Leave a comment

meadowphoenix May 13 2016, 17:28:18 UTC
It’s uncommon for attorneys to go over the federal government’s head on immigration issues, though the IACHR has ruled in immigrants’ favor in the past.

It's uncommon because the US doesn't feel like it has to comply, so this is the type of action you take for emotional reasons, not because it's going to grant you a certain outcome.

Anyway, they are jails. The ideology used for detainment is the same one used for bail in criminal cases (they don't think you're going to come back for the hearing, and statistically, you aren't). The fact that immigration is a civil issue, not a criminal one, has allowed a lot of bullshit to fly past, because criminal penalties are actually view as punishment and therefore have a different legal status. Meanwhile civil penalties are not considered punishment (lol, k).

And it's hard to get asylum or refugee status unless you are of a class being targeted. Unfortunately, violence against women is not usually considered such a class (it's too common to be specific is essentially what BIA has said).

I think the solution is more complicated than never prosecuting immigration violations or never detaining people who are, but I think that people brought in for immigration violations should have the same right to an attorney as in criminal cases, first of all, and the same capacity for bail (right after we get the bail system to actually make sense).

Reply


Leave a comment

Up