AG Barr: Jail many asylum seekers indefinitely while cases wind through courts

[slick]

I suspect that is the flimsy Halloween mask Barr is wearing all along.

Does anyone really miss Jeff Sessions or Loretta Lynch, or Eric Holder? I sure don’t.

 

[apdst]

Deplorable. First of all, it is perfectly legal for nonresidents to cross the border to seek asylum. Second, this is as close to concentration camps as we've come yet since the Japanese American internment camps.

If they don't like it, they're free to go back to their home country.

 

[apdst]

So now your argument is "we're technically better than the Nazis, therefore we're fine." When you defend concentration camps, do you even hear your own deplorable words??

You're defending open borders. That's deplorable.

 

[Phys251]

technically my ass, we aren't gassing people or using them as forced labor.

"We're technically better than the Nazis, therefore we're fine."

Your doubling-down on this line of reasoning doesn't make it any better.

 

[Hypothetical]

"We're technically better than the Nazis, therefore we're fine."

Your doubling-down on this line of reasoning doesn't make it any better.

your attempt to relate 2 totally unrelatable circumstances makes no sense.

 

[Buzz62]

From CBS News

AG Barr: Jail many asylum seekers indefinitely while cases wind through courts
​

Phoenix -- Detained asylum seekers who have shown they have a credible fear of returning to their country will no longer be able to ask a judge to grant them bond.
U.S. Attorney General William Barr decided Tuesday that asylum seekers who clear a "credible fear" interview and are facing removal don't have the right to be released on bond by an immigration court judge while their cases are pending. The attorney general has the authority to overturn prior rulings made by immigration courts, which fall under the Justice Department.

It's Barr's first immigration-related decision since taking office.

The American Civil Liberties Union said late Tuesday that the plan was unconstitutional and that it planned on suing. It issued a statement calling Barr's decision "the latest attempt by this administration to punish asylum seekers for seeing refuge in the United States. The decision could result in the unlawful detention of thousands of people. The constitution does not allow the government to lock people up without due process."

Typically, asylum seekers who cross between ports of entry would have the right to ask a judge to grant them bond for release. Under the new ruling, they will have to wait in detention until their case is adjudicated.

COMMENT:-

Substituting the term "jail" for the term "detention" is a bit of "click-bait". There is absolutely nothing whatsoever that says that the government HAS to allow persons who are applying for entry into the country to enter the country and roam around freely while their case is being decided, so that means that there is nothing whatsoever that says that the government cannot "restrict the freedoms of those people to the minimum amount required to ensure that they will be present and available for removal should their application be rejected".

On the other hand, locking asylum seekers up in cages/cells as if they had actually been convicted of crimes is likely going a bit too far. After all, the US didn't lock German military personnel who had actually killed Americans up in cells if they were captured, so the MAXIMUM level of security should be no more than the equivalent to a WWII POW camp AND the same levels of facilities/services should be provided to people who are, at least in appearance, attempting to enter the United States of America under the provisions of the laws of the United States of America.

At least that's how it appears to me - YMMV.
​

Oh BS.
My own wife was locked in a "cage" when she first defected here.
Standard operating procedure. Camps would be a fine solution since there's only so many "cages" I understand.
But just letting people go, and hoping they'll come to court is...what's the word I'm looking for here...oh ya..."stupid".

 

[Ikari]

Do we even have the facilities to age all these people awaiting their day in court?

Don't worry, don't worry. I bet Trump has a friend who can build some for us.

 

[BWG]

Don't worry, don't worry. I bet Trump has a friend who can build some for us.

Yeah and the three mexican countries will pay for them.

 

[Buzz62]

Don't worry, don't worry. I bet Trump has a friend who can build some for us.

I bet Trump's company could deal with it, and make money in the process.
And why not? He didn't invite all those people to the States...that would be the Dems.
So they can pay his company. Poetic justice.

 

[maxparrish]

From CBS News

AG Barr: Jail many asylum seekers indefinitely while cases wind through courts
​

Phoenix -- Detained asylum seekers who have shown they have a credible fear of returning to their country will no longer be able to ask a judge to grant them bond.

U.S. Attorney General William Barr decided Tuesday that asylum seekers who clear a "credible fear" interview and are facing removal don't have the right to be released on bond by an immigration court judge while their cases are pending. The attorney general has the authority to overturn prior rulings made by immigration courts, which fall under the Justice Department.

It's Barr's first immigration-related decision since taking office.

The American Civil Liberties Union said late Tuesday that the plan was unconstitutional and that it planned on suing. It issued a statement calling Barr's decision "the latest attempt by this administration to punish asylum seekers for seeing refuge in the United States. The decision could result in the unlawful detention of thousands of people. The constitution does not allow the government to lock people up without due process."

Typically, asylum seekers who cross between ports of entry would have the right to ask a judge to grant them bond for release. Under the new ruling, they will have to wait in detention until their case is adjudicated.

COMMENT:-

Substituting the term "jail" for the term "detention" is a bit of "click-bait". There is absolutely nothing whatsoever that says that the government HAS to allow persons who are applying for entry into the country to enter the country and roam around freely while their case is being decided, so that means that there is nothing whatsoever that says that the government cannot "restrict the freedoms of those people to the minimum amount required to ensure that they will be present and available for removal should their application be rejected".

On the other hand, locking asylum seekers up in cages/cells as if they had actually been convicted of crimes is likely going a bit too far. After all, the US didn't lock German military personnel who had actually killed Americans up in cells if they were captured, so the MAXIMUM level of security should be no more than the equivalent to a WWII POW camp AND the same levels of facilities/services should be provided to people who are, at least in appearance, attempting to enter the United States of America under the provisions of the laws of the United States of America.

At least that's how it appears to me - YMMV.
​

It should appear to you that, as typical, the headlines aren't supported in the article. Headline writing editors are notorious for ther vile fake news mongering (lies) and once more it appears to be so in your link.

The paragraphs you quoted ALL speak of opposition to detention, not opposition to a jail cell. Therefore its a fraudulent issue.

And yes, illegal aliens and applicants are not entitled to residency in the US while their administrative cases are adjudicated. The are not forcibly detained either (although if caught while being illegal they could be). They may leave the country OR report to a detention center (if there is room) where they will be held under guard until such time as their (usually fake) credible fear case is settled.

Plenty of folk who have fled REAL horrors (ISIS and Syrian War) are held in refugee camps or, if unhappy, sent packing elsewhere. The fakers of Central America are not entitled to more.

 

[Ikari]

I bet Trump's company could deal with it, and make money in the process.
And why not? He didn't invite all those people to the States...that would be the Dems.
So they can pay his company. Poetic justice.

Yeah, right!?

I mean, there's nothing wrong with the President using his position and appointees to create policy that would result in one of Trump's companies being paid. Right? Nothing shady about that at all.

lol

 

[Buzz62]

Yeah, right!?

I mean, there's nothing wrong with the President using his position and appointees to create policy that would result in one of Trump's companies being paid. Right? Nothing shady about that at all.

lol

You don't like that solution?
Fine. San Francisco and NY can have them all.
Enjoy...

 

[Ikari]

You don't like that solution?
Fine. San Francisco and NY can have them all.
Enjoy...

lol

So it's either Trump gets to use immigrants as human pawns to punish political opponents or Trump gets to make money from his companies winning contracts for policies he and his administration construct?

lol

 

[jimbo]

Do we even have the facilities to age all these people awaiting their day in court?

Or is this just the eventual excuse for not letting them in in the first place?

No we don't. and:

i hope it is. If we don't have the facilities to house them, then i see no alternative other than to tell them to come back another day.

 

[Buzz62]

lol

So it's either Trump gets to use immigrants as human pawns to punish political opponents or Trump gets to make money from his companies winning contracts for policies he and his administration construct?

lol

Careful there. Trump didn't create this horse kaka.
There are thousands of these "refugees" coming with their children...or acquaintances...or sex slaves...or whatever the current term de jour is.
I would advocate for closing the border to all but business travel, and that's that.
But then there's the terrible moral outcry from the touchy-feely among us...what to do about their concerns...

I would say "f-'em" but...that's just me. I would say "No...this is not your home and you are not crossing until we have a hearing. So pitch ur tent and have a Buerrito...ur gonna be in Mexico a while yet." But again...that's just me...

 

[Nickyjo]

I'm sure these illegals will be fed & have better health care in these so called 'concentration camps ' than they were
used to in their countries of origin! It will be sort of like a vacation for them until they get sent back home where they belong.

It seems America now has an ATTORNEY GENERAL finally looking out for the best interests of its citizens,
npt just on immigration but on all fronts.

'By cutting off the money going back home, and insuring some type of detention until immigration/asylum status is determined,
AG Barr likely just shut down the caravan migrations we have witnessed through the last year. It also may slow down some of
the idiocy of the rulings from these pro illegal immigration activist judges and law suits from state AG's.'

Long time ago, the drug kingpin of Palestine targeted minors for killing. Parents named Hayzoos and Maria fled to another country, albeit in a very small caravan. King Trump, er, Herod, noted that the family was actually having fun, "like going to Disneyland."

On a less flippant note, if Trump wanted to ease if not solve the problem, he could set up facilities, camps if you will, on the border, adequately staffed with asylum officers and immigration judges to process these cases more quickly, and return those ineligible for protection. Word would get out. But he'd rather sit in his presidential playpen and offer non-solutions just to appeal to his Make America Hate Again base.

Think of what the AG is saying, "You are applying for asylum, and we believe your have a credible fear of persecution, that is, likely to be granted it. So rather than provide the resources and save money in the long run, we are going to put you in a minimum to max security jail. What's that? Oh, you were fleeing imprisonment? Well, our jails are better than your home country's. You're welcome."

Btw, can you name some of the idiotic decisions from "pro-illegal immigration activist judges" (never met one of those) that you object to?

 

[Rogue Valley]

From CBS News

AG Barr: Jail many asylum seekers indefinitely while cases wind through courts
​

Phoenix -- Detained asylum seekers who have shown they have a credible fear of returning to their country will no longer be able to ask a judge to grant them bond.
U.S. Attorney General William Barr decided Tuesday that asylum seekers who clear a "credible fear" interview and are facing removal don't have the right to be released on bond by an immigration court judge while their cases are pending. The attorney general has the authority to overturn prior rulings made by immigration courts, which fall under the Justice Department.

It's Barr's first immigration-related decision since taking office.

The American Civil Liberties Union said late Tuesday that the plan was unconstitutional and that it planned on suing. It issued a statement calling Barr's decision "the latest attempt by this administration to punish asylum seekers for seeing refuge in the United States. The decision could result in the unlawful detention of thousands of people. The constitution does not allow the government to lock people up without due process."

Typically, asylum seekers who cross between ports of entry would have the right to ask a judge to grant them bond for release. Under the new ruling, they will have to wait in detention until their case is adjudicated.

COMMENT:-

Substituting the term "jail" for the term "detention" is a bit of "click-bait". There is absolutely nothing whatsoever that says that the government HAS to allow persons who are applying for entry into the country to enter the country and roam around freely while their case is being decided, so that means that there is nothing whatsoever that says that the government cannot "restrict the freedoms of those people to the minimum amount required to ensure that they will be present and available for removal should their application be rejected".

On the other hand, locking asylum seekers up in cages/cells as if they had actually been convicted of crimes is likely going a bit too far. After all, the US didn't lock German military personnel who had actually killed Americans up in cells if they were captured, so the MAXIMUM level of security should be no more than the equivalent to a WWII POW camp AND the same levels of facilities/services should be provided to people who are, at least in appearance, attempting to enter the United States of America under the provisions of the laws of the United States of America.

At least that's how it appears to me - YMMV.
​

Asylum claims have been addressed by courts. There are limits to what the Trump administration can do (get away with).

 

[slick]

Long time ago, the drug kingpin of Palestine targeted minors for killing. Parents named Hayzoos and Maria fled to another country, albeit in a very small caravan. King Trump, er, Herod, noted that the family was actually having fun, "like going to Disneyland."

On a less flippant note, if Trump wanted to ease if not solve the problem, he could set up facilities, camps if you will, on the border, adequately staffed with asylum officers and immigration judges to process these cases more quickly, and return those ineligible for protection. Word would get out. But he'd rather sit in his presidential playpen and offer non-solutions just to appeal to his Make America Hate Again base.

Think of what the AG is saying, "You are applying for asylum, and we believe your have a credible fear of persecution, that is, likely to be granted it. So rather than provide the resources and save money in the long run, we are going to put you in a minimum to max security jail. What's that? Oh, you were fleeing imprisonment? Well, our jails are better than your home country's. You're welcome."

Btw, can you name some of the idiotic decisions from "pro-illegal immigration activist judges" (never met one of those) that you object to?

A federal judge sentenced an Illinois immigration lawyer who cheated the immigration system to make sure his clients
were granted asylum in the U.S. to 15 months in prison.
Prosecutors say Robert Dekelaita, who called himself “Robin Hood” for refugees, would forge the names of his clients
seeking asylum on application papers and fabricate their life stories with horrific anecdotes of kidnappings, bombings,
and religious persecution that were all false, drawing inspiration from news stories he collected, CBS Chicago reported.

Another beauty was that gold star Hillary fan Kazir Khan:
Captain Khan his son was a Patriot who served our America. His service was a gift; his death was a tragedy.
Meanwhile, down here, Poppa Khan, who came to our nation to get his, appears to be cashing in on his
dead son's duty-body-country and buying a ticket to ride on the talk-show circuit.
I don't appreciate opportunists who exploit our Soldiers.

Under current rules, the business underlying EB-5 projects involve middlemen charged with facilitating
the investment and DHS-application process.

These brokers like Khan almost always immigration attorneys—take fat fees of up to $60,000 from
each foreign green card-hopeful.
Point-blank truth, He is Cleverly sneaking Muslims into the United States.

BTW, tell me about the benefits for this country to have these mentioned 'top notch' immigration lawyers.

Trump understands that this situation is not sustainable. His strength is the hope that the people are still with him
on putting America first. He faces some serious obstacles.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

makes for a real good loophole , don't you think?

I think we need to change that law, as it is stupid.

Don't forget about the constitutional prohibition on "retroactive legislation". If they enter BEFORE the law is changed then they don't get caught by the new laws.

Unfortunately the US can't do the same thing as Canada did to the maternity ward of Ottawa Civic Hospital in January of 1943.

 

[Casper]

From CBS News

AG Barr: Jail many asylum seekers indefinitely while cases wind through courts
​

Phoenix -- Detained asylum seekers who have shown they have a credible fear of returning to their country will no longer be able to ask a judge to grant them bond.
U.S. Attorney General William Barr decided Tuesday that asylum seekers who clear a "credible fear" interview and are facing removal don't have the right to be released on bond by an immigration court judge while their cases are pending. The attorney general has the authority to overturn prior rulings made by immigration courts, which fall under the Justice Department.

It's Barr's first immigration-related decision since taking office.

The American Civil Liberties Union said late Tuesday that the plan was unconstitutional and that it planned on suing. It issued a statement calling Barr's decision "the latest attempt by this administration to punish asylum seekers for seeing refuge in the United States. The decision could result in the unlawful detention of thousands of people. The constitution does not allow the government to lock people up without due process."

Typically, asylum seekers who cross between ports of entry would have the right to ask a judge to grant them bond for release. Under the new ruling, they will have to wait in detention until their case is adjudicated.

COMMENT:-

Substituting the term "jail" for the term "detention" is a bit of "click-bait". There is absolutely nothing whatsoever that says that the government HAS to allow persons who are applying for entry into the country to enter the country and roam around freely while their case is being decided, so that means that there is nothing whatsoever that says that the government cannot "restrict the freedoms of those people to the minimum amount required to ensure that they will be present and available for removal should their application be rejected".

On the other hand, locking asylum seekers up in cages/cells as if they had actually been convicted of crimes is likely going a bit too far. After all, the US didn't lock German military personnel who had actually killed Americans up in cells if they were captured, so the MAXIMUM level of security should be no more than the equivalent to a WWII POW camp AND the same levels of facilities/services should be provided to people who are, at least in appearance, attempting to enter the United States of America under the provisions of the laws of the United States of America.

At least that's how it appears to me - YMMV.
​

Or just lock them all up in conservative county jails. No whining now, as the story goes it is what you wanted.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The usual connotation of "indefinitely" is to denote an unlimited amount of time or when the realm of possibility includes that possibility. I think you'll be hard-pressed to find a definition that doesn't contain the word "unlimited" in the first line or two.

indefinite
[in-def-uh-nit]

adjective

• not definite; without fixed or specified limit; unlimited: an indefinite number.
  
• not clearly defined or determined; not precise or exact: an indefinite boundary; an indefinite date in the future.

That definition was the second of About 71,800,000 results (and took approximately 0.43 seconds).

We don't casually throw the word around. They don't tell us at Chili's that we'll be waiting for a table "indefinitely".

Quite right, if they told you that they had no idea of how long your wait could be, you'd leave and go someplace else.

They will, however, tell you "I'm not sure how long your wait will be, but I'd be happy to seat you in the bar while you wait for your table." (assuming that there are seats available in the (much more profitable) bar. If they tell you "I'm not sure how long your wait will be, and I can't get you into the bar to wait, so you'll just have to stand around in the lobby until something opens up in the bar so that you can sit there and wait until something opens up in the restaurant." you'll likely leave too.

The word was obviously put in the headline because it evokes a negative connotationon.

Quite probably. Of course the purpose of a headline is to get you to read the article AND the headline has to be short. The headline IS accurate however, since there are many types of places of confinement and, in the United States of America, one can be "put in jail" ("jail" - a secure facility that houses three main types of inmates on of which is people who have been arrested and are being held pending a plea agreement, trial, or sentencing) WITHOUT being charged with any crime at all, and with the legal authorities having no intention whatsoever of even charging the "jailed" person with a crime.

 

[Nickyjo]

A federal judge sentenced an Illinois immigration lawyer who cheated the immigration system to make sure his clients
were granted asylum in the U.S. to 15 months in prison.

++ Good for the federal judge. The system worked. I investigated such fraud years ago, by notaries who took advantage of asylum seekers. Obviously not an idiotic legal opinion by the judge.

Prosecutors say Robert Dekelaita, who called himself “Robin Hood” for refugees, would forge the names of his clients
seeking asylum on application papers and fabricate their life stories with horrific anecdotes of kidnappings, bombings,
and religious persecution that were all false, drawing inspiration from news stories he collected, CBS Chicago reported.

Another beauty was that gold star Hillary fan Kazir Khan:
Captain Khan his son was a Patriot who served our America. His service was a gift; his death was a tragedy.
Meanwhile, down here, Poppa Khan, who came to our nation to get his, appears to be cashing in on his
dead son's duty-body-country and buying a ticket to ride on the talk-show circuit.
I don't appreciate opportunists who exploit our Soldiers.

Under current rules, the business underlying EB-5 projects involve middlemen charged with facilitating
the investment and DHS-application process.

These brokers like Khan almost always immigration attorneys—take fat fees of up to $60,000 from
each foreign green card-hopeful.
Point-blank truth, He is Cleverly sneaking Muslims into the United States.

++ If that is the case, that he is sneaking Muslims into the country, then some non idiotic judge will do something about the crime.

BTW, tell me about the benefits for this country to have these mentioned 'top notch' immigration lawyers.

++ No benefit at all if they are crooks. Your were talking about idiotic decisions by judges. You haven’t made your point.

Trump understands that this situation is not sustainable. His strength is the hope that the people are still with him
on putting America first. He faces some serious obstacles.

++ How do Trumps proposals to violate US law and treaty law put America first?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

can you please cite the section of asylum or immigrant law that says this? I am curious as I have not seen it in my readings.

Since the vast majority of US "points of entry" are actually located INSIDE the territorial boundaries of the United States of America, exactly how does one present oneself to one of them WITHOUT "entering" the United States of America?

8 USC §1325. Improper entry by alien
(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts

Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
(b) Improper time or place; civil penalties

Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of-

(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or

(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection.
​

Thus "improper entry" is a CIVIL and not a criminal offence. Not only that, but there is no "penal sanction" attached to "improper entry". That means that holding someone in custody, unless they post a bail bond in excess of the maximum penalty that can be imposed is highly likely to be unconstitutional.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

bzzzzt, a holding facility is nowhere near Nazi Germany levels of concentration camps which was the analogy. plus your own definition undermines your argument... they are getting hearings.

The people of Japanese extraction, some of whom were third and fourth generation "natural born" Americans, were treated better than the people were in the Nazi murder factories. To call those murder factories "concentration camps" insults the memories of everyone who was slaughtered in them (because there was no actual intent to slaughter, wholesale, anyone sent to the original "concentration camps").

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Oh BS.
My own wife was locked in a "cage" when she first defected here.
Standard operating procedure. Camps would be a fine solution since there's only so many "cages" I understand.
But just letting people go, and hoping they'll come to court is...what's the word I'm looking for here...oh ya..."stupid".

Where did you see me saying that I was opposed to "detaining" persons seeking refugee and/or asylee status under ANY conditions of detention?