Judge Bars Trump Administration From Blanket Detention Of Asylum Seekers
POLITICS 07/02/2018 09:37 pm ET Updated 1 day ago
Judge Bars Trump Administration From Blanket Detention Of Asylum Seekers
A judge ordered ICE to follow its own policies and review asylum-seekers for parole.
A federal judge ordered the Trump administration on Monday to halt a silent yet a dramatic shift in the way the U.S. deals with certain asylum-seekers who have presented themselves at the U.S. border.
Advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights First, alleged in a class action lawsuit representing some 800 people that Immigration and Customs Enforcement is not following its own policies for offering parole in five of its field offices.
Rather than investigating asylum seekers’ requests for parole on a case-by-case basis, ICE is issuing blanket denials and keeping people in detention for months on end, the groups allege.
The Trump administration denied it had issued a policy change, but data in the lawsuit show that from 2011 to 2013, the field offices in Detroit, El Paso, Los Angeles, Newark and Philadelphia granted parole to 92 percent of asylum-seekers. In the first eight months of Trump’s presidency, that rate dropped to 4 percent.
On Monday, U.S. District Court Judge James E. Boasberg ordered ICE to “do what they already admit is required” and make individualized assessments on whether asylum-seekers should receive parole after they arrive in the U.S.
“To mandate that ICE provide these baseline procedures to those entering our country – individuals who have often fled violence and persecution to seek safety on our shores – is no great judicial leap,” he wrote. “Rather, the issuance of injunctive relief in this case serves only to hold Defendants accountable to their own governing policies and to ensure that Plaintiffs receive the protections they are due under the Parole Directive.”
"To mandate that ICE provide these baseline procedures to those entering our country – individuals who have often fled violence and persecution to seek safety on our shores – is no great judicial leap." -- U.S. District Court Judge James E. Boasberg
At issue is the right of those seeking shelter in the United States to be released while their applications for asylum are making their way through the courts, a process that can take years. While the government is entitled to hold them in detention, a 2009 directive provides that those who have shown what is known as a “credible fear” in an initial interview have a right to be considered for release.
“In light of the drastic decline in parole-grant rates at the five ICE field offices, and the affidavits by the named plaintiffs and their counsel regarding the processing of their parole applications, this court finds that the asylum-seekers are able to demonstrate that individualized parole determinations are likely no longer par for the course,” Boasberg wrote.
READ THE FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGE-- Be enlightened!
https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/memorandum-opinion-granting-preliminary-injunction
Do you still believe in the law? Will Mr. Trump obey the Court? Should he obey the Court/Judge? Better yet, will they follow their own policies, albeit by force? CM
Comments
-
@C_M_ said:
POLITICS 07/02/2018 09:37 pm ET Updated 1 day agoJudge Bars Trump Administration From Blanket Detention Of Asylum Seekers
A judge ordered ICE to follow its own policies and review asylum-seekers for parole.
A federal judge ordered the Trump administration on Monday to halt a silent yet a dramatic shift in the way the U.S. deals with certain asylum-seekers who have presented themselves at the U.S. border.
Advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights First, alleged in a class action lawsuit representing some 800 people that Immigration and Customs Enforcement is not following its own policies for offering parole in five of its field offices.
Rather than investigating asylum seekers’ requests for parole on a case-by-case basis, ICE is issuing blanket denials and keeping people in detention for months on end, the groups allege.
The Trump administration denied it had issued a policy change, but data in the lawsuit show that from 2011 to 2013, the field offices in Detroit, El Paso, Los Angeles, Newark and Philadelphia granted parole to 92 percent of asylum-seekers. In the first eight months of Trump’s presidency, that rate dropped to 4 percent.
On Monday, U.S. District Court Judge James E. Boasberg ordered ICE to “do what they already admit is required” and make individualized assessments on whether asylum-seekers should receive parole after they arrive in the U.S.
“To mandate that ICE provide these baseline procedures to those entering our country – individuals who have often fled violence and persecution to seek safety on our shores – is no great judicial leap,” he wrote. “Rather, the issuance of injunctive relief in this case serves only to hold Defendants accountable to their own governing policies and to ensure that Plaintiffs receive the protections they are due under the Parole Directive.”
"To mandate that ICE provide these baseline procedures to those entering our country – individuals who have often fled violence and persecution to seek safety on our shores – is no great judicial leap." -- U.S. District Court Judge James E. Boasberg
At issue is the right of those seeking shelter in the United States to be released while their applications for asylum are making their way through the courts, a process that can take years. While the government is entitled to hold them in detention, a 2009 directive provides that those who have shown what is known as a “credible fear” in an initial interview have a right to be considered for release.
“In light of the drastic decline in parole-grant rates at the five ICE field offices, and the affidavits by the named plaintiffs and their counsel regarding the processing of their parole applications, this court finds that the asylum-seekers are able to demonstrate that individualized parole determinations are likely no longer par for the course,” Boasberg wrote.
READ THE FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGE-- Be enlightened!
https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/memorandum-opinion-granting-preliminary-injunctionDo you still believe in the law? Will Mr. Trump obey the Court? Should he obey the Court/Judge? Better yet, will they follow their own policies, albeit by force? CM
Because the ACLU is so credible.....
-
@reformed said:
Because the ACLU is so credible.....
He who enforces the law must first keep the law. CM
-
policies and laws are two totally different things.
-
This Administration (Trump's) is currently breaking the law. They missed the deadline to reunite the children with their parents. America, choose not to let them into the country but don't take a mother's child or children. This is cold, mean, nasty, unlawful, and unChristian (US Law or no law).
This tactic is tantamount to public kidnapping! Who will speak for the children? Lord, watch over the children tonight and comfort the hearts of the incarcerated/deported parents. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
This Administration (Trump's) is currently breaking the law. They missed the deadline to reunite the children with their parents. America, choose not to let them into the country but don't take a mother's child or children. This is cold, mean, nasty, unlawful, and unChristian (US Law or no law).They did not break the law. Apparently you don't know what a law is or is not. Why should we take criminals into the country?
This tactic is tantamount to public kidnapping! Who will speak for the children? Lord, watch over the children tonight and comfort the hearts of the incarcerated/deported parents. CM
Enough of the hyperbole. It is not kidnapping.
I can't believe you cannot see that the ones at fault are the parents who engage in illegal activity and then complain about the consequences.
-
Please look up the word, "kidnapping". CM
-
@C_M_ said:
Please look up the word, "kidnapping". CMPlease look up the word criminal and also the word consequences...
-
Mr. Reformed, you're free not to reply to my posts, if you choose. You seem to possess an unkind and unhealthy spirit for CD. Our exchanges seem to be unproductive at this juncture. Until you can disagree without the level of commonness you have repeatedly and painstakingly displayed over a period of time, a pause in our exchanges may be helpful. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
Mr. Reformed, you're free not to reply to my posts, if you choose. You seem to possess an unkind and unhealthy spirit for CD. Our exchanges seem to be unproductive at this juncture. Until you can disagree without the level of commonness you have repeatedly and painstakingly displayed over a period of time, a pause in our exchanges may be helpful. CMThe reason our exchanges are unproductive is because you don't answer anything.
