ACLU: Grace v. Sessions: USDC for DC 1:18-cv-01853; Re Asylum Protections

Post Reply
User avatar
Addie
Posts: 41403
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

ACLU: Grace v. Sessions: USDC for DC 1:18-cv-01853; Re Asylum Protections

#1

Post by Addie »

NPR
Judge Orders Return Of Deported Asylum-Seekers

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has threatened to hold Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen in contempt of court if they fail to return to the U.S. a mother and daughter seeking asylum. The immigrants were deported ahead of a scheduled hearing with the court on Thursday.

A transcript of Thursday's hearing shows U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan angry after being told the asylum-seekers had been deported and were on a plane out of the U.S. even while a government attorney was telling him they wouldn't be deported before midnight.

"This is pretty outrageous," Sullivan said, "Somebody in pursuit of justice in a United States court is just — is spirited away while her attorneys are arguing for justice for her?"

In addition to ordering the government to get the mother and daughter back, Sullivan blocked the Trump administration from deporting eight other immigrants — currently held in detention — who are part of the same lawsuit against the government for allegedly wrongfully rejecting their claims for asylum.

The order issued Thursday stated that the defendants, including Sessions, Nielsen, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service Director Lee Francis Cissna and Executive Office of Immigration Review Director James McHenry, "shall return 'Carmen' and her daughter to the United States FORTHWITH."
Complaint pdf

Adding:
Associated Press: US judge halts deportation, threatens Sessions with contempt
"The very least you can do in your life is to figure out what you hope for." - Barbara Kingsolver

User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 8420
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:37 am

Re: ACLU: Grace v. Sessions: USDC for DC 1:18-cv-01853; Re Asylum Protections

#2

Post by Slim Cognito »

Fuck Sessions, fuck Nielsen, fuck Trump. Fuck them all to hell.

I regret nothing.
ImageImageImage x4

User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 9976
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 1 dog, 1 cat, and 1 horse, 4 granddogs, and one grandcat.

Re: ACLU: Grace v. Sessions: USDC for DC 1:18-cv-01853; Re Asylum Protections

#3

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

A 19th Amendment Centennial Moment:
The 19th Amendment was first introduced to Congress in 1878, yet it was not approved by Congress until 1919 – 41 years later.
- https://legaldictionary.net/19th-amendment/

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 41403
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: ACLU: Grace v. Sessions: USDC for DC 1:18-cv-01853; Re Asylum Protections

#4

Post by Addie »

Slate
Trump’s New Asylum Policy Is the Definition of Entrapment

President Donald Trump is continuing his assault on basic humanitarian protections at the U.S.-Mexico border. In recent days, the president has sent thousands of troops to the border to string miles and miles of barbed wire, overseen U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s decision to close ports of entry, and ratified CBP’s plan to “evict” 450 asylum-seekers marooned on bridges connecting El Paso, Texas, and Ciudad Juárez, Mexico. Trump’s latest tactic might be his most inimical: He ordered an interim final rule to deny asylum to anyone who has crossed in between ports of entry along the Southern border. While this order has already been blocked by the courts for the time being, this latest tactic fits right in line with the administration’s larger goal of criminalizing migration.

The reality is that potentially thousands of migrants cross “illegally” because the U.S. Customs and Border Protection systematically and unlawfully rejects their asylum attempts at official ports of entry. Asylum-seekers have no meaningful choice otherwise. For at least the past two years, brazen CBP misconduct has led to mass migrant prosecution under federal “illegal entry” and “illegal re-entry” charges. Thanks to former Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ prioritization of the issue, 2018 saw entry-related arrests skyrocket with nearly 60 percent of all federal criminal prosecutions having been immigration-related. As of June, in the five federal districts along the Southwest border, only 6 percent of all prosecutions were for anything other than immigration offenses. Indeed, the Justice Department openly admitted it was diverting resources from drug-smuggling operations to incarcerate migrants. This has clearly been part of a broader political strategy of vindicating President Donald Trump’s xenophobia: The Trump administration’s nativist rhetoric is more effective when our immigrants are manufactured into criminals, not portrayed as tired, huddled masses of refugees.

This practice of criminalizing asylum attempts is also a classic case of entrapment. Systematically rejecting destitute asylum-seekers at the border and stranding them in life-threatening border towns forces these individuals to cross unlawfully. As counsel in borderwide federal challenges to this policy and practice, Al Otro Lado v. Nielsen and now East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, I’ve seen what happens firsthand to individuals whom the U.S. government turns away and strands in Mexico. My clients—all of whom stated a fear of return to their home country—wanted to present at a port of entry but were turned away. CBP officers told one client that “President Trump signed a new law that ended asylum in the United States,” and another was promised that “government officials would take their children away.” The former statement is a lie—Trump has signed no such law—but the later threat proved tragically true during Trump’s infamous child separation policy. The threat itself has continued to be wielded against asylum-seekers, even though the U.S. says it has ended the policy. ...

This consequence is intentional and stems from Sessions’ April 6 “zero-tolerance policy.” That policy instituted Trump’s Jan. 25, 2017, executive order directing the Justice Department to make criminal prosecution of immigration offenses a “high priority.” Blithely, Sessions famously urged individuals simply to “wait their turn.” The recent exhortations regarding “proper” entry point—which Sessions deemed “the right way”—are meritless. Not only are they in stark contrast to federal law—according to 8 U.S.C. Section 1158, asylum is available regardless of “whether or not” an individual entered “at a designated port of arrival”—but it will now be virtually impossible to seek asylum lawfully. Whether turned away from a point of legal entry by CBP or forced to wait and possibly perish, individuals have been and will continue to be forced to swim across the mercurial Rio Grande or traverse on foot through the border’s vast terranean hellscape. If history teaches us anything, when the migrant caravan reaches the border, CBP will clearly induce scores of individuals to commit “crimes” of illegal entry and re-entry, entrapping them.

Under Trump’s latest policy, the U.S. is criminalizing potentially thousands of individuals who have arrived at our nation’s doorstep seeking asylum. Worse still, the U.S. knows that these individuals are here to seek asylum; the criminalization is intentional. By instituting the zero-tolerance policy, the Justice Department is able to instantiate Trump’s long-held ethnological worldview that Central American and Mexican individuals are criminals. Rather than receive “tired, huddled masses,” the administration is able to cast them as hardened offenders, “bad hombres.” In this way, it is merely the administration’s latest attempt to shirk its humanitarian obligations in favor of completely unnecessary, punitive, and spiteful federal policy.

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 41403
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: ACLU: Grace v. Sessions: USDC for DC 1:18-cv-01853; Re Asylum Protections

#5

Post by Addie »

WaPo OpEd
The administration is treating the border like a war zone — but it’s violating the laws of war

Asylum seekers are unarmed noncombatants


When it comes to establishing international boundaries, clear lines are essential — not only to demarcate the borders themselves, but to regulate the conduct of officials. When U.S. officials fired tear gas at asylum seekers on the other side of the U.S.-Mexico border, the U.S. blurred or crossed important moral boundaries.

U.S. officials also arguably bent or broke several principles of international law.

The first and most relevant international law in the case of people seeking asylum at the U.S. southern border is the 1967 Protocol to the Refugee Convention, which the U.S. ratified in 1968. Under the “supremacy clause” of the Constitution, once it ratifies such a treaty, the U.S. is bound by it.

Under the 1967 refugee protocol, people who claim refugee status who reach the border of a country that is party to the treaty — or who even enter that country — are allowed to apply for asylum and to have their claims judged. These people may or may not get to stay, but the nation in question, the U.S. in this case, is obliged to give them a hearing.

Some of the barriers the U.S. has placed between asylum seekers and the relevant legal process — the waiting lists, the threat of detention or family separation and the presence of intimidating soldiers — might be legal, in a narrow sense. But they violate the spirit and the letter of the protocol. They are immoral.
Adding:
Reuters: Trump demand that asylum seekers wait in Mexico may turn on legal clause

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 26621
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: ACLU: Grace v. Sessions: USDC for DC 1:18-cv-01853; Re Asylum Protections

#6

Post by RTH10260 »

I guess this belongs here
In another blow to Trump, judge rules in favor of ACLU in family separation case

By Maria Sacchetti March 8 at 10:11 PM

In a legal blow to the Trump administration, a federal judge ruled Friday that all migrant families separated during the government’s border crackdown should be included in a class-action lawsuit. But he stopped short of immediately ordering the Justice Department to track them all down.

U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw in California said the universe of separated families should extend beyond the 2,700-plus children taken from their parents last spring, and include families forced apart as early as July 1, 2017, and the months afterward, when the Trump administration was denying that it had a policy of separating families.

Sabraw said a government watchdog report in January that potentially thousands more families were separated than the Trump administration had admitted publicly compelled the court to look into the matter.

“The hallmark of a civilized society is measured by how it treats its people and those within its borders,” he wrote in a 14-page ruling. “That Defendants may have to change course and undertake additional effort to address these issues does not render modification of the class definition unfair; it only serves to underscore the unquestionable importance of the effort and why it is necessary (and worthwhile).”

The ruling dramatically expands the scope of the class-action lawsuit that compelled the Trump administration to reunite the separated families and prolongs a political fiasco for the president that had been nearing its end.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/im ... story.html

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 41403
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: ACLU: Grace v. Sessions: USDC for DC 1:18-cv-01853; Re Asylum Protections

#7

Post by Addie »

Newsweek: Judge: Families Separated At U.S. Border As Early As 2017 Can Join Suit to be Reunited

User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 8420
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:37 am

Re: ACLU: Grace v. Sessions: USDC for DC 1:18-cv-01853; Re Asylum Protections

#8

Post by Slim Cognito »

Addie wrote:
Sat Mar 09, 2019 1:32 pm
Newsweek: Judge: Families Separated At U.S. Border As Early As 2017 Can Join Suit to be Reunited
Good lord, that's going to be a zoo.

Don't misunderstand, I'm all for this, but can you imagine the clusterfuck the gov's case will be if they didn't document how many were separated, much less who was sent where.
ImageImageImage x4

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 41403
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: ACLU: Grace v. Sessions: USDC for DC 1:18-cv-01853; Re Asylum Protections

#9

Post by Addie »

Not sure where this goes exactly. :blackeye:

WaPo
Federal judge blocks Trump administration program forcing asylum seekers to remain in Mexico while awaiting court hearings

A federal judge on Monday blocked an experimental Trump administration policy that requires asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their cases make their way through the U.S. immigration court system, a major blow to President Trump’s efforts to stem the surge of crossings at the southern border.

U.S. District Court Judge Richard Seeborg in San Francisco enjoined the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) policy days after outgoing Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen pledged to expand the program. The policy began in January at the San Ysidro port of entry in California but has been extended to the Calexico entry and to the entry in El Paso, and Seeborg wrote that the approach would have been further extended if the court were not to step in.

Several hundred migrants have been returned to Mexico under the program after seeking asylum at the border. ...

In his 27-page ruling, Seeborg said the legal question before him was not “whether the MPP is a wise, intelligent, or humane policy, or whether it is the best approach for addressing the circumstances the executive branch contends constitute a crisis.” Rather, he wrote, the program probably violates the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedures Act and other legal protections to ensure that immigrants “are not returned to unduly dangerous circumstances.”

Department of Justice officials declined to comment on the ruling Monday. The U.S. government could appeal the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals but has not indicated whether it will do so.

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 26621
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: ACLU: Grace v. Sessions: USDC for DC 1:18-cv-01853; Re Asylum Protections

#10

Post by RTH10260 »

Addie wrote:
Mon Apr 08, 2019 7:27 pm
Not sure where this goes exactly. :blackeye:

WaPo
Federal judge blocks Trump administration program forcing asylum seekers to remain in Mexico while awaiting court hearings

:snippity:
In his 27-page ruling, Seeborg said the legal question before him was not “whether the MPP is a wise, intelligent, or humane policy, or whether it is the best approach for addressing the circumstances the executive branch contends constitute a crisis.” Rather, he wrote, the program probably violates the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedures Act and other legal protections to ensure that immigrants “are not returned to unduly dangerous circumstances.”
:snippity:
:twisted: And we will see a twitter storm accusing all former administrations of doing nothing and the Democrats now really really have to step in and change Immigration Laws asap for His Highness Fatness in 3... 2... 1...

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 41403
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: ACLU: Grace v. Sessions: USDC for DC 1:18-cv-01853; Re Asylum Protections

#11

Post by Addie »

HuffPo
Jake Tapper: Trump Coached Border Agents To Turn Away All Immigrants — And Lie To Judges

Border Patrol bosses in California later told agents to ignore the president and follow the law, the CNN host said, citing sources.


During his visit to the U.S.-Mexico border in California last week, President Donald Trump personally instructed border agents to illegally block all incoming immigrants and then lie to judges about it, CNN host Jake Tapper said on “Reliable Sources.”

Tapper said Monday that sources informed him that Trump had coached border agents in Calexico on Friday to prevent migrants from entering the country. According to the sources, the president had instructed agents to say, “Sorry, judge, I can’t do it. We don’t have the room” if judges questioned them, Tapper said.

When agents later sought advice from their superiors about Trump’s instructions, Tapper added, they were told to ignore the president and instead follow the law.

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 41403
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: ACLU: Grace v. Sessions: USDC for DC 1:18-cv-01853; Re Asylum Protections

#12

Post by Addie »

ABC News: Donald Trump fumes as judge blocks policy of returning asylum seekers to Mexico

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 41403
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: ACLU: Grace v. Sessions: USDC for DC 1:18-cv-01853; Re Asylum Protections

#13

Post by Addie »

A different case about asylum protections. Dropping it here for now.

Reuters
Court settlement paves way to reunite Central American children with parents in U.S.

(Reuters) - The Trump administration has agreed to allow approximately 2,700 children living in Central America to be reunited with their parents in the United States under a court settlement announced on Friday, according to court documents.

The settlement follows a lawsuit that challenged a decision in 2017 by President Donald Trump’s administration to shut down a program that allowed children living in Central America to be reunited with parents residing legally in the United States.

The Central American Minors program, which began in 2014, allowed parents living legally in the United States to request refugee status for their children residing in Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras.

Many of the parents are in the United States under the so-called temporary protected status, which allows immigrants from countries that have suffered natural disasters, civil conflicts or other problems to stay in the United States.

Last month, U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler in San Francisco ordered the government to resume processing children who had been conditionally approved for the program when it was terminated by the Trump administration.

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 26621
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: ACLU: Grace v. Sessions: USDC for DC 1:18-cv-01853; Re Asylum Protections

#14

Post by RTH10260 »

Federal Appeals Court Blocks Trump’s ‘Remain in Mexico’ Policy
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against a central pillar of the Trump administration’s hard-line immigration agenda.

By Caitlin Dickerson
Feb. 28, 2020, 12:52 p.m. ET

A federal court on Friday upended a central pillar of the Trump administration’s immigration agenda, ruling that asylum seekers must be allowed into the United States while their often lengthy cases meander through American immigration courts.

A three-judge panel in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco blocked a policy that has required people applying for asylum at the border to wait in Mexico while their claims for protection are reviewed, a process that often takes months or years.

Since the new restrictions were rolled out early in 2019, more than 59,000 asylum seekers have been turned back by American authorities into Mexican border cities, where kidnappings and violence have surged. Because shelters in Mexico are scant and overrun, most of the migrants are living in vast tent encampments exposed to the elements, where powerful Mexican criminal cartels have moved in to exploit them.

The policy under review by the courts is known formally as “migrant protection protocols” — though the lawyers who challenged it argued that it did just the opposite by placing vulnerable people in harm’s way. Instead of safeguarding people fleeing persecution abroad, as is required under federal law, the policy merely banished them to perilous conditions in a different place, the lawyers argued.


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/28/us/m ... ction.html

Post Reply

Return to “Courts, Law, and Legal Issues”