US judge halts deportation, threatens Sessions with contempt

I'm 100% sure there is more to this story than what is reported in the article.

Sounds a lot like a string-tugging emotional hit piece IMO.

a reply to: SailorJerry

If you are seeking asylum in this country, and you enter across a non checkpoint, and dont declare asylum, then you are illegal.

So? Who said this woman was illegal?

At any rate:

To obtain asylum through the affirmative asylum process you must be physically present in the United States. You may apply for asylum status regardless of how you arrived in the United States or your current immigration status.

You must apply for asylum within one year of the date of your last arrival in the United States unless you can show:
Changed circumstances that materially affect your eligibility for asylum or extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing
You filed within a reasonable amount of time given those circumstances.

A defensive application for asylum occurs when you request asylum as a defense against removal from the U.S. For asylum processing to be defensive, you must be in removal proceedings in immigration court with the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).

Individuals are generally placed into defensive asylum processing in one of two ways:·
They are referred to an Immigration Judge by USCIS after they have been determined to be ineligible for asylum at the end of the affirmative asylum process, or
They are placed in removal proceedings because they:
Were apprehended (or caught) in the United States or at a U.S. port of entry without proper legal documents or in violation of their immigration status,
OR
Were caught by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) trying to enter the United States without proper documentation, were placed in the expedited removal process, and were found to have a credible fear of persecution or torture by an Asylum Officer. See Questions & Answers: Credible Fear Screenings for more information on the Credible Fear Process.

www.uscis.gov...

originally posted by: toms54

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: toms54

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: toms54

Its complete bull#. Illegals sueing our gover ment.

Get the hell out of here.

So laws be damned , spoken like a true authoritarian, you don't get to pick and choose which laws are followed based on your feelings....

We can't sue Saudi Arabia over 9/11 but Mexicans can sue us for their own domestic violence? How does that figure?

That's simple, there is no real evidence Saudi Arabia were behind the 911 attack.

My bad.
US court allows 9/11 victims' lawsuits claiming Saudi Arabia helped plan terror attack

Your own source says they found no evidence the Saudi government had anything to do with it, and this from the Saudi lawyer...

“All rejected Saudi Arabia was responsible,” he said.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

I don't know who did it. They do allow the lawsuits now so I posted a correction.

The whole point of the first post was that we can't sue over an international disaster but this woman is allowed to sue the US over a local case of domestic (or gang) violence in Central America.

originally posted by: Vector99
I'm 100% sure there is more to this story than what is reported in the article.

Sounds a lot like a string-tugging emotional hit piece IMO.

If you're a 100% sure, then logically you must have proof. Want to share it with the rest of us?

a reply to: Kharron

How is it any different to the other 94,000 cases except she was getting deported?

a reply to: Kharron

Common sense. If she is filing suit against the US, that means a judgement against her has already been made. Where is that info?

The woman — identified in court as Carmen

Isn't a whole lot of information to start searching with.

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Kharron

Can we now talk about the corruption in the DoJ and HS and the White House and the obvious agenda to remove as many people as possible, even if it goes against our own laws? Our law matters when we want it to and doesn't when it clashes with agendas? 

Why are you asking me what laws?

And what right do illegals have to sue our government? Get the he'll out if you dont like the way we run things. You can do that or become a citizen and work to change the laws the right way like the rest of us have to.

Oh so you really don't know, my bad, I'll answer your question.

The Constitution of the United States, that law is one of the main ones they are breaking. But that should come as no surprise. You see, the Constitution applies to all humans that are in our territory. The Constitution makes it pretty clear when it writes that it applies to all "persons" or "people" and not just "citizens". That means that any person on our land has the rights and privileges that the Constitution grants. This has been upheld by the Supreme Court and is axiomatic in the law.

The Fifth Amendment then says that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This means that if someone seeks justice in our court of law and files a lawsuit in our courts, they are Constitutionally protected.

Hope that helps. Next time, please let me know if you're really looking for information, your tone is very confrontational -- I thought you were just trolling. Anyone genuinely looking for information, I have no problem helping.

Why don't you go to Iran and sue their government for citizenship. I'll grab some popcorn.

a reply to: toms54


Seems we need more information then ....

a reply to: Vector99

If she is filing suit against the US, that means a judgement against her has already been made.

She applied for asylum based on either gang violence or domestic violence, or both. But, Jeff Sessions has just recently eliminated those claims as qualifiers for asylum, while there were okay just a few months ago. The ACLU is representing her case, as well as a few others, to challenge the new changes. The DOJ deported her in the middle of litigation. As a result, the judge is not happy with Jeff Sessions.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

So it seems it is safe to assume she had been ordered to be deported prior to filing her lawsuit.

She also doesn't have to be present for this current trial to proceed.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Kharron

Can we now talk about the corruption in the DoJ and HS and the White House and the obvious agenda to remove as many people as possible, even if it goes against our own laws? Our law matters when we want it to and doesn't when it clashes with agendas? 

Why are you asking me what laws?

And what right do illegals have to sue our government? Get the he'll out if you dont like the way we run things. You can do that or become a citizen and work to change the laws the right way like the rest of us have to.

Oh so you really don't know, my bad, I'll answer your question.

The Constitution of the United States, that law is one of the main ones they are breaking. But that should come as no surprise. You see, the Constitution applies to all humans that are in our territory. The Constitution makes it pretty clear when it writes that it applies to all "persons" or "people" and not just "citizens". That means that any person on our land has the rights and privileges that the Constitution grants. This has been upheld by the Supreme Court and is axiomatic in the law.

The Fifth Amendment then says that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This means that if someone seeks justice in our court of law and files a lawsuit in our courts, they are Constitutionally protected.

Hope that helps. Next time, please let me know if you're really looking for information, your tone is very confrontational -- I thought you were just trolling. Anyone genuinely looking for information, I have no problem helping.

Why don't you go to Iran and sue their government for citizenship. I'll grab some popcorn.

Make you a deal -- when you get out of high school we can go together.

a reply to: Vector99

She also doesn't have to be present for this current trial to proceed.

Interesting, if true. But, the judge ordered her back, so there's that. Better safe than sorry. I'd hate to hear that she had won her case, but was murdered in El Salvador waiting for the ruling.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Vector99

She also doesn't have to be present for this current trial to proceed.

Interesting, if true. But, the judge ordered her back, so there's that.

I'd bet money that she won't be returned, and the judges threats will be empty threats, or threats with no legs to back them.

I'd hate to hear that she had won her case, but was murdered in El Salvador waiting for the ruling.

It would be sad to hear, but tragedy strikes on a daily basis. It's only important when its politicized apparently, which is even sadder.

Like I said, there is more to this story than what is told, and typically when the rest of the story isn't told, it's because the other side doesn't favor your bias.

a reply to: Vector99

I'd bet money that she won't be returned, and the judges threats will be empty threats, or threats with no legs to back them.

She is being returned according to the original linked article. It states she never debarked the plane in El Salvador.

However, this demonstrates clearly why the interpretations of the Constitution that are wielded so often are improper. They create a paradox. The proper interpretation is that "citizen" refers to those who are legal citizens, "person" applies to any human legally present within the United States, and none of it applies to someone who illegally crossed the border.

If it did, if "person" applied to someone who crossed the border illegally, then there can be no immigration law. It is simply too easy to find someone who supports illegal immigration to file suit for them, as this woman did. If they then cannot be deported until after the lawsuit, we're going to need a lot more judges... as in magnitudes more. Anyone who crosses that border has the physical ability to ask for asylum, so some measure of weeding out the obvious liars must be in place or again, there is no immigration law.

Without some sort of limit on immigration, the border functions as a one-way valve. Anyone wandering across the border into Mexico will likely be shot on sight. If they are lucky, they will spend the next few years in a Mexican jail because in Mexico, illegal entry is a felony. Since we already know from empirical data that a large percentage of illegal border crossings are criminals looking for a new place to commit crimes, and we can reasonably state that the remainder are poor, which indicate no job skills, that spells doom for the US economy. No country has unlimited resources, but the potential influx is practically unlimited.

So we have a choice to make: we either use a little common sense in reading the laws and establish some reasonable border control that actually works, or we resign ourselves to living in a third-world country. I have personally made my decision. I want the United States to be a sovereign country that allows for legal immigration and naturalization according to our laws.

I will also say I am very disappointed to hear that Sessions backed down. He is losing my respect more every day.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I missed the part stating they were returning. Very interesting to say the least.

It's times like these that supreme court appointees are extremely important, with judges imposing law that doesn't follow current written law, many cases will end up before them.

I wish people could take off the horse-blinders and realize many of these asylum seekers are using asylum excuses just to gain access, in which time they become and economic immigrant. Working here and taking advantage of wages while having full intent to return to their home nation in a few years to a decade.

But those heart-strings, they are tugged sooo easily, so it's likely we will not see any difference in current attitudes and mindsets of liberals. Well, that is until they either get old enough or smart enough to realize liberalism is nice and all, it's great even! That is, until the check comes....

a reply to: TheRedneck

The woman came to the USA. Dragging her child along with her from El Salvador to escape "domestic abuse".

Everyone knows there's two sides to them stories. The US. Government shouldn't get involved in petty family disputes. She has her own government and laws to appeal to.

Do they not have laws in her country against domestic abuse? No laws against it in any country between El Salvador and the US?
For all we know she killed her husband, inlaws and lit her home on fire before seeking "asylum" in the US.

You bleeding heart liberals will be the downfall of the United States.

If the liberal judge that wants to make law instead of in force law, can try and turn a plane around they can appeal to her country to look into her claims of "abuse".
It's sickening how the left in the US. Are trying to bring every sob story in. In hopes of creating a "blue" voting block.
This judge should be impeached for taking part in that conspiracy.

a reply to: Kharron

The law was perfectly and swiftly applied, regardless of what an activist judge says.
Illegal aliens get deported. You don;t need a court case to understand that.
Seems like Sessions is finally doing something right.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: SocratesJohnson


What makes you think this woman and her child are illegal. All the article says is that they're asylum seekers from El Salvador.

They were denied an asylum hearing based on Session's new rule eliminating domestic violence and gang violence victims from seeking asylum. The ACLU, with this woman as their client, is suing the DOJ because of that (arbitrary) rule change, which goes against our international refugee treaties and federal law that incorporated refugee/asylum procedure.

Here are the rules for seeking asylum and this woman doesn't fit within that requirement.

Asylum has three basic requirements. First, an asylum applicant must establish that he or she fears persecution in their home country.[3] Second, the applicant must prove that he or she would be persecuted on account of one of five protected grounds: race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or particular social group. Third, an applicant must establish that the government is either involved in the persecution, or unable to control the conduct of private actors.

en.wikipedia.org...