4-year-old migrant girl, other kids go to court in NYC with no lawyer: 'The cruelty is apparent'
gothamist.com
The Trump administration cut funding for lawyers aiding unaccompanied minors in court.

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

    • toiletobserverEnglish
      78•23 days ago

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

      • AwesomeLowlanderEnglish
        73•23 days ago

        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 🤦

          • AwesomeLowlanderEnglish
            43•23 days ago

            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.

            • Possibly linuxEnglish
              6•23 days ago

              That doesn’t matter

              The constitution doesn’t make convenience exceptions.

              • AwesomeLowlanderEnglish
                37•23 days ago

                The constitution specifically states criminal trials, which this is not. 5 seconds of googling would tell you as much, instead of making baseless claims here.

                • Possibly linuxEnglish
                  2•23 days ago

                  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

        • @[email protected]English
          13•22 days ago

          You are correct, and ultimately the issue is that the laws shouldn’t be different for immigration courts or immigration agents, because wrongful detention or deportation can be worse than wrongful imprisonment.

        • Possibly linuxEnglish
          4•23 days ago

          Funny you should say that…

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

          • AwesomeLowlanderEnglish
            22•23 days ago

            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.

            • @[email protected]English
              3•23 days ago

              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. 😔

              • AwesomeLowlanderEnglish
                5•23 days ago

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

                  • AwesomeLowlanderEnglish
                    6•23 days ago

                    Ah. Yeah that bit’s irrelevant. I was just dashing a quick reply off to the other guy, and the last thing he mentioned was US citizens so I guess that wormed its way into my reply.

          • @[email protected]English
            3•22 days 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).