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This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday July 04 2018, @06:56PM (2 children)

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday July 04 2018, @06:56PM (#702679) Homepage Journal

    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.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 04 2018, @08:14PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 04 2018, @08:14PM (#702725)

    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

    by deimtee (3272) on Thursday July 05 2018, @12:22PM (#702935) Journal

    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.