The family of Rosendo Juarez-Hernandez, scheduled to be deported that day, wait to see him before he is sent back to Mexico.
(Photo Credit: Saverio Truglia for Al Jazeera America)
Remember: no sick eagles are allowed.
From the article:
The Obama administration said Friday that it was starting a program to provide lawyers for children facing deportation as it scrambles to deal with the soaring number of unaccompanied minors illegally crossing the border from Mexico.
Under the plan, the federal government will issue $2 million in grants to enroll about 100 lawyers and paralegals to represent immigrant children making their way through the immigration court system.
“We’re taking a historic step to strengthen our justice system and protect the rights of the most vulnerable members of society,” Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said in a statement. “How we treat those in need, particularly young people who must appear in immigration proceedings — many of whom are fleeing violence, persecution, abuse or trafficking — goes to the core of who we are as a nation.”
Administration officials have been trg to cope with a surge of unaccompanied children that has overwhelmed border officials as well the nation’s family and immigration court systems. The initiative announced Friday is intended to help children under the age of 16 who have already received a court notice to appear for deportation proceedings but are not in the custody of the federal government, officials said.
a few things:
1. It’s nice to hear the Attorney General of the United States refer to children in deportation proceedings as “members of our society.” The cultural exclusion of immigrants as “others” who don’t belong in America has a very real impact on how they are treated by the system.
2. I’m happy to see that legal counsel is being provided to vulnerable immigrant children who don’t have the slightest chance in hell of understanding America’s horribly complicated immigration system (particularly when USCIS has a habit of making up immigration laws that don’t exist).
3. We could always solve this problem by, you know, not deporting children or their families. We could raise immigration quotas and make it easier for people to immigrate here legally. But then there’d be less people for the CCA to throw in jail, and that would be bad for business.
The Obama administration already knowingly aided Mexican drug cartels in smuggling guns out of the US. Why should we be surprised that they’re aiding drug cartels in getting illegal immigrants into the US?
from Washington Times:
A federal judge in Texas late…
LTMC: I’m not sure we can attribute to the actions of the Border Patrol Agents involved in this case to the Obama administration. It’s pretty well documented that the Obama Administration INS has deported more undocumented immigrants than any other President in American history, and continues to do so. While it is true that the Obama administration made a humanitarian exception for young children in 2012, that “stopgap measure” was targeted towards children who are already living in the U.S. As Obama said in 2012, ”it makes no sense to expel talented young people who are, for all intents and purposes, Americans.” The child involved in Judge Hanen’s decision at the link above does not meet that description. These Agents thus seem to be moving against the grain of White House policy, rather than with it.
But this case raises a more fundamental question. When trained, experienced Border Patrol Agents start willingly disobeying U.S. immigration laws out of humanitarian concerns for the individuals involved, doesn’t that suggest that there’s something wrong with the law? What life awaited this child back in El Salvador? Was she being deported back into a dangerous situation? More importantly, what mother would pay a drug cartel to smuggle her child across the border unless their situation was grave enough to justify the risk? How much money did she need to save up to do it? Money, by the way, that would have stayed in the American economy if the mother didn’t have to pay someone to smuggle her child across the border to begin with.
There is, of course, a very simple and easy way to solve all of these problems at once: end drug prohibition and open up the border. The demand for cartel smuggling services is 100% artificially created by U.S. laws—laws that limit the number of legal migrants who can come to America. Drug prohibition also enriches the cartels and destabilizes the Mexican economy, increasing the desirability of migrating to America to escape violence and poverty. No one needs to pay a smuggler to accomplish what they can do for themselves legally. Furthermore, no poor individual will risk joining a cartel when the black markets that fuel their profits collapse. This means less migrants trying to escape violence and poverty. It means less human trafficking across the border. In short, it means an end to America’s immigration problem.
Or, we can just pass yet another immigration bill granting millions of undocumented immigrants amnesty while making employers’ lives miserable, and pretend that we won’t have to do it again in 30 years. We can even throw up a border fence while we’re at it! Because that seems to work out well.
New York’s highest court correctly held that state judges must warn non-citizen defendants that a guilty plea could result in deportation.
LTMC: This is a huge deal. Often Appellate Courts make a distinction between “direct” and “collateral” consequences of conviction when determining whether a plea is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. In the past, immigration consequences have been considered “collateral,” because they are not part of the sentence for serious crimes—deportation is rather an administrative consequence that takes place outside the criminal proceeding. However, under Padilla v. Kentucky, failure of a lawyer to warn their client of possibly immigration consequences of a conviction is considered a violation of the client’s 6th amendment right to counsel. This new decision places a burden on New York judges to do the same when accepting a plea.
This may seem duplicative. But sometimes it’s important to put redundant procedural protections in place, because it gives criminal Defendants an extra basis on which to challenge a guilty plea that results in deportation. This may be important in cases where there’s issues with proving the attorney’s lack of communication to the Defendant, or where the attorney is, for whatever reason, unavailable. The criminal justice system is not perfect, and where proof is necessarily based on second-hand evidence of an event, placing extra protections in place ensures that rights are more likely to be protected.
I wonder why undocumented immigrants don’t come to America “through the proper channels.” It can’t possibly be because the application for legal entry can take up to 20 years to process!
- “As many critics have pointed, out, terrorism is not an enemy. It is a tactic. Because the United States itself has a long record of supporting...”
- just dropped a bottle of wine on the sidewalk
Ugh why must I be such a fuckup all the time.
- andimthedad said:I've been following the situation in Ferguson as closely as possible. It is shocking. I've been wondering: where are all the anti-government pro-gun-rights people? For years, they've been predicting oppression of citizens through police militarization, and now that it's actually happening, they seem silent. Is this straight-up racism? Is this because it's not the federal government (e.g. Obama) being oppressive? Is this because the police aren't coming after them personally?
I’ve been thinking about what I want to say on this topic all day; it’s been discussed to comedic effect on Facebook and Twitter, amongst the people...
- Libertarian Bashing
- “I’m heartbroken to see the Judaism of love and compassion being dismissed as ‘unrealistic’ by so many of my fellow Jews and fellow rabbis. Wasn’t the...”