Court rules children facing deportation have NO RIGHT to court-appointed lawyer

[Deleted]

"belief in basic legal representation" - for American citizens, not for ILLEGAL ALIENS.

so if someone visits america and for some reason ends in front of a court he should have no legal represantation ? because an european on a 5 day visit sure as hell isn't paying anymore taxes then ILLEGAL ALIENS. just out of curiosity, cause i'm pretty sure if some american visited an european country and was then denied legal represantation when in front of a court cause "tax money for the natives ,yo " most americans would be rightfully up in arms about it,. And no, "i didn't say it like this" doesn't count, you made it quit clear you want your tax money going to american citizens.

[Deja Thoris]

Ransath proving hes a vile human being, just like the one he supports.

Colour me surprised.

[NED funded]

I can't probably imagine being such a piece of shit that you'd be happy that someone doesn't get legal representation. Rule of law, but not for the undesirables I see.

[Nellise]

The specifics of the case aren't as relevant as the precedents used and established within it, that being that aliens are entitled to protection under the constitution. Very sharp of you to notice that "seems" isn't the same thing as "does" though I'm not sure it really makes the point you think it does. Until it's tested before the Supreme Court there's no way to know if it "does" hence my qualification, which is what most people do instead of making absolute claims based on their opinions.

I feel icky agreeing with Ransath but he's actually right in this case. The question isn't about Due Process being applied to aliens, it is and isn't questioned in this case. It's whether it's being denied by not having government paid for counsel. This other case gives 3 tests that are applied to determine if Due Process was denied: Mathews v. Eldridge. It was determined in this case the 3 tests didn't favor the minor, but instead the government, and so not having government paid for counsel didn't deny him due process.

[Garnier Fructis]

Ransath proving hes a vile human being, just like the one he supports.

Colour me surprised.

He's also the guy whose former signature heavily implied that the only real Americans were Trump supporters. So he's vile on basically every level. Fractally vile.

[Shadowmelded]

I feel icky agreeing with Ransath but he's actually right in this case. The question isn't about Due Process being applied to aliens, it is and isn't questioned in this case. It's whether it's being denied by not having government paid for counsel. This other case gives 3 tests that are applied to determine if Due Process was denied: Mathews v. Eldridge. It was determined in this case the 3 tests didn't favor the minor, but instead the government, and so not having government paid for counsel didn't deny him due process.

Yeah I haven't really been commenting on the specifics of this case as I haven't delved into it too deeply. My series of posts have been pushing back against the erroneous notion that aliens aren't entitled to legal protection that Ransath put forth.

[Powerogue]

I'm with most of the other posters here that this level of punishing someone for a crime they did not commit (unless being born is a crime now, their parents are the party guilty of any foul play here) is unethical and celebrating it makes you look like a grade A jackass.

[Daelak]

Ransath proving hes a vile human being, just like the one he supports.

Colour me surprised.

The most idiotic thing about Ransath's and the rest of the US conservative braintrust opposition to immigration, is that it has been a hallmark of white nationalism and supremacy since the first waves of Chinese immigrants in the early 1800s. Ignorant poorly educated whites were even creating false disctintions between Anglo whites and 'papist' whites who were under the mind control of the pope, sent to the US to "fundamentally transform" their country and their families.

It's always the same racist, supremacist trope, yet it has to be hidden in New manufacture language to get another generation of poorly educated whites and the token minority population to come rail against "chain migration" and standing up for the rule of law.

[Trifle]

I feel icky agreeing with Ransath but he's actually right in this case. The question isn't about Due Process being applied to aliens, it is and isn't questioned in this case. It's whether it's being denied by not having government paid for counsel. This other case gives 3 tests that are applied to determine if Due Process was denied: Mathews v. Eldridge. It was determined in this case the 3 tests didn't favor the minor, but instead the government, and so not having government paid for counsel didn't deny him due process.

I'm a bit confused by this. The court decision basically says that not having a lawyer didn't harm him, so his due process wasn't violated. But then it spells out several points that he didn't establish / argue properly when they made their decision, which I'm pretty sure a lawyer would have done a better job at. Given that there is distinctly a non-zero possibility of a different outcome if he had had legal representation, how can you realistically say his due process wasn't violated?

The panel further held that the IJ was not required to inform C.J. that he might be eligible for Special Immigrant Juvenile status, concluding that the IJ’s duty to inform aliens of “apparent eligibility” for relief was not triggered because,at the time of his removal proceeding, C.J. did not have a state court order that could have made him apparently eligible for SIJ status.

Gee, maybe his lawyer could have told him about this and gotten him the state court order.

[Elba]

People who support this are either despicable or trolls. In either case, not worth your time to "discuss" with. Stop feeding it.

[Reinhard von Lohengramm]

Good, a step in the right direction.

And no I don't care about all the blathering and crying that basically amounts to "if you agree with this, you're wrong, and evil, and bad." Have your opinion, and realize it is exactly that and nothing more.

Apathy. Tolerance. Compassion. Empathy.
Evils that destroy nations, when the ones in charge of said nations abandon cold critical thinking and clinical logic in favour of them.

[stumpy]

my mouth is open

And the sooner that your head is separated from your body and converted into a public urinal on Main Street, the sooner God might consider granting your parents a reprieve from their eternal damnation in hell for failing to strangle you in their crib when they had the chance.

infracted - major flaming

[Mehrunes]

This...is not something that I think any decent, moral person would be celebrating.

Now I wonder why Trump supporters may be celebrating it :3

[Flarelaine]

This...is not something that I think any decent, moral person would be celebrating.

And do you see any of those celebrating it?

[Mehrunes]

I know this is a waste of bits, but you do understand that the point of the trial, is to determine if the person in question is in fact an illegal alien and subject to deportation? Let me put it another way, did you know that we have wrongly deported people before? Why do you think it is OK to deport US citizens without the benefit of legal counsel?

I really like how @Ransath in all their furious strawstorm addressed at every other post still didn't manage to find a way to handwave this post away and instead chose to cowardly ignore it altogether.

[Flarelaine]

*shrugs*
Minors typically don't have the ability to exercise civil rights responsibly. That's why they can't get married or vote, or get the privilege to drive.

They can get married, though. In all 50 states, at this moment. There may be conditions on that, but not a single outright ban.

[Flarelaine]

Some people here make me want to post things that would lead to me being infracted

I know, right? Just got one last night.

The troll reporting me, though, got banned in the same pass, soooo... I guess I'm fine.

[Garnier Fructis]

I really like how @Ransath in all their furious strawstorm addressed at every other post still didn't manage to find a way to handwave this post away and instead chose to cowardly ignore it altogether.

@Kujako

Clearly it's fine because they aren't 'real Americans.'

[Tackhisis]

Let the Honduras government hire him a lawyer, it is her citizen after all.

Deportation is not a punishment, so no lawyer is necessary.

[Macaquerie]

Nah, our forefathers didn’t want people illegally entering and getting free shit any more than the majority of Americans do now. Does Britain allow people to illegally enter and stay indefinitely?

The founding fathers were all about importing as many immigrants as possible, so long as they were white of course, in order to settle the western frontier and push out the natives, who certainly were never consulted about the flood of settlers pouring into their homelands. Interestingly enough, most of the illegal immigrants in the US now are of predominantly indigenous ancestry, so if you want to push the nativist rhetoric, if anything they have a much stronger claim to that land than most of the people living there now.