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This discussion has been archived.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: 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.

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

    Total Score:   1  
  • (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.