Court: Immigrant children don't have right to free lawyer
Source: Associated Press
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) Immigrant children are not entitled to attorneys paid for by the government when facing deportation, a federal appeals court ruled Monday.
The judges rejected a claim by the American Civil Liberties Union and immigrant groups that children have a constitutional due process right to a free attorney.
A system already exists to give the children a fair hearing, and requiring the government to provide free attorneys would be an expense that would strain an already overextended immigration system, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said.
The plaintiffs said many of the thousands of children the government seeks to deport each year appear before judges without a lawyer because they cant afford one or find one to take their cases for free.
-snip-
By SUDHIN THANAWALA
1 hour ago
Read more: https://apnews.com/e0a75afdd410482e86baa3d0cef60bc3/Court:-Immigrant-children-don't-have-right-to-free-lawyer
ripcord
(5,082 posts)Being in the country without proper documentation is a civil and not a criminal action, the government isn't required to provide attorneys for civil proceedings. You would think that for some civil actions that are life changing, like deportation, eminent domain and the like it would be a requirement though.
localroger
(3,603 posts)ripcord
(5,082 posts)If they are going against the bottomless pockets of the government.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)The article I read didn't quote the judge's reasoning on that.
ripcord
(5,082 posts)Lacking complete documentation, eminent domain and civil forfeiture are civil actions not criminal prosecutions and aren't covered under the 6th.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)It was a claim for asylum, which was denied.
The Hill says, "While criminal defendants, citizens or not, have the right to government-funded legal representation, that right doesn't extend to immigration cases."
http://thehill.com/latino/371253-court-rules-children-facing-deportation-have-no-right-to-court-appointed-lawyer
The actual court's decision is embedded in that article. The summary of that decision says:
"The panel held that it is not established law that alien minors are categorically entitled to government-funded,court-appointed counsel and, applying the three-part test setforth in Mathews v. Eldridge , 424 U.S. 319 (1976), held that C.J. had not shown a necessity for such counsel to safeguard his due process right to a full and fair hearing."
-and-
"The panel also rejected C.J.s argument that the INAsfair hearing provision, § 1229a(b)(4)(B), implicitly requires court-appointed counsel at government expense for all alien minors."
So the criminal prosecution protection was not even considered by the court, since it doesn't apply to immigration cases. It considered due process for a fair hearing.
Solly Mack
(90,740 posts)Yeah, OK.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Because it costs too much.
That sounds like a political party I know!
Igel
(35,191 posts)This isn't new. It's been this way for years.
It's that way under (R) rule.
It was that way under (D) rule.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)was not decided. The mother was at least here to protect the child's interests.
Tricky thing as no deprivation of liberty issue at stake.
"In a separate opinion, 9th Circuit Judge John Owens said the court was not ruling on whether immigrant children who come to the U.S. without their parents or guardians are entitled to free attorneys. Owens said thats a different case that could lead to a different answer.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)This has been settled case law for more than a hundred years, but a recent example is Zadvydas v. Davis (2001)
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)That's the issue. Well, they're not free. The govt pays them. That court found that the law didn't require the govt to give them attorneys free of charge.
Skittles
(152,964 posts)sinkingfeeling
(51,275 posts)Just stick with dealing with green cards, visas, and immigration. Stop arresting and deporting children.
Blatantly unconstitutional.
christx30
(6,241 posts)only for criminal offences, if loss of freedom (jail or prison) is a possibility. It's like a speeding ticket or a citation for driving without insurance. Immigration and deportation are considered civil infractions.