[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
politics and politicians Title: Feds Defy Judge and Congressmen to Uphold Trump’s Orders at Dulles Sunday was a day of strength for the Trump administration at Washington Dulles International Airport. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)––the federal agency tasked with keeping people from entering the U.S. illegally––successfully deflected a federal judge’s court order and stonewalled three members of congress, in a display of executive branch muscle. The night before, Judge Leonie Brinkema ordered CBP officials at the airport to let lawyers have access to legal permanent residents of the U.S. who were detained because of Trump’s travel ban. It was a court order from a federal judge, which meant it was enforceable by federal law enforcement. But immigration lawyers at Dulles said it didn’t get adequately enforced. Instead, CBP kept the Dulles detainees––and it still isn’t public how many lawful American residents were held there, and for how long–– from having face-to-face conversations with attorneys. Instead, probably as a gesture toward compliance, immigration attorneys told The Daily Beast that they had learned detainees were provided with a copy of Judge Brinkema’s order and a paper listing contact information for pro bono immigration attorneys based in Northern Virginia. It isn’t clear if those attorneys were on call on Sunday. It isn’t clear if all the detainees had access to phones while they were being held. And it isn’t clear why CBP barred the numerous volunteer immigration attorneys at hand on the airport from talking in person with people being held. And their need for attorneys was urgent. Slate reported that at least two detainees––a 19-year-old and a 21-year-old, both citizens of Yemen––signed away their green cards while they were in detention without access to lawyers. It was the worst nightmare for the volunteer lawyers at Dulles: that CBP would be able to nab a public relations win by releasing detainees––but without the public realizing that the agency may have bullied some of those detainees into ceding their rights to live in the United States. Brinkema’s order, which was just a few lines long, directed CBP to “permit lawyers access to all legal permanent residents being detained at Dulles International Airport.” Lawyers at the airport, who spent hours waiting and hoping to be able to meet with travelers who were held by CBP, said they were deeply distressed that no one forced the agency to comply more fully with Brinkema’s order. On Sunday morning, the Legal Aid Justice Center and Mayer Brown law firm––who filed the suit––released statement saying they would monitor CBP to be sure it did as Brinkema ordered. “U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has recently confirmed that it has modified its practices with respect to LPR persons in response to the federal court’s temporary restraining order,” the statement said. “We are monitoring CBP’s new practices to ensure rigid adherence and to determine if they comply with the judicial directive.” Some immigration attorneys at Dulles want CBP held in contempt of court. Hassan Ahmad––an immigration attorney who carried a sign that said “See something? Say something! (To me; I’m a lawyer)”––told The Daily Beast he was frustrated that 24 hours after Brinkema released her order, CBP seemed to be defying it. “We still haven’t talked to a client,” said Ahmad, who is with the HMA Law Firm in McLean, Va. “And that is proving serious Constitutional problems for access to counsel. Rights are being violated.” He wasn’t satisfied with the phone numbers that CBP gave detainees. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest "We still haven’t talked to a client,” said Ahmad, Well, diaperhead, that's because illegals DONT HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS... until they are legal. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح #2. To: GrandIsland, Gatlin (#1)
Well, diaperhead, that's because illegals DONT HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS... until they are legal. I believe that statement overreaches and is clearly incorrect. Some constitutional rights explicitly protect persons and apply to all persons within the United States. These people are persons, however, they arrived at the port of entry and were not immediately granted admission and were detained. They were detained in the neutral zone and as a legal technically or legal fiction, they are not considered to have entered the United States. They are arriving aliens. An "arriving alien" seeking admission does not enjoy constitutional rights. It is unclear what law the judge is applying. They do not have a right to an attorney appointed to them; this is not a criminal matter. They would only be awaiting an administrative proceeding.
“We still haven’t talked to a client,” said Ahmad, who is with the HMA Law Firm in McLean, Va. Unless one of the detained people has retained his services, Ahmad does not have a client. The judge's order reads in part:
a) respondents shall permit lawyers access to all legal permanent residents being detained at Dulles International Airport; While impressive sounding, there may not be any detained person who held the status of "legal permanent resident" as opposed to the status of "arriving alien." These are not deportation cases as the subjects are not in the country. These are exclusion cases potentially leading to removal. In the act shown below, if an immigration officer or an immigration judge suspects that an "arriving alien" may be inadmissible on security and related grounds, an order of removal may be issued without further hearing, subject to review by the Attorney General; and if the Attorney does not order the removal of the alien, the Attorney General shall specify the further inquiry or hearing that shall be conducted in the case. It is not clear what right to an attorney the judge is enforcing, or what an attorney could do if he had an attorney. It is not clear how an attorney, not representing a client, has a right to see his non-existent client. They retain the status of "arriving alien" and an Immigration Judge lacks jurisdiction to do anything. An "arriving alien" per 8 C.F.R § 1.1(q):
[A]n applicant for admission coming or attempting to come into the United States at a port-of-entry, or an alien seeking transit through the United States at a port-of-entry, or an alien interdicted in international or United States waters and brought into the United States by any means, whether or not to a designated port-of-entry, and regardless of the means of transport. An arriving alien remains an arriving alien even if paroled pursuant to section 212(d)(5) of the Act, and even after such parole is terminated or revoked. An "arriving alien" remains such even if he or she is physically present in the United States. As a legal fiction, he or she is still outside the door, trying to get in. There is a special consideration for a alien with legal permanent resident (green card) status, see Matter of Alcibiades Antonio PENA, link, full citation, and quote below.
An alien returning to the United States who has been granted lawful permanent resident status cannot be regarded as seeking an admission and may not be charged with inadmissibility under section 212(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a) (2012), if he or she does not fall within any of the exceptions in section 101(a)(13)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(C) (2012). However, the cited 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(C) seems to extinguish any claim to not being an "arriving alien."
(vi) is attempting to enter at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers or has not been admitted to the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer. That appears to precisely describe the situation of the arriving aliens who were detained after they were inspected by an immigration officer and not granted admission. So, it appears their legal status is that of "arriving alien," not "legal permanent resident", until they are granted admission. - - - - - - - - - - SOURCES: http://immigrationcourtside.com/category/courts/edva/judge-leonie-brinkema/
Copy Of TRO By Judge Leonie Brinkema, EDVA, Prohibiting Removal Of LPRs & Requiring Access To Counsel — Aziz v. Trump - - - - - - - - - - https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_65
Rule 65. Injunctions and Restraining Orders - - - - - - - - - - https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/ocomm/ilink/0-0-0-10948.html Pub. L. 104-208 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 [excerpt]
"(c) REMOVAL OF ALIENS INADMISSIBLE ON SECURITY AND RELATED GROUNDS.- - - - - - - - - - - https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2014/07/25/3344.pdf
Interim Decision #3344 - - - - - - - - - - https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/practice_advisory/ar_alien.pdf Getting into the weeds on "arriving alien." - - - - - - - - - - https://www.justice.gov/eoir/file/478111/download
Matter of Alcibiades Antonio PENA, Respondent - - - - - - - - - - http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2014/title-8/chapter-12/subchapter-i/sec.-1101/ 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(13)(C)
8 U.S.C. § 1101 (2014) - - - - - - - - - -
#3. To: nolu chan (#2) I believe that statement overreaches and is clearly incorrect. I believe that at some point, this exact question needs to be decided by the USC. We've become weakened by over sensitivity... and aside from the libtards in this country using over sensitivity as a means to use our kindness as weakness, the rest of the filthy world is too. It's why that Ricky Ricardo looking mother fuker from Mexico won't police his own scum from invading us... it's what keeps other countries smiling with lopsided trade deals with us... it's what keeps us from waterboarding smelly diaper head shitbags for Intel, for our own SECURITY... it's what keeps our borders open, 24/7 like WalMart.... it's what fuels NARCANing a heroine shitbird for the 5th time as we snub out natural selection at work... it's what causes LIBERALNESS and taxing into 20 trillion dollar deficits. Americans should have "constitutional rights" only... and everyone else, until Americanized LEGALLY, should only be looked at as having BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS. Then, that cunt Elizabeth Warren, can shut her filthy Agitation Propagandist twat licker at the airports. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح #4. To: GrandIsland (#3)
I believe that at some point, this exact question needs to be decided by the USC. ... Americans should have "constitutional rights" only... and everyone else, until Americanized LEGALLY, should only be looked at as having BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS. If that is wanted, it should be done by amendment and not by the USSC. The constitutional phrasing is clear when it refers to the aggregate of American citizens as "the people." The phrasing is equally clear when it intends to be inclusive of more than just the people of the United States — using the term "all persons;" or "no person," or "any person."
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. - - - - - - - - - -
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. - - - - - - - - - -
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
#5. To: nolu chan (#4) nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. If any person means a non-American or non-citizen, then our founding fathers were HIGH when they wrote this. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح #6. To: nolu chan (#4) nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law It's not a deprivation of rights to lawfully remove persons who have come here unlawfully and return those persons to their country of origin. To argue to the contrary is ridiculous. Else anyone could arrive here from anywhere, and folks would continue to come claiming "equal protection of the laws" until the boat was swamped to the gunwales and ready to tip over. And we're getting to that point. NO NATION affords any and all comers such rights although some northern hemisphere nations are coming perilously close - so close that rebellions are brewing in countries that have proven themselves so suicidally charitable.
#7. To: GrandIsland (#5) [GI #5] If any person means a non-American or non-citizen, then our founding fathers were HIGH when they wrote this. It is patently obvious that "any person" includes citizen and non-citizen alike.
nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; If you were correct, a state may deprive aliens of life without due process of law. Can a state lawfully sentence an alien to death without a trial? Can an alien be lawfully sentenced to death by a procedure which denied him assistance of attorney or a jury? If the alien enjoys NO constitutional rights, from where does he obtain a right to a jury trial and assistance of attorney? There are some constitutional rights that apply to all persons in the United States. The Framers were not high when writing the Constitution. Were aliens here to be denied all rights provided to citizens, reciprocal action would be taken against Americans by other nations.
#8. To: randge (#6)
[Randge #6] It's not a deprivation of rights to lawfully remove persons who have come here unlawfully and return those persons to their country of origin. It is not a deprivation of rights to remove persons who have arrived here unlawfully. I made no argument that such was the case. I only observed that there are some constitutional rights which apply to both citizens and aliens. There are some circumstances under which an alien may not be returned to his country of origin. The country of origin may refuse to accept them, or returning them there could to the harm or death of the alien. That does not mean the alien must be admitted, but we may have to shop about for a country willing to accept them. These same rights do not apply to aliens at a border entry point, requesting admission. There is no right to admission. The President may, by proclamation, for such period as he deems necessary, suspend the entry of any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants. http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2013/title-8/chapter-12/subchapter-ii/part-ii/section-1182/ Inadmissible aliens - 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (2013) 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) (2013)
(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|