4-year-old migrant girl, other kids go to court in NYC with no lawyer: 'The cruelty is apparent'
gothamist.com
The Trump administration cut funding for lawyers aiding unaccompanied minors in court.

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

  • AwesomeLowlanderEnglish
    2·
    2 months ago

    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?

    Like this niche application of systemic abuse against a foreign underclass should be common knowledge we shouldn’t get mad at.

    At no point have I said this is right, or we should not get upset at it.

    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.

    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.