Posted on 07/02/2018 5:17:51 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
A federal district judge has ruled President Donald Trump’s administration’s practice of indefinitely detaining some asylum seekers can’t proceed, dealing a major blow to what immigration attorneys have said is one of the administration’s tools to deter people from seeking safe haven in this country.
The lawsuit was filed in March by the American Civil Liberties Union and named as a defendant the El Paso Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) field office. Other field offices named in the lawsuit include Detroit, Los Angeles, Newark and Philadelphia. The El Paso office covers West Texas and New Mexico.
The ACLU alleged in the lawsuit that the plaintiffs passed their initial “credible fear” exams – the first step in the asylum process to determine if an applicant has a legitimate case. But despite having sponsors willing to provide housing in the United States, the federal government has continued to hold them instead of granting them parole.
“Today’s decision will have an enormous impact on asylum seekers, who pose no risk, and are currently languishing in detention. It is a rejection of the Trump administration’s blanket policy of denying parole to those seeking protection in this country,” said Human Rights First Legal Director Hardy Vieux.
The plaintiffs in the case include a Cuban national who fled that country’s communist regime; a Haitian ethics teacher fleeing political persecution; a Honduran national who alleges persecution for being gay; and a Venezuelan who was beaten by armed groups seeking “to eliminate opposition to the Venezuelan government. They are represented by the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, Human Rights First, the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies and Covington and Burling LLP, a law firm based in Washington, D.C.
In his Monday ruling, U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg granted a preliminary injunction preventing the federal government from denying parole to any provisional class members that are a party to the lawsuit. The lawsuit defines them as “asylum seekers who traveled to the United States, were found to have a credible fear of persecution, and were referred for immigration proceedings to decide their asylum claims.” The exception applies to people who pose a flight risk or a danger to the community.
I wish, but I don’t think lie detector tests can be used as evidence. I think that they were ruled invalid several years ago.
It would be pretty easy to think of a reason rather than just being arbitrary.
yep. judge is open borders. he wants catch and release.
Why is this a “major blow”? The EXECUTIVE determines these matters, NOT the courts, as the SCOTUS just affirmed. Just FOR ONCE can we see the DHS/DOJ/CBP/ICE just state that they will NOT comply???
It's not the same issue. You have to read the ruling, or at least the article, to know what the judge actually ruled on.
It is rich that people are often fleeing countries because the country is lawless, and at the same time so many here, including the illegal crossers, are rushing like crazy to make this country lawless too and in the long run just as miserable.
Times change:
https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-262-polygraphs-introduction-trial
“United States v. Cordoba, 104 F.3d 225 (9th Cir. 1997); United States v. Posado, 57 F.3d 428 (5th Cir. 1995). In a pre-Daubert decision, United States v. Piccinonna, 885 F.2d 1529 (11th Cir. 1989) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit held that polygraph results are admissible (1) when the parties stipulate to admissibility in advance of the test; or (2) when the polygraph results are used to impeach or corroborate the testimony of a witness.”
Since the purpose of my polygraph on illegals and asylum claims is “impeach or corroborate the testimony”, it would arguably be admissible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.