Immigration Ruling
Apr 16, 2019 16:05:52 #
Boo_Boo
Loc: Jellystone
A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that apprehended migrants do not have the right to be held in the same state as their children while in detention, thrusting the issue of migrant family separations back into the spotlight.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court’s ruling that migrants do not have a “due process right to family unity.”
“On the merits, we, like the district court, have been unable to find a substantive due process right to family unity in the context of immigration detention pending removal,” the appeals court wrote in its ruling.
“To be sure, there are decisions that recognize the ‘power of parents to control the education of their own’ children…and the ‘fundamental right to make decisions concerning the rearing’ of one’s children…but those decisions hardly support the asserted right to be detained in the same state as one’s children, the right to be visited by children while in detention, or a general right to ‘family unity’ in the context of detention.”
The appeals court also wrote that it would heed decisions from the Supreme Court cautioning lower courts against “innovating” regarding due process rights.
The ruling comes out of a lawsuit brought against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) by two migrants and their children. The family had resided in Virginia and were detained at the Farmville Detention Center in Farmville, Va. until one of the parents was t***sferred to a detention facility in Texas.
Though both parents have been released on bond since the district court’s ruling, they claim they are subject to re-detention by ICE at any time” and thus would “remain at risk of sudden t***sfer out of reach of their children.”
The Trump administration faced an avalanche of criticism last year over its now-revoked “zero-tolerance” policy, which led to a spike in family separations at the border as a means of trying to deter migrants from illegally entering the U.S. Democrats focused on the unpopular policy in the 2018 midterm e******ns, which saw a blue wave usher in a Democratic House majority.
The ruling comes as President Trump doubles down on other hardline immigration policies, including overseeing a purge of DHS’s leadership, weighing efforts to overhaul asylum laws and mulling a plan to send detained migrants to so-called “sanctuary cities” to retaliate against his political enemies.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/439163-court-rules-detainees-dont-have-to-be-held-in-same-state-as-children
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court’s ruling that migrants do not have a “due process right to family unity.”
“On the merits, we, like the district court, have been unable to find a substantive due process right to family unity in the context of immigration detention pending removal,” the appeals court wrote in its ruling.
“To be sure, there are decisions that recognize the ‘power of parents to control the education of their own’ children…and the ‘fundamental right to make decisions concerning the rearing’ of one’s children…but those decisions hardly support the asserted right to be detained in the same state as one’s children, the right to be visited by children while in detention, or a general right to ‘family unity’ in the context of detention.”
The appeals court also wrote that it would heed decisions from the Supreme Court cautioning lower courts against “innovating” regarding due process rights.
The ruling comes out of a lawsuit brought against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) by two migrants and their children. The family had resided in Virginia and were detained at the Farmville Detention Center in Farmville, Va. until one of the parents was t***sferred to a detention facility in Texas.
Though both parents have been released on bond since the district court’s ruling, they claim they are subject to re-detention by ICE at any time” and thus would “remain at risk of sudden t***sfer out of reach of their children.”
The Trump administration faced an avalanche of criticism last year over its now-revoked “zero-tolerance” policy, which led to a spike in family separations at the border as a means of trying to deter migrants from illegally entering the U.S. Democrats focused on the unpopular policy in the 2018 midterm e******ns, which saw a blue wave usher in a Democratic House majority.
The ruling comes as President Trump doubles down on other hardline immigration policies, including overseeing a purge of DHS’s leadership, weighing efforts to overhaul asylum laws and mulling a plan to send detained migrants to so-called “sanctuary cities” to retaliate against his political enemies.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/439163-court-rules-detainees-dont-have-to-be-held-in-same-state-as-children
Apr 16, 2019 17:01:38 #
Just like incarcerated parents in America! The law is the law! I would also support mandatory dna tests!
Apr 16, 2019 20:29:41 #
Wonttakeitanymore wrote:
Just like incarcerated parents in America! The law is the law! I would also support mandatory dna tests!
I would second that...
Good post Pennylynn...
Glad this is getting sorted...
Apr 17, 2019 15:28:01 #
Wonttakeitanymore wrote:
Just like incarcerated parents in America! The law is the law! I would also support mandatory dna tests!
Me too, why they stopped is puzzling. Too many diseases?
Apr 17, 2019 22:23:26 #
Pennylynn wrote:
A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that apprehe... (show quote)
You know, I get confused sometimes, being an old lady and all. What rights are we talking about here, exactly? International human rights? Or constitutional rights? I have heard that i******s have filed suits for their "constitutional rights" being violated. Wouldn't constitutional rights be afforded only to citizens? Or if not, wouldn't these i******s be guilty of breaking and entering and illegal trespass under U.S. law?
Apr 17, 2019 22:42:37 #
Boo_Boo
Loc: Jellystone
debeda wrote:
You know, I get confused sometimes, being an old l... (show quote)
Technically they have zero Constitutional Rights. However, after WWII there was decision and Article 14(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), was adopted in 1948, guarantees the right to seek and enjoy asylum in other countries. Changes have been made and upgrades to the initial agreements. The controlling international convention on refugee law is the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1951 Convention) and its 1967 Optional Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (1967 Optional Protocol). Each participating country or state establishes guidance based on resources and security. Hope this helps.
Apr 17, 2019 22:56:54 #
Pennylynn wrote:
Technically they have zero Constitutional Rights. ... (show quote)
It does help, thanks Penny. I was trying to be funny, fell flat as per usual
Apr 17, 2019 23:02:28 #
Boo_Boo
Loc: Jellystone
debeda wrote:
It does help, thanks Penny. I was trying to be funny, fell flat as per usual
Debeda, I am so sorry..... I am deficient..... my family says I was born without a sense of humor and they have gone to great lengths to teach me, but as you can see..... I am still lacking in that department. I am sure that other folks got the joke....it is just me.
Apr 18, 2019 00:52:35 #
Pennylynn wrote:
Debeda, I am so sorry..... I am deficient..... my family says I was born without a sense of humor and they have gone to great lengths to teach me, but as you can see..... I am still lacking in that department. I am sure that other folks got the joke....it is just me.
Nope, not you. It's me. I do have a rather dry sense of humor, per my family, and it doesn't come across well in writing. Oh well, I yam who I yam, as Popeye always said
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.