- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/42834907
“The reason we’re here is because the government of the United States wants you to leave the United States,” Judge Ubaid ul-Haq, presiding from a courtroom on Varick Street, told a group of about a dozen children on a recent morning on Webex.
The parties included a 7-year-old boy, wearing a shirt emblazoned with a pizza cartoon, who spun a toy windmill while the judge spoke. There was an 8-year-old girl and her 4-year-old sister, in a tie-dye shirt, who squeezed a pink plushy toy and stuffed it into her sleeve. None of the children were accompanied by parents or attorneys, only shelter workers who helped them log on to the hearing.
Immigrant advocates and lawyers say an increasing number of migrant children are making immigration court appearances without the assistance of attorneys, which they say will lead to more children getting deported.
“That child will be ordered deported from this country — that could all happen without that child ever speaking with an attorney and given the opportunity to obtain representation,” Shah said. “The cruelty is really apparent to all of us out here in the field.”
holy shit
Unfortunately the law does not obligate the govt to provide a lawyer.
Edit: In immigration court. This is not a criminal court.
Edit edit: The number of people unable to comprehend the difference is giving me insight into just how bad the education system is in the states.
Edit edit edit: Apparently me explaining the facts of the matter makes me a bad guy 🤦
You are correct, and ultimately the issue is that the laws shouldn’t be different for immigration courts or immigration agents, because wrongful detention or deportation can be worse than wrongful imprisonment.
No argument there, this is a farce of a kangaroo court
Could it be that the situation itself is bullshit? No, surely not, let’s just scoff at people for not knowing which hairs we split about protecting the most vulnerable people in the country.
It is good and normal that a toddler is representing herself in court. The real problem is that people haven’t been educated to accept that.
Shove off. I’m not defending the practice here. I’m just amazed at how many people keep insisting, despite explanations to the contrary, that the constitution is being broken. There’s no discussion to be had when people aren’t even aware of the basic facts of the matter.
My brother in Christ, this is you defending the practice.
Would you kindly point to where I ‘defended’ the practice? I’ve done nothing other than explain to people that no, the constitution does not apply in this case.
How do you write something like “the constitution does not apply” and fail to ask yourself, hey, is that a situation to grab a pitchfork about? Because what you’re doing instead is lamenting the state of education, like people going HOLY SHIT WHAT THE FUCK are just confused. Like this niche application of systemic abuse against a foreign underclass should be common knowledge we shouldn’t get mad at. You write shit like “there’s no discussion to be had” and wonder why people are a little bit hostile toward your glib insistence on the status quo.
Where a toddler represented themselves in court.
Have you seen the other comments? The ones where, despite several people explaining to them that this is not a criminal case but an immigration issue, and thus not covered by the constitutional right to an attorney, keep insisting otherwise?
At no point have I said this is right, or we should not get upset at it.
Read my statement again. I said that there can be no fruitful discussion while people do not understand the basics of the issue under discussion. I stand by that statement. That is not an insistence on the status quo, and I have no idea how you reached that conclusion.
My purpose in this current thread is nothing more than an effort to set the facts straight for those who are unaware of them, and I’m uncertain why you seem to be taking offense at that. You are projecting intent on my comments that do not exist.
In fact it does, the sixth amendment guarantees, and I quote, “to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”
This is not a criminal court. From the article:
That doesn’t matter
The constitution doesn’t make convenience exceptions.
The constitution specifically states criminal trials, which this is not. 5 seconds of googling would tell you as much, instead of making baseless claims here.
They didnt even need to googlr it, their own link specifies “criminal” defendants
Apparently it does?
It doesn’t as it is a major human rights violation
In the US there are certain human rights you can’t just wave way. They are alienable by definition. It is only a matter of time before these “trials” get challenged
Oh would you just read the article before spouting off already?
American exceptionalism is one hell of a drug.
Haha your bio is spot on
It’s always hilarious when idiots speak with confidence. Makes my day
“Yet the immigration system does not provided [sic] court-appointed counsel to immigrants facing deportation who are unable to afford a lawyer.”
https://immigrantjustice.org/issues/access-counsel
Everyone’s right. It’s horrible, but it’s the way it has been. It’s just getting and will continue to get worse.
checks upvotes
Looks like lemmy is just as poorly informed as the rest of the internet
Funny you should say that…
I would read the bill of rights. It is very important to know as a US citizen.
This is about IMMIGRATION court. They are not US citizens, and the constitution specifically states the right to an attorney is only for CRIMINAL court, which this is not.
My own reading of that amendment is that it puts requirements on the US government, period. It does not limit things to US citizens.
Of course, I know that’s not the way the courts interpret the amendment. 😔
It’s not about citizens or not. It’s limited to criminal cases. Immigration cases are a different thing.
Why did you mention them not being US citizens then? 🤔
Ah. Yeah that bit’s irrelevant. I was just dashing a quick reply off to the other guy, and the last thing he mentioned was US citizens so I guess that wormed its way into my reply.
I emphasized the key word there. There is no guarantee in civil or other courts (which sucks - try finding a divorce lawyer once your ex saps the bank account lol).