RSN Fundraising Banner
Judge Blocks Trump Policy Keeping Asylum-Seekers Locked Up
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51095"><span class="small">Gene Johnson, Associated Press</span></a>   
Wednesday, 03 July 2019 13:38

Johnson writes: "A federal judge in Seattle on Tuesday blocked a Trump administration policy that would keep thousands of asylum-seekers locked up while they pursue their cases, saying the Constitution demands that such migrants have a chance to be released from custody."

Central American migrants watch fellow migrants board busses as they voluntarily return to their countries, in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, Tuesday, July 2, 2019. (photo: Christian Chavez/AP)
Central American migrants watch fellow migrants board busses as they voluntarily return to their countries, in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, Tuesday, July 2, 2019. (photo: Christian Chavez/AP)


Judge Blocks Trump Policy Keeping Asylum-Seekers Locked Up

By Gene Johnson, Associated Press

03 July 19

 

federal judge in Seattle on Tuesday blocked a Trump administration policy that would keep thousands of asylum-seekers locked up while they pursue their cases, saying the Constitution demands that such migrants have a chance to be released from custody.

U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman ruled Tuesday that people who are detained after entering the country illegally to seek protection are entitled to bond hearings. Attorney General William Barr announced in April that the government would no longer offer such hearings, but instead keep them in custody. It was part of the administration’s efforts to deter a surge of migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border.

Pechman said that as people who have entered the U.S., they are entitled to the Fifth Amendment’s due-process protections, including “a longstanding prohibition against indefinite civil detention with no opportunity to test its necessity.”

Immigrant rights advocates including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project sued to block the policy, which was due to take effect July 15.

“The court reaffirmed what has been settled for decades: that asylum-seekers who enter this country have a right to be free from arbitrary detention,” Matt Adams, legal director of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, said in a written statement. “Thousands of asylum-seekers will continue to be able to seek release on bond, as they seek protection from persecution and torture.”

The Justice Department did not immediately return an email seeking comment, but the government was expected to quickly appeal the decision, as Pechman noted in her order.

For the past 50 years, the government has given asylum-seekers bond hearings before immigration judges where they can argue that they should be released because they are not flight risks and pose no threat to the public, the immigrant rights groups told the court. That gives the asylum-seekers an opportunity to reunite with relatives in the U.S. and to find lawyers to handle their asylum claims, making them more likely to succeed.

The new policy would end that practice, keeping between 15,000 and 40,000 immigrants in custody for six months or more without requiring the government to show that their detentions are justified, the groups argued. Typically, close to half of asylum-seekers who are granted bond hearings are released from custody.

“The Court finds that Plaintiffs have established a constitutionally-protected interest in their liberty, a right to due process which includes a hearing before a neutral decisionmaker to assess the necessity of their detention, and a likelihood of success on the merits of that issue,” the judge wrote.

Pechman, who heard arguments last Friday, said the government must provide a bond hearing within seven days of a request by any immigrant who has demonstrated that they have a credible fear of persecution or torture if returned to their home country. The asylum-seekers must be released if not granted a hearing within that time frame, she said.

Pechman also said the burden must be on the government at such hearings to show that keeping asylum-seekers in custody is necessary because they pose a flight risk or a danger to the public.

President Donald Trump has said he is determined to end the “catch and release” of migrants at the border. He has also called the asylum system broken, saying that some take advantage of it with frivolous claims.

The lawsuit, a nationwide class action, began as a challenge to the separation of family members at the border under Trump’s “zero-tolerance” policy. Its legal claims have morphed as the government’s policies have shifted.

Pechman first issued an order in April saying that the government must give the asylum-seekers hearings within a week, saying delays in holding such hearings violated their rights. Eleven days later, the attorney general issued a decision finding that they weren’t entitled to bond hearings at all.

The Justice Department argued that the policy is a legitimate interpretation of a federal law that says if immigration officers determine immigrants have a credible fear of persecution, they “shall be detained for further consideration of the application for asylum.”

The government also argued that even without bond hearings, detained asylum-seekers would still have another avenue for release: a request to an immigration officer for parole. Such requests are rarely granted under the Trump administration, however, and the immigrant rights groups said they are not a substitute for bond hearings before independent fact-finders.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+2 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2019-07-04 05:05
"people who are detained after entering the country illegally to seek protection "

If they are asylum seekers and have filed for refugee status, they are not in the country illegally. This article is not clear about the people referred to. Did these people cross the border at a border checkpoint or did they come in by come clandestine means? If the latter, when and where did they apply for refugee status?

Of course, none of these people should be in jail. Holding people indefinitely in pre-trial detention is just wrong. Asylum seekers are leaving intolerable conditions in their home countries. By international law, they have a right to safe asylum in another country. They are not criminals as the government seems to think.

This judge did the right thing. Now we need sanctuary cities to step up and offer housing and jobs for these people as they await their asylum hearing -- which could take a year or more.