cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/42834907

“The reason we’re here is because the government of the United States wants you to leave the United States,” Judge Ubaid ul-Haq, presiding from a courtroom on Varick Street, told a group of about a dozen children on a recent morning on Webex.

The parties included a 7-year-old boy, wearing a shirt emblazoned with a pizza cartoon, who spun a toy windmill while the judge spoke. There was an 8-year-old girl and her 4-year-old sister, in a tie-dye shirt, who squeezed a pink plushy toy and stuffed it into her sleeve. None of the children were accompanied by parents or attorneys, only shelter workers who helped them log on to the hearing.

Immigrant advocates and lawyers say an increasing number of migrant children are making immigration court appearances without the assistance of attorneys, which they say will lead to more children getting deported.

“That child will be ordered deported from this country — that could all happen without that child ever speaking with an attorney and given the opportunity to obtain representation,” Shah said. “The cruelty is really apparent to all of us out here in the field.”

holy shit

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 79 points 2 years ago (24 children)

They can preside over it, but they should just have dismissed the case with prejudice for the government not providing a lawyer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] 70 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (23 children)

    Unfortunately the law does not obligate the govt to provide a lawyer.

    Edit: In immigration court. This is not a criminal court.

    Edit edit: The number of people unable to comprehend the difference is giving me insight into just how bad the education system is in the states.

    Edit edit edit: Apparently me explaining the facts of the matter makes me a bad guy 🤦

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (13 children)
  • [–] 42 points 2 years ago (10 children)

    This is not a criminal court. From the article:

    Unlike in criminal court, people — including adults and children — in immigration court aren’t guaranteed pro bono attorneys if their incomes fall below a certain threshold.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] -25 points 2 years ago (9 children)

    That doesn't matter

    The constitution doesn't make convenience exceptions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    That doesn't matter

    Apparently it does?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -24 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    It doesn't as it is a major human rights violation

    In the US there are certain human rights you can't just wave way. They are alienable by definition. It is only a matter of time before these "trials" get challenged

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -16 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    Funny you should say that....

    I would read the bill of rights. It is very important to know as a US citizen.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    This is about IMMIGRATION court. They are not US citizens, and the constitution specifically states the right to an attorney is only for CRIMINAL court, which this is not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    My own reading of that amendment is that it puts requirements on the US government, period. It does not limit things to US citizens.

    Of course, I know that's not the way the courts interpret the amendment. 😔

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    It's not about citizens or not. It's limited to criminal cases. Immigration cases are a different thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

    I emphasized the key word there. There is no guarantee in civil or other courts (which sucks - try finding a divorce lawyer once your ex saps the bank account lol).

  • source
  • parent