US judge halts deportation, threatens Sessions with contempt

Its like these judges dont actually know how the legal system works.

How can you become a judge, that helps decide a persons future, sometimes to the point of death, but not know how the American Legal system works up to the Supreme Court?

This is Sessions Rationale:

Asylum claims have expanded too broadly to include victims of “private violence,” like domestic violence or gangs, Mr. Sessions wrote in his ruling, which narrowed the type of asylum requests allowed. The number of people who told homeland security officials that they had a credible fear of persecution jumped to 94,000 in 2016 from 5,000 in 2009, he said in a speech earlier in the day in which he signaled he would restore “sound principles of asylum and longstanding principles of immigration law.”

“The prototypical refugee flees her home country because the government has persecuted her,” Mr. Sessions wrote in his ruling. Because immigration courts are housed under the Justice Department, not the judicial branch of government, he has the authority to overturn their decisions.

“An alien may suffer threats and violence in a foreign country for any number of reasons relating to her social, economic, family or other personal circumstances,” he added. “Yet the asylum statute does not provide redress for all misfortune.”

Relatively few asylum seekers are granted permanent entry into the United States. In 2016, for every applicant who succeeded, more than 10 others also sought asylum, according to data from the Department of Homeland Security. But the process can take months or years, and tens of thousands of people live freely in the United States while their cases wend through the courts.

Link

It does seem people have been abusing the Asylum status, as only 1 out ten are actually granted Asylum. People learned how to game the system.

Most people who claim Asylum according to this 2016 Report do so by entering illegally into our Country.
Defensive means they claimed Asylum crossing the border illegally.




PDF of Report
Link

originally posted by: Echo007

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.

Why not seek asylum in a country near by, why come all the to the US. We all know why, they want free handouts from US that's why.

Let's take a page out of Mexico book, send the illegals up to Canada border.

How about if we send our criminals to Mexico?

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: Kharron

In a way I can understand the judge's point of view. On a practical level, how is he planning to enforce it? Arrest Jeff Sessions? Sessions controls the Justice Dept and all of federal law enforcement.

Can Trump pardon a contempt charge?

It won't come to it, the article says that they are being returned, but it took threats of contempt to get the government to comply. This is happening in multiple States now and federal judges, most of them Republican, have had to uphold the law when the government tries to go around it. Deportations, separations, forced medications etc...

It is beyond disturbing that so many judges have had to get involved so far.

A good example of why this law needs to be changed.

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?

a reply to: Gothmog

But not folks illegally in the US

Yes, even non-citizen's charged with a crime, like illegal entry, have certain Constitutional rights.

You really need to leave interpreting the US Constitution to the US Supreme Court .

You need to tall that to these people! thehill.com...
www.learnliberty.org...

Should a noncitizen be charged with a crime, he has exactly the same Fifth and Sixth Amendment procedural rights as a citizen, including the right to a jury trial, the right to counsel, and protection against self-incrimination. If convicted, the Eighth Amendment prevents the government from subjecting aliens to “cruel and unusual punishment” in exactly the same ways as it does with citizens.

That a few constitutional rights may be specifically reserved to citizens underscores the broader principle that the vast majority are not. There would be no need to specify such a reservation if the Constitution had a default rule limiting rights to citizens.
In reality, the vast majority of rights outlined in the Constitution are phrased as general limitations on government power, not special protections for a specific class of people — be they citizens or some other group.

Just because you have loud online posting voice, doesn't mean that you actually know what you're talkinga bout!

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Illegal - An illegal immigrant/alien is a person who has entered a country without government permission. Ergo , Also a Criminal . That Entails ANYONE who tries to Entr the Country WITHOUT PERMISSION Froggy.................

What proof do you have that the women in this case, an asylum seeker, entered the country without government permission, i.e. at the border crossing? Do you think that all asylum seekers are "illegals"?

Yes. They are illegal until granted asylum.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Can someone seek asylum for domestic abuse? Seems we have about a few billion around the planet we need to round up if that is the case, plus why does a person need to come all the way across Mexico to America to seek asylum for domestic abuse?

because Mexico has enough balls to realize they aren't truly seeking asylum, they deny them and let them travel through to the US

originally posted by: SailorJerry
Its like these judges dont actually know how the legal system works.

How can you become a judge, that helps decide a persons future, sometimes to the point of death, but not know how the American Legal system works up to the Supreme Court?

Donate to the Clinton Foundation.

originally posted by: toms54

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Illegal - An illegal immigrant/alien is a person who has entered a country without government permission. Ergo , Also a Criminal . That Entails ANYONE who tries to Entr the Country WITHOUT PERMISSION Froggy.................

What proof do you have that the women in this case, an asylum seeker, entered the country without government permission, i.e. at the border crossing? Do you think that all asylum seekers are "illegals"?

Yes. They are illegal until granted asylum.

Nope. Asylum status can take years. In the meantime, asylum seekers are granted a legal stay in the US while go through the process of adjudication.

Overall, the asylum process can take years to conclude. In some cases, a person may file his or her application and receive a hearing or interview date years in the future.

www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org...

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.

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: Kharron

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.

Only if they are citizens.
The Constitution provides no exception for illegals

That is patently untrue. The Constitution applies to all human beings, not just citizens.

I would hope ATS readers would at least be aware of our Constitution and the rights it affords to all people. Immigrants are human and therefore are afforded all Constitutional rights. This has been LONG established and is no longer even questioned, as there are many precedents.

Here is what the law has to say on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its territory the equal protection of the laws. This means that a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. The Federal Government must do the same, but this is required by the Fifth Amendment Due Process.

The point of the equal protection clause is to force a state to govern impartially—not draw distinctions between individuals solely on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objective. Thus, the equal protection clause is crucial to the protection of civil rights.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: toysforadults


Is U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of Washington a Democrat?

Probably appointed by clinton. But DC courts tend to lean left anyway. However having said that you can't remove people from the country who are in the middle of a court case. They have the right to have their case heard.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: toysforadults


Is U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of Washington a Democrat?

Probably appointed by clinton. But DC courts tend to lean left anyway. However having said that you can't remove people from the country who are in the middle of a court case. They have the right to have their case heard.

It's the fourth post down on page 1; appointed by Reagan and then HW Bush. But I believe every President since Reagan has promoted the Judge in some way.

a reply to: Kharron

Illegal immigrants do have constitutional rights -- but not all of the rights of citizens. For example deportation can occur without going to court. Congress has full authority to regulate immigration without interference from the courts. The Supreme Court has long held that immigration law is largely immune from judicial review. Congress can make rules for immigrants that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

" Asylum Seekers " is a Dubious Term . Is there Documentation that Supports this Woman's Claim ? If not , why should the Government Consider her Legal Entry into the Country ?

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

a reply to: Zanti Misfit


The article doesn't say that she entered the country illegally. So, there's no reason to assume that she did, or argue that because she's illegal, she has no rights. It wouldn't matter anyway, because illegal entry doesn't affect an asylum seeker's claim.

It does say, however, that she's seeking asylum because of gang violence or domestic abuse. But, Jeff Session's new rule eliminates gang violence and domestic abuse as eligible claims for asylum. This woman is being represented by the ACLU to challenge Session's new rule, but the DOJ deported her before her case could be heard.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Kharron

Illegal immigrants do have constitutional rights -- but not all of the rights of citizens. For example deportation can occur without going to court. Congress has full authority to regulate immigration without interference from the courts. The Supreme Court has long held that immigration law is largely immune from judicial review. Congress can make rules for immigrants that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.

When they apply for asylum and then go on holiday in the US and never show up to their court date. At that point, they should have summary judgement entered against them. Next time they are caught, they go.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Zanti Misfit


The article doesn't say that she entered the country illegally. So, there's no reason to assume that she did, or argue that because she's illegal, she has no rights. It wouldn't matter anyway, because illegal entry doesn't affect an asylum seeker's claim.

It does say, however, that she's seeking asylum because of gang violence or domestic abuse. But, Jeff Session's new rule eliminates gang violence and domestic abuse as eligible claims for asylum. This woman is being represented by the ACLU to challenge Session's new rule, but the DOJ deported her before her case could be heard.

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

Thats how it works, its not rocket English.