Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
OverSword

Asylum seekers can't be held w/out hearing

71 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

OverSword
Quote

 

A federal judge in Seattle ruled Tuesday that asylum-seeking migrants detained for being in the U.S. illegally have the right to a bond hearing in immigration court rather than being held until their cases are complete.

U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman said it is unconstitutional to indefinitely detain migrants who fled to the U.S. seeking asylum protections.

The decision reverses an April directive from Attorney General William Barr ordering immigration judges not to release migrants on bail after an applicant successfully establishes "a credible fear of persecution or torture" in the home country — a policy that has been in place since 2005.

 

"The court finds that plaintiffs have established a constitutionally-protected interest in their liberty, a right to due process, which includes a hearing before a neutral decision maker to assess the necessity of their detention and a likelihood of success on the merits of that issue," Pechman wrote

 

Link

  • Like 3
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

no where it says they must be released into usa.  send them back as soon as hearing date is set.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
10 minutes ago, aztek said:

no where it says they must be released into usa.  send them back as soon as hearing date is set.

Actually, most people on bail can't leave the state, let alone the country.   They want to make sure you show up for the trial after all.

That's the funny thing about our Constitution- if you are accused of breaking the law you get your day in court. They can't jail you without "due process" and a court date.  And the eighth amendment says your bail can't be excessive or cruel and unusual punishments rendered.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Actually, most people on bail can't leave the state, let alone the country.   They want to make sure you show up for the trial after all.

 

lamo,   they could not care less, they do leave the state and vast majority never shows up for hearings,  

remember all of this can be avoided if they do not brake our law in a first place.  like not crossing border where they are not  supposed to. 

Edited by aztek
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

We could just send them to the Aleutians.  Or we could put ankle monitors on them and they have to periodically check in.  If the ankle monitor is cut, if they miss a check-in, or they do not appear in court, then put out an old-fashioned bounty on them for immediate deportation.  I guess to be humane, offer more alive.  But they have to take and pass a medical examination before they are released into our population, as well as a security check.  They also have to have proof of employment before they are released.  Once released, then they are not eligible for welfare meant for US citizens.  They can certainly choose to stay in detention.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Jim

Typically, suspects have to have ties to the community and other factors that provide a reasonable assumption that they won't flee before bond is set.  Also, who is posting bond for potential immigrants who come here with nothing?  Can they be detained if they can't post bond, like any citizen would be?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
Just now, RavenHawk said:

We could just send them to the Aleutians.  Or we could put ankle monitors on them and they have to periodically check in.  If the ankle monitor is cut, if they miss a check-in, or they do not appear in court, then put out an old-fashioned bounty on them for immediate deportation.  

they could not care less, they will cut them off, and hide in any sanctuary city. we need a wall so they do not come pouring like rice out of a cut up bag

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
1 minute ago, aztek said:

they could not care less, they will cut them off, and hide in any sanctuary city. we need a wall so they do not come pouring like rice out of a cut up bag

I agree with a wall, but bounty hunters are not federal.  They can go anywhere and hunt down anyone.  Their hands would not be tied and it would be lucrative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
Just now, RavenHawk said:

I agree with a wall, but bounty hunters are not federal.  They can go anywhere and hunt down anyone.  Their hands would not be tied and it would be lucrative.

that also means we have to pay them enough to get them interested,  one thing is to arrest 1 fugitive, another is to bring dozens of them from a place where there are hundreds of them, local police wont help, if anything liberal mayors will order police to arrest bounty hunters. and dems will push to outlaw bounty hunters all together

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
1 minute ago, RavenHawk said:

I agree with a wall, but bounty hunters are not federal.  They can go anywhere and hunt down anyone.  Their hands would not be tied and it would be lucrative.

Bounty hunters get paid by the bail bondsmen.  The bail would have to be substantial for it to be worth their while.

 

8 minutes ago, aztek said:

lamo,   they could not care less, they do leave the state and vast majority never shows up for hearings,  

remember all of this can be avoided if they do not brake our law in a first place.  like not crossing border where they are not  supposed to. 

The Trump administration is breaking the law in their detainment.  For instance children can be held only for 72hrs by law.  But he has them for upwards of a month.  You can't pick and choose which laws you want to follow. 

That's not even going into the Constitution is which is the basis of all our laws.  Breaking that is a far greater crime than crossing a man made line to file for asylum.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Jim
4 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Or we could put ankle monitors on them and they have to periodically check in.

Do we even have thousands of ankle monitors and the associated hardware and personnel to track them?  Then we would also need a nationwide network of cops to round up the violators.  Without delving deeper into this, it appears to be just another case of a judge trying to thwart the efforts of President Trump in protecting our country.  All we hear about is the rights of potential immigrants, never about the rights of American citizens to live and prosper in their own country.  Detaining them at the border seems to be the only sensible solution.  It gives them their day in court and protects the rest of the country until a final decision is made.  If they are let out on bond before a hearing then most will waive their right to a trial by not showing up and their goal of living in the US illegally will be achieved.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
1 minute ago, Gromdor said:

Bounty hunters get paid by the bail bondsmen.  The bail would have to be substantial for it to be worth their while.

 

The Trump administration is breaking the law in their detainment.  For instance children can be held only for 72hrs by law.  But he has them for upwards of a month.  You can't pick and choose which laws you want to follow. 

That's not even going into the Constitution is which is the basis of all our laws.  Breaking that is a far greater crime than crossing a man made line to file for asylum.

i could not care less, dems make him brake laws, it is their fault. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
2 minutes ago, aztek said:

that also means we have to pay them enough to get them interested,  one thing is to arrest 1 fugitive, another is to bring dozens of them from a place where there are hundreds of them, local police wont help, if anything liberal mayors will order police to arrest bounty hunters. and dems will push to outlaw bounty hunters all together

Yes of course, but for the really innovative bounty hunters will find ways around all of that, even use it to their benefit.  Not all local police are loyal to a liberal mayor or governor.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Jim

The bounty hunter idea doesn't sit well with me.  Too messy and too slow.  How do we insure that legal immigrants are protected?  The bounty hunters could just round up Hispanics and turn them in.  Stripped of legal documents how could their status be verified?  More clogging up the courts, more revolving doors.  We'd be adding to the problem, not solving it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
Just now, aztek said:

i could not care less, dems make him brake laws, it is their fault. 

LOL, you really need to fix your autocorrect.  I read that as, "I could not care less, dems make him stop laws, it is their fault" and "Immigrants stop our laws when the cross illegally."

A crime is a crime no matter what the reason is behind it.  If we started Trump administration people for kidnapping if they hold a child after 72hrs, we would be adhering to the law.

 Why don't we?

Could it be that we aren't trying to twist the lettering of the law (Like Trump is regarding the Asylum seekers) to bypass the Constitution for political points? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
1 minute ago, Gromdor said:

LOL, you really need to fix your autocorrect.  I read that as, "I could not care less, dems make him stop laws, it is their fault" and "Immigrants stop our laws when the cross illegally."

A crime is a crime no matter what the reason is behind it.  If we started Trump administration people for kidnapping if they hold a child after 72hrs, we would be adhering to the law.

 Why don't we?

Could it be that we aren't trying to twist the lettering of the law (Like Trump is regarding the Asylum seekers) to bypass the Constitution for political points? 

lol, will do,  

there is no time limit how long CPS can have a child in custody is there?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
4 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Bounty hunters get paid by the bail bondsmen.  The bail would have to be substantial for it to be worth their while.

It doesn’t have to be the bail bondsman.  Early on, it would be like picking fruit, collecting fugitive illegals.

 

The Trump administration is breaking the law in their detainment.  For instance children can be held only for 72hrs by law.  But he has them for upwards of a month.  You can't pick and choose which laws you want to follow. 

The law is being used against itself.  It is being perverted by these judges.

 

That's not even going into the Constitution is which is the basis of all our laws.  Breaking that is a far greater crime than crossing a man made line to file for asylum.

And the Progs are making a mockery of the intent of the Constitution.  To them, the Constitution is just a man-made line.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
3 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

 

A crime is a crime no matter what the reason is behind it. 

from what i've learned from Clinton e mail investigation, it is not nearly the case

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
2 minutes ago, aztek said:

lol, will do,  

there is no time limit how long CPS can have a child in custody is there?

They set a court date and hold a hearing about that.  The whole court thing is a basic foundation of our legal system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Jim

We hold kids in detention form more than 72 hours in every county in the country with a juvenile detention center.  Since our laws already allow for prosecuting juvenile offenders then why can't we charge the juvenile immigrants and detain them accordingly?  I'm not a lawyer, but another approach would be to designate the detention centers at the border as Approved Foster Facilities.  Then we wouldn't be detaining the kids, they'd be in foster care.  Laws are made of words and often the difference is in the precise phrasing, such as trying to define what "is" is.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
1 minute ago, Gromdor said:

They set a court date and hold a hearing about that.  The whole court thing is a basic foundation of our legal system.

and they are getting their court date, while waiting in custody, 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
1 minute ago, aztek said:

from what i've learned from Clinton e mail investigation, it is not nearly the case

Yeah, and some of the Trumps too.  That whole "criminal intent" thing.  Which incidentally made me wonder how a toddler can be "illegal" or a criminal if they are too young to even understand what is going on, let alone have intent to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent0range
28 minutes ago, aztek said:

lamo,   they could not care less, they do leave the state and vast majority never shows up for hearings,  

remember all of this can be avoided if they do not brake our law in a first place.  like not crossing border where they are not  supposed to. 

Actually, whether you agree with it or not, requesting asylum at a border checkpoint is not breaking the law...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
1 minute ago, Big Jim said:

We hold kids in detention form more than 72 hours in every county in the country with a juvenile detention center.  Since our laws already allow for prosecuting juvenile offenders then why can't we charge the juvenile immigrants and detain them accordingly?  I'm not a lawyer, but another approach would be to designate the detention centers at the border as Approved Foster Facilities.  Then we wouldn't be detaining the kids, they'd be in foster care.  Laws are made of words and often the difference is in the precise phrasing, such as trying to define what "is" is.  

Well, yeah.  That would involve a court date and a preliminary hearing.  Stuff that Trump didn't want to do.  Now that these guys can actually go to court, what you stated is possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
Just now, Agent0range said:

Actually, whether you agree with it or not, requesting asylum at a border checkpoint is not breaking the law...

who said it was?   those people did not go thru checkpoints, thus were apprehended and in custody, a federal agent would know it, 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.