This is a hedge. If a law said that you must furnish the means to bake a cake, you shouldn’t argue that since it doesn’t enumerate all the items in a cake, you don’t have to provide flour. The court is saying that soap and blankets are part and parcel to the definition of “safe and sanitary” for a stay of significant duration and the lawyer is saying well maybe they’re not or we don’t know that for sure (she wont commit to a clear statement).
I will go so far to agree that this individual probably doesn’t personally hold these specific beliefs, but is merely putting them forward on behalf of the client she represents (the government), but… at what point do your own ethics prevent you from carrying water for a wicked policy? At a certain point you have to ask: even if I can narrowly win a minute point, are the end results are even worth arguing for? If not, you tell your supervisor you wont pursue the argument and that the case should be dropped. Your duty as a lawyer doesn’t extend to facilitating human rights abuses.
Let us not forget that the underlying cause of this “border crisis” is entirely the fault of the Trump administration. We have a process for people applying for refugee status. They submit an application, they are given a court date, they go to stay with family or friends, their case is decided, and either they are admitted or they are deported.
But because Trump and his racist followers see brown skinned people from south of the Rio Grand as monsters, they are locking them up in cages and abusing them. Instead of letting them go to return for their court date… which people requesting asylum do… because they don’t want to back to the country they came from.
Doing the right thing is simple. It’s when people try to justify cruelty that it gets complicated and things become a “crisis”.
This website and forum as been plenty critical of Obama’s term and decisions. Whether or not this case predates trump’s tenure, she is arguing on behalf of the administration’s dehumanizing tactics. She can “just do her job” and present the justification for the broader policy without offering a defense of specific unconscionable cruelty.
it’s much worse than even this because it’s being locked away from media
there are hundreds of children that have not been able to brush their teeth for WEEKS - think about that
and children who of course get sick in these conditions are “disappeared” into some kind of quaranteen where even the lawyers are not being allowed to access, imagine how bad that area is
stop with the arguments, these are LITERAL concentration camps, they are being rounded up and pooled together to be disappered
Imagine going through the total pain of law school, passing the bar, keeping up your license, etc., etc., only to find yourself saying this sort of shit before a court.
We had a process for people applying for refugee status. FTFY Also, it is probable that Trump’s policies are actually increasing the number of people trying to come in, the argument being that it would be even harder to to so later
I agree, and hopefully it’s a bad enough argument that the gov’t loses the case.
I don’t know how a legal system works if both sides aren’t competently represented. Lawyers must, should, do defend people they think could be guilty. Everyone’s entitled to representation; that’s what having the rule of law means.
There has been a massive increase in attempted crossings (legal and illegal) this year. One datapoint:
I agree that many (probably most) asylum seekers should be released pending a hearing, but there are some for whom that’s actually immoral. Unaccompanied minors, for example; we can’t simply give an 8 year old a date to show up at some courthouse and then turn them loose into the interior of the US like, “Good luck kid, see you in 8 months, hope you’re still alive.”
The arm of government that we would want to hold these people (the Dept. of Health and Human Services) is at capacity, and as a result, the Border Patrol is taking the overflow. The Border Patrol, as you would expect, maintains facilities oriented toward detaining people who cross illegally, not legitimate asylum seekers, and even those resources are being stretched thin.
Basically, the US has not built sufficient facilities to deal with the peak level of immigration we experience, but rather the average levels, which makes the peaks very painful.
What’s happening is not ok, but it’s also not unexpected, nor is it the particular fault of the Trump administration. (Obama dealt with a similar immigration influx in 2014, with many of the same results.) The blame here falls squarely at the feet of Congress, who won’t do their FUCKING jobs and legislate. Compromise legislation is very achievable, and a majority of the country agree on the broad points.
The administration’s determined efforts to undermine and eliminate aid to Central American countries that are the source of many of the people coming across the southern border surely has nothing to do with that increase either.
None said otherwise. Your duty as a lawyer is to represent a client, but it does not mean you must put forth reprehensible positions or fallacious arguments. Also, the government is not a person.
Yep, those babies sure are dangerous… Better lock them up.
We can, if we RELEASE THEM WITH THEIR FAMILIES.
Maybe DON’T HAVE THEM IN DETENTION IN THE FIRST PLACE.
The overall levels of illegal crossings have been going DOWN for quite a while. It’s UP now because people are fleeing violence that’s exacerbated by
Yep, clearly, our only choices here are kids in unsanitary, inhumane conditions due to lack of congressional action. Yep. The literal ONLY one.
Legalese is not helping. If it’s inhumane, it’s inhumane. Just because a lawyer is making an argument that the law allows that doesn’t change that fact.
I think we all understand that a lawyer defending a person who committed a crime has a legal responsibility to defend his or her client to the best of their ability. However, if their client has every intention they’re going to do more crimes that will likely result in the deaths of children, you have a legal responsibility to report them, and certainly don’t have to pre-emptively defend their actions. A lawyer representing the US gov’t that is perpetuating ongoing, likely criminal abuse, does not have the same responsibility to continue to allow the US to be a bad actor.
Yes. Here’s some detail from this Atlantic piece that tick-tocks the whole thing:
Over the years, lawyers acting on behalf of minors protected by the Flores Agreement have filed numerous motions asking judges to enforce it, claiming that the government has fallen short of its obligations. They filed the motion now at issue in 2016, during the Obama administration, arguing that ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and CBP (Customs and Border Protection) were violating the Flores Agreement by, among other things, confining minors in facilities that are not “safe and sanitary.”
Nobody is attacking the Administration for providing housing for unaccompanied minors who have no known family able to care for them. Pretending that is what people are protesting here is profoundly dishonest.
You think so, huh? Tell me, how does the “volunteering” process in the DoJ, exactly? Or was it rather an assignment? If by “volunteering” you mean the alternative is to resign or get involved in a protracted internal struggle at her office, then, yeah, she volunteered. Don’t get me wrong, I’m simply echoing the statement in the BB post:
