SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In a legal setback for the Trump administration's immigration policies, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., has ruled that the government may not arbitrarily detain people seeking asylum.
The ruling comes in a case challenging the administration's policy of detaining people even after they have passed a credible fear interview and await a hearing on their asylum claim.
The lead plaintiff in the case is a teacher from Haiti, Ansly Damus, who has been confined in Ohio for more than a year-and-a-half. He fled his homeland fearing violence and political persecution and asked for asylum in the United States. An immigration judge granted him asylum not just once, but twice. But Damus remains locked up indefinitely as the government appeals those decisions.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, in his 38-page opinion, said that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement violated its own procedures by not granting Damus release under what's known as humanitarian parole.
"This Opinion does no more than hold the Government accountable to its own policy, which recently has been honored more in the breach than the observance. Having extended the safeguards of the Parole Directive to asylum seekers, ICE must now ensure that such protections are realized," Judge Boasberg wrote.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday July 04 2018, @04:46PM (8 children)
I'm inclined to agree. Primarily because a policy is not a law and they're not legally bound to follow it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Wednesday July 04 2018, @05:08PM (7 children)
You plainly have no idea how federal government regulations actually work.
As a bit of an exercise, I tried following every single passed law, executive order, and regulatory change for a few months. Some of what you are very obviously unaware of:
1. A bureaucrat following regulations cannot be professionally penalized for doing so. A bureaucrat who fails to follow regulations can be penalized and even sometimes fired, and any actions they took against regulations will be undone to the degree possible if they're caught.
2. Regulations have to be posted to the Federal Register for public comment, or alternately (if they have reason to think the change won't be controversial) posted with the caveat that if somebody comments to oppose it they have to undo what they did until they address whatever the commenter complained about.
3. The only thing that gives any agency the right to make regulations is a law saying so.
4. Congress can undo any regulatory change they want to by passing a joint resolution. Joint resolutions do not require the president's approval.
5. A court case can undo any regulatory change if the change is found to be illegal or unconstitutional.
(The executive's influence on regulations is obvious: The regulations come from agencies that ultimately answer to the president.)
So, if the Trump administration wants to (legally) continue doing what they're doing with Mr Damus, they'll have to change the rules, and survive public comment, court challenges, and any congressional vote. I'm not saying they won't be able to do that, but they do need to follow that process unless and until Congress passes a law changing the rules on how to make rules.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2, Redundant) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday July 04 2018, @06:07PM (4 children)
That was the worst argument I have heard in a long, long time. Regulations are not policies and policies are not laws. They do not and can not carry the force of law. Thus a judge has no business even hearing a case based on violating them.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 04 2018, @06:38PM (3 children)
You are too ignorant for this discussion, please see yourself out.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday July 04 2018, @06:56PM (2 children)
Already did as soon as you declared your inability to understand the difference between external regulations, internal policies, and laws.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 04 2018, @08:14PM
Obviously not or you would not have posted a reply.
Can't even keep your own reality consistent. Ya jackass!
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Thursday July 05 2018, @12:22PM
My understanding, based on similarities here in Oz, is that most of the actual laws (Acts of Parliament in our case, Congressional Bills in yours I think) state a desired goal of some sort, and empower some department to make the actual detailed regulations to achieve/enforce. The regulations made under that law carry the force of that law. You can legally challenge a regulation on the grounds that it is outside the scope of the enabling law, but that is rarely done because the regs are usually written by lawyers who know not to exceed the scope of the Act.
The difference between Laws and Regulations is subtle and irrelevant to most people in most situations. Break a regulation, and you have broken the law that enabled it.
Policy, in a govt department, controls how the people who work there behave, and what they will/will not do. It has no force of law, and it's only effect on those outside the govt is the secondary one of controlling the govt side of any interaction. (Admittedly, this can be a pretty significant effect.)
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday July 04 2018, @06:31PM (1 child)
You are describing the NORMAL process where unelected minions wield delegated Executive authority under rules designed to constrain them. All Executive power derives from the singular person of the POTUS, in Constitutional Theory, and can be wielded directly by him/her without the slightest concern for all of those rules. It is the reality that no one person has the "bandwidth" to do 1% of the things the bloated government now does that all those levels of minions and rules to regulate them were created; but in an important issue POTUS can directly act. And while Congress can pass a Resolution of disapproval for a regulatory action, it can be vetoed like any other Bill. Refer back to the debates about overthrowing the FCC's reversal of "Network Neutrality" if you want to see the gory details of that process hashed out here on Soylent News.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 04 2018, @07:07PM
You trolls keep trying to institute a dictatorship but its not gonna work. No amount of bullshit is going to make the country fell otherwise. You should be tried as a traitor for the sheer amount of bullshit you've tried to push on this site. Oh wait, we can't do that because you have the freedom of speech! Guess we'll have to tolerate your seditious opinions.