Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday July 04 2018, @03:43PM   Printer-friendly
from the let-me-out-of-here! dept.

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.

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/02/625504723/federal-judge-orders-administration-to-end-arbitrary-detention-of-asylum-seekers


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 04 2018, @06:03PM (12 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 04 2018, @06:03PM (#702653)

    Oh boy there is no hope for you. Judges do indeed make morality calls, they are often referred to as "extenuating circumstances". This isn't a SCOTUS issue but they are one really clear example where judges make rulings based on morality and legal precedent.

    I mean really now, how stupid are you? Not to mention the article makes it quite clear

    "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."

    I ask again, what is WRONG with you people?

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=3, Informative=1, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday July 04 2018, @06:53PM (11 children)

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday July 04 2018, @06:53PM (#702676) Homepage Journal

    You're absolutely correct. Judges do indeed render decisions based on their feelz. And they're overturned when they do because that is not their fucking job. It is in fact expressly forbidden them except in very narrowly defined areas like sentencing.

    "This Opinion does no more than hold the Government accountable to its own policy...

    Policy is not law. Judges deal with laws. This was not a job for a judge. QED

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 04 2018, @07:01PM (5 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 04 2018, @07:01PM (#702681)

      Hey jackass, you're wrong. AGAIN!

      https://www.cigaraficionado.com/article/d-c-judge-rules-for-fda-on-cigar-lawsuit-appeal-possible [cigaraficionado.com]

      You can make all the claims you want about judges only ruling on Laws, but don't you think some lawyers would take issue if the judge was not legally allowed to do so? Uneducated fool, you should stop spouting opinions when you have zero actual knowledge on the subject.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday July 04 2018, @07:07PM

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday July 04 2018, @07:07PM (#702689) Homepage Journal

        And it's going to be overturned unless he backed his shit up with something in the law. Watch and see.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 2, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday July 04 2018, @07:09PM (3 children)

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday July 04 2018, @07:09PM (#702691) Homepage Journal

        Oh fuck dude, you didn't even read the fucking article you linked. I did after I posted and the judge fucking followed the law even though he didn't like that he had to. What a colossal dipshit you are.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 04 2018, @07:31PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 04 2018, @07:31PM (#702699)

          You did throw me off for a second, but as usual your brain is not up to the task of critical thinking and debate.

          1. So judges can only rule on laws, but in this case he followed the law even though he didn't like it? I thought this was regulation / policy, only Congress can pass laws right? Jackass make up your mind, you can't just swap things in/out to suit your personal agenda. "The groups had sought preliminary relief from such impending FDA rules"

          2. "ruled in favor of the Final Deeming Rule’s health warning requirements on cigar boxes and advertisements—finding they are not a violation of the First Amendment—as well as cigar industry user fees." So the judge was unable to find the law in violation of the Constitution so he did his job even though he didn't like it. He was totally able to make a ruling and the outcome has no bearing on my point.

          3. You are the dipshit too ignorant of reality to make comments, but as is common the least able are often the loudest.

          You are similar to Trump, trying to redefine reality to suit your own purposes and then shouting people down when they make valid points you don't like. Get a grip.

          • (Score: 2) by RS3 on Thursday July 05 2018, @01:21AM (1 child)

            by RS3 (6367) on Thursday July 05 2018, @01:21AM (#702785)

            I really don't want in on this, but to clarify- judges are supposed to apply the laws that Congress has made.

            Unfortunately sometimes judges have to interpret, and sometimes they interpret too much, or they're just plain wrong, and it gets overturned in a higher court.

            SCOTUS can overturn a law if all of these conditions are met (and probably more that I don't feel like trying to come up with right tired now): 1) it's unconstitutional, 2) someone has giant money, 3) SCOTUS is willing to hear the case, 4) good lawyer arguments happen, that money can't necessarily buy.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05 2018, @01:48AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05 2018, @01:48AM (#702791)

              They rule on a lot more than Congressional laws, your statement is not wrong just not fully correct.

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 04 2018, @07:44PM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 04 2018, @07:44PM (#702707)

      And they're overturned when they do because that is not their fucking job.

      No, they are not always overturned. We have obscenity laws, the TSA, the NSA's mass surveillance, and so on. In the past, we had Japanese internment camps, and that was accepted by the courts despite being totally and obviously unconstitutional. The sad thing is that I don't even think we learned our lesson regarding Japanese internment camps; I could easily see something similar happening again if a tragedy occurs and the 'safety at the expense of freedom' crowd becomes more vocal. The typical judge is profoundly authoritarian and will make rulings based on what they would like to see happen rather than what is actually legal or Constitutional. Our system of checks and balances is broken and our government does not abide by the Constitution.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 04 2018, @10:37PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 04 2018, @10:37PM (#702757)

        Do your research. We already have effective concentration camps for both domestic and foreign nationals who we need out of sight and out of mind. And without enough people bringing attention to this, it will continue happening until they find the need to cover it up more permanently.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05 2018, @01:44PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05 2018, @01:44PM (#702967)

          But you don't understand. We had Japanese concentration camps, and that makes our new ICE concentration camps ok!

          Butbutbut you still don't understand! Lincoln locked up journalists, and that makes it ok if Trump starts locking up journalists!

          Butbutbutbutbut you still don't understand! The USA engaged in genocide from shining sea to shining sea, and that makes any current genocide the USA engages in ok!

      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05 2018, @03:23AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05 2018, @03:23AM (#702817)

        Yes, we had Japanese internment camps. A good deal of the reason why is explained by the Niihau incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niihau_incident [wikipedia.org] where a Japanese pilot who was a part of the Pearl Harbor attacks landed his damaged plane on a small Hawaiian island -- and some of the Hawaiian locals of Japanese descent living there helped the pilot try to escape.

        They never tell you about that event, do they? Given the evidence that some Japanese-descended people living in the U.S. would assist the Japanese, damn straight they were interned. If they hadn't been, it's likely that many of them would have been killed by U.S. citizens.

        Yes, it sucks when you're locked up for nothing you did. Beats being dead, though, and you have bitching rights the rest of your life.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05 2018, @09:23PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05 2018, @09:23PM (#703253)

          This tripe gets modded insightful? Here's a hint: Regardless of the circumstances, the government sending people of a certain descent to camps without due process is blatantly unconstitutional. This is due to the 5th amendment, at the very least. It doesn't matter if some members of the group happened to be bad guys. It doesn't matter if some US citizens would have killed some members of the group if they weren't locked up in camps 'for their own protection'. None of that matters. It was blatantly unconstitutional. Full stop. There's not even a valid argument to be had here. You're just wrong.

          For trying (and failing) to justify this, you are an authoritarian scumbag of the highest order. You do not care one bit about the Constitution, which is the highest law of the land. In 'the land of the free and the home of the brave', freedom is more important than safety, so we should never sacrifice freedom even if we can attain more safety by doing so.