That tells me that being shuttled away, after 24 hours, without seeing an attorney or even knowing where your family is, surrounded by barbed wire, some of these folks may not have made knowing and voluntary waivers of their right to counsel. Some may not even be “illegal” once their situation is properly examined with adequate due process. What is due process? Reminder: Notice and a chance to be heard.
What did the pro bono attorney brave enough to represent these folks have to say? Read on:
“We’re happy,” said Harvey Kaplan , one of the attorneys representing the detainees before Stearns.
“It’s a beginning. This is the first time the judge has said we should have access to these people. It implies that maybe people didn’t exercise their options in a knowing way.”
Marc Raimondi, Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesman, said his agency is “moving quickly” to comply with Stearns’s order.
Mind you, Marc Raimondi, the ICE man who speaks for ICE had this to say:
“ICE is and remains committed to the due process of all immigration-status violators in ICE custody,” he said. “It’s important to remember that the illegal aliens arrested during the New Bedford enforcement action have always had access to legal materials, legal services, and their consulates.”
I happen to know, personally, that what ICE man Raimondi had to say is not true. In fact, I happen to believe it is a complete and utter LIE. Why? Because I did volunteer for one morning doing bail interviews with some of these folks, from the New Bedford raid, in their own language. None of them had any prior access or access to attorneys or “legal materials” in that Rhode Island detention center, at least as far as I could tell. Could I be wrong? Well, sure. But I do tend to trust my own eyes and ears before trusting Iceman Raimondi.
And a few other reminders:
Stearns March 9, 2007 order [online as an adobe .pdf]:
The March 9, 2007 Order by Judge Stearns
I did not find a new order online dated 4/6/07 – so stay tuned. It will be posted once it is available.
There is some additional information in the Boston Herald:
Bernard J. Bonn III, an attorney for the detainees, said the judge may be disenchanted by the government’s haste in ordering the mostly indigenous Central American factory workers to leave the country.
“I think he was troubled by the government not being more flexible in this,” Bonn said.
At the emergency hearing Friday, Mark Grady, an assistant U.S. attorney, argued that Massachusetts had limited bed space to hold detained immigrants and their removal was not meant to manipulate the process of deporation.
“Instead of those in New Bedford, you’d simply have the next 250 aliens in Massachusetts shipped to Texas,” Grady said.
Stearns’ order also requires the government to turn over a list of all names and locations of immigrants held outside of Massachusetts who have voluntarily agreed to deportation. The ruling also requires the government to allow lawyers to meet with those detainees to make sure they fully understand their rights.
It is one thing when my government acts to “protect me”; it is another when ICE acts as a bully and due process is denied, children are placed at risk, and the members of the same family sent to three different states.
While I realize “teaching civics in schools” will come too late for the Yahoos who think of citizenship as their property, not as the result of how our Constitution is written, lets start with civics – and then look at the more toxic aspects of Globilization run wild, not humiliate and destroy hard working families and traumatice their children when they are only doing what my ancestors did – looking for a better life for themselves and their children.
for keeping us informed, and especially for your pro bono work that day!
I hope we don’t hear in a few months about starving Central Americans who have their breadwinner engaged in some obcure class action suit, to prove they didn’t have asylum status, languishing unable to earn in a detention center.
<
p>
They volunteered and you still don’t want them to go? This isn’t about toxic globalization, it’s about actual people who need to make hard choices, perhaps without the divine guidance of the uniquitous Mr. Kaplan, wo will not be providing their families with groceries while he proves abstruse points.
<
p>
I am not aware of any Central American nation in a diplomatic status with us that would justify political asylum. What kind of asylum will be peddled?
Dear Madam Porcupine:
<
p>
Immigration law is not an area of law where I am an expert. While I did take a course in that subject, that course was in 1982. However, some there are current situations for which asylum can be granted, even from Central American countries, which include [without, as I said, claiming expertise, and no none should take the words in this reply to be “legal advice”]:
<
p>
1. Legitimate fear of political reprisal placing life at risk.
<
p>
2. A domestic abuser in the native country placing life at risk.
<
p>
3. A medical condition which cannot be treated in the country of origin of the undocumented immigrant, of the immigrant, their spouse or their child.
<
p>
In the Globe story, above http://www.boston.co… Kaplan is quoted as saying:
<
p>
<
p>
The Federal Government posts the basis for Asylum at this site: http://www.uscis.gov…
<
p>
Please note that it is unlikely that those scooped up in the lightening raid, torn from their families, and hustled to Texas had access to this information!
<
p>
Further, using the word “peddled” as opposted to “legitimately provided” seems to me to be beneath you, as well as a value judgment which is even at odds with the above federal website.
<
p>
And the word “volunteer” as applied to a dejected, isolated, tired, individual against whom the full power of the State has just acted seems to me to be a euphemism, at best.
<
p>
Another reason for “asylum” is having been subject to torture: http://www.ptvla.org… deals with this issue at some depth, as doesd
http://www.uscis.gov…
<
p>
Just imagine an exhausted, frightened refugee trying to do this, in a foreign language, on their own.
might they have not agreed because they knew they were not citizens, and their families needed their wages to survive?
<
p>
Yes, they might have done that. They might have “volunteered” for lots of reasons, some appropriate some not. The judge wants to figure that out, since it would be, well, unfortunate to deport someone who, say, was here legally, but who “volunteered” because she was afraid her family would suffer if she didn’t. Sounds like the American way to me.
<
p>
I’m really starting to wonder what you GOoPers think America is about.
One woman whom I expected to be supportive, who is an attorney, actually was furious at me for helping these detained folk from the New Bedford ICE raid “who are stealing jobs in New Bedford.”
<
p>
I think that given the way certain corporations are sucking America dry [salaries in the hundreds of millions for CEOs, jobs moved to whrever folk are cheapest] are a root cause. Economic fear leads to what I think of as a kind of economic road rage fueled by fear, which erodes interest in values like due process.
<
p>
I posted the information on Abraham Maslow and the hierarchy of needs on my diary page for this kind of discussion. If Americans are too worried about their paychecks, many will trade liberty for a promise, no matter how punitive, of economic security.
<
p>
Maslow’s work provides a rational, yet philosophical basis for the idea of the social “net” – because when most folks beel threatened economically, their commitment to the concepts of democracy and social justice goes down.
<
p>
Maslow postulated that the need for food, clothing, and shelter had to be secure before “self-actualizing” choices would be made, and backed this up with sociological field research. I was fortunate enough to study under a Ph.D who had worked with Maslow as part of my undergraduate degree. My Maslow post is at:
<
p>
http://www.bluemassg…
“they’re stealing our jobs!” so, being an attorney was second choice for her after she found she couldn;t get a spot in the leather factory? so now she will be marching down to the factory and demanding one of the newly vacated positions? ha! as IF! people can be such idiots, even attorneys.
…One does not know how the agreements to be deported were obtained. Were they obtained under some form of duress? If so, those would not have been “voluntary” agreements.
<
p>
As I mentioned below, the federal judge in the matter obviously issued his order to preserve jurisdiction of the federal courts to determine the legality of the matter. Ms. Porcupine apparently does not understand that, but, then again, she’s a Republican apparatchick, so I’m not surprised.
And Amber – I do object to your strong implication that duress was the only way a person could possibly volunteer to go home to Central America. I tried to ask you to consider that there may have been genuine personal motivations for wanting to leave rather than appeal. IF they want to appeal, fine. But if they want to go home, please let them.
Was duress, and coercion. Further, your post indicated an extreme lack of knowledge as to the basis and nature of asylum, as if being from “Central America” none could possibly be eligible.
<
p>
Freedom of choice is not to abandon all hope, and shrink with despair.
<
p>
One of the detainees I interviewed said that he and his sister fled their Central American home to live with a legal immigrant uncle in New Bedford after his father nearly killed his mother and he is afraid if she is deported, his father will kill her.
<
p>
He was worried because she struggles with depression and he does not know [or anyway, did not know then] where she was.
<
p>
There appeared to be at least an indifference as to “if family members were separated” although to me, it took on the appearance of a deliberate separating of family members to further weaken their resolve to make “free choices” rather than despairing choices.
<
p>
I spoke with more than 20 detainees.
<
p>
How many did you speak with, Mme. Porcupine?
ICE controls what these folk eat, who they see, and where they are. I certainly don’t. Ask Iceman Raimondi. That is, if he speaks to mere citizens.
<
p>
I do not “let” or “prevent” anything for these folk; what I hope for them is the same chance my own family had…and basic due process rather than despair.
<
p>
I do not “make” anyone appeal…nor am I part of the hardy band of pro bono lawyers offering a choice and hope to those who had been hopeless and without choices, rounded up and flown away without even notice to their children if , let alone due process of the most basic variety.
<
p>
See complete story at: http://www.southcoas…
<
p>
Another quote for Madam Porcupine:
<
p>
Which apparently included very pregnant women…
<
p>
Or, another lovely quote:
<
p>
<
p>
Harvey Kaplan was there…you were not…and I was not…except for a brief, eye-opening bit part.
Now, why would a judge do that?
<
p>
This is easy. The reason is to preserve the jurisdiction of the courts over the possible deportees. After the people had been deported, the US federal courts would not have any further jurisdiction. The people are gone–outside of the jurisdiction of the US federal courts. But, hopefully, the order bans the ICE from deporting people before their status can be determined.
<
p>
Courts issue orders to preserve jurisdiction, and that’s what this one did. Gottseidank. Thank Gott.
….this comment:
<
p>
<
p>
Sad to say that I don’t think anyone remembers that. We’ve been fighting over what due process is since before the Constitution was ratified. This is just the latest round in the argument. It is a particulary sad one.