware of other means myself but I anticipate some 'if you pay x y z' you will get in). That always seems strange to me. Australia, New Zealand and the US have that and I don't know what they stand to lose to let people like that in without hindering them further; it adds taxes, skilled work, maybe starting companies etc. But if nothing else, taxes and not a burden.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_migra...
Not back in my hometown.
A rust belt city experiencing a population decline and real income growing slower than the national average after thirty years of factory closings - that is now an asylum city, and one of the largest in the country in terms of refugees per capita.
People there find themselves competing for a shrinking pool of jobs with hardworking immigrants willing to work for less, and who often receive government assistance.
Naturally, there is complaining.
The world is most aware of the two highest-level citizenship classes, specifically the line between natural and naturalized citizens. The former is the higher, with the later not being allowed certain high offices (ie being president) and that their citizenship can be stripped. The next set of lines is between citizens of states (Ohio et al) and those residing in non-states such as DC, Guam and like territories. Such non-state citizens have various subset voting right depending on local. Some cannot serve on juries.
The next line down are people like convicted felons (non-voting) children (can be forced into delinquency proceedings) and members of the military (subject to different laws/courts). Some jurists would even list males as a subset since, unlike females, males are subject to selective service rules and can therefore be forced into the previous class.
At the bottom of this pile are these kids. Non-state non-citizens, under-age without guardians, the are treated like chattel (property). Their deportation proceedings read like the comical cases brought against property seized at boarder crossings (civil forfeiture). But even non-sentient objects, specifically guns, sometimes have the right to representation. Any US person facing criminal conviction is due adequate representation, but not facing criminal action and not being a citizen of any state or territory, the US justice system has little respect for these kids.
Don't like it? There is an election coming up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CesHr99ezWE
Wait. What?
Do you have any links for more info on this? I can't even start to imagine what does it even mean for an object to have legal representation.
Is this something known to happen in other countries (i.e. this is an artifact due to complex interaction inside legal systems) or just in the US?
Here's a good flowchart on the rules that the owner must go through (at the federal level) to win their assets back: http://reason.com/assets/mc/2015_06/forfeitchart.jpg
These two Wikipedia articles have more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_rem_jurisdiction
I've heard about asset forfeiture before, but I had no idea it worked that way.
Seems a bit insane that you can charge objects with crimes.
So yes, inanimate objects can sometimes have more of a right to representation by an attorney than these actual human children.
Some fun milestones: - Understand the idea of same and different - Follow 3 part commands - Sort objects by shape and color
Yeah, that's pretty much all you need right?
A judge may ask, for example, if the child wants to leave the country voluntarily or would rather be ordered deported. If the child chooses either option, he or she cannot apply for other forms of immigration relief such as asylum in the United States.
Nope, they're fucked. Most adults probably have difficulty with this one.
According to Justice Department figures, 42 percent of the more than 20,000 unaccompanied children involved in deportation proceedings completed between July 2014 and late December had no attorney [...]
Susan J. Terrio, a Georgetown University anthropology professor, said she observed hundreds of children in various immigration court proceedings, many of whom couldn’t speak English, [...]
Some were as young as 10. They “were incredibly passive,” she said. And “they responded with monosyllabic answers.
So, if I read this correctly, it's already common practice in the US to have children put in court, without any aid or counsel and expect them to have a conversation with judges and attorneys about immigration law? Is this actually true?