Jueza Federal Dictamina Que El Gobierno De Trump No Puede Encarcelar Indefinidamente A Los Inmigrantes

La jueza federal Dolly Gee, de la ciudad de Los Ángeles, propinó un duro golpe a los esfuerzos del gobierno de Trump para encarcelar de forma indefinida a las familias de inmigrantes, incluidos los solicitantes de asilo. 

La jueza dictaminó que el gobierno de Trump no puede enmendar el acuerdo de Flores de 1997, que indica que los niños no pueden ser encarcelados por más de 20 días. 

Todo esto se produce a medida que las protestas a favor de la inmigración continúan en todo el país; como en Ohio, donde 12 activistas fueron arrestados por bloquear una oficina del Servicio de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas (ICE, por su sigla en inglés), en el centro de la ciudad de Columbus. 

Por su parte El Departamento de Justicia indica que reunirá hoy a casi la mitad de los más de cien niños inmigrantes menores de cinco años, luego de que un juez federal en San Diego aceptara extender el plazo que ordena la reunificación de todos los niños más pequeños. 

La operación secreta de reunificación de será supervisada por el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional, e implicará el transporte de los niños a cientos de kilómetros en todo el país a lugares no revelados. En total, aproximadamente 3.000 niños siguen separados de sus padres. 

Para ampliar esta información compartimos la entrevista que hizo democracynow.org a David Cole director legal a nivel nacional de la Unión Estadounidense por las Libertades Civiles (ACLU) y profesor de derecho y políticas públicas en el Centro de Derecho de la Universidad Georgetown. 

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: David Cole, we only have a few minutes left. I wanted to see if you could talk a little bit about the current situation with the battle over—with the Trump administration on immigration and on the reuniting of those children separated from the parents that they were taken from. 

DAVID COLE: Well, we are trying to hold the Trump administration’s feet to the fire. And we’re in the court in San Diego, where we got an injunction a couple weeks ago saying you’ve got to reunite the families—within 30 days, all the families; within 14 days, the children under 5. When we were back in court in the last couple days, they didn’t even have a list of the children under 5. And they were, you know, unclear whether they knew which kids were related to which parents. The judge, fortunately, is really, you know, holding their feet to the fire. And we’re basically in there talking with him and with the government on a daily basis about: Are they doing enough? And the answer is, no, they’re not. But they are being pressured by a court to do that. So—

AMY GOODMAN: So the judge granted them an extension today for the under fives. There’s two weeks, and all 3,000 kids have to be reunited. 

DAVID COLE: Right, right, right. 

AMY GOODMAN: They have given the names of the 102 kids? 

DAVID COLE: Yeah, yeah. 

AMY GOODMAN: They’ve reunited, what? Under 50. 

DAVID COLE: Yeah. 

AMY GOODMAN: Today, all at once, those 50 will be reunited? 

DAVID COLE: Well, I—

AMY GOODMAN: And then what happens to the other 50? 

DAVID COLE: Well, I mean, I think—I think, you know, realistically, they’re going to—they have to get them reunited as quickly as possible. They will not meet the deadline of today, but they—but you just—what you do is you continue to press. They screwed this up from the beginning. And they’re not putting in sufficient resources to respond in a fast and efficient way. I mean, these are kids who are suffering, who are—and parents who are suffering, separated from their families. And the government is coming in and saying, “We can’t”—you know, at one point the government said, “I have to dogsit for my dog back home, so I can’t come in here on the weekend to have an emergency hearing.” I mean, the Trump administration needs to take this more seriously. We’re doing everything we can. I think the American people, by coming out and protesting and speaking out as forcefully as they have, have helped tremendously. And I hope we can get the kids and the families reunited. 

AMY GOODMAN: Do you take this as a done deal: Brett Kavanaugh will be the next Supreme Court justice? 

CECILE RICHARDS: No. 

RACHEL TIVEN: No. 

AMY GOODMAN: Rachel Tiven? 

RACHEL TIVEN: No, not at all. Absolutely not. I think, first of all, this is a very, very closely divided Senate. Right? There are—only a couple of votes need to shift for this nomination to be blocked. And when—Senator McConnell has been so clear that when you’re within—oh, I don’t know—a year of an election—right? I mean, this is—at what point will Democrats, and surely some Republicans, call out the hypocrisy here? I mean, I think that people are worried for the future of their country. And bipartisan people are worried for the future of their country. 

AMY GOODMAN: Cecile Richards? 

CECILE RICHARDS: Well, I mean, I think, look, if the 5 million people who marched the day after the inauguration called their United States senators with concern, I think this process would be slowed down, and I think people would actually take a really hard look at this nominee. And I agree this should be delayed until after the midterm elections. This is—you know, the only way this nomination is going to get through is if they try to simply jam it through. And I think, again, Mitch McConnell, if it was good enough to delay under President Obama, it’s good enough to delay under President Trump. 

AMY GOODMAN: David, your wife serves on the same federal court as Judge Kavanaugh? 

DAVID COLE: Yeah, yeah. 

AMY GOODMAN: Any further comment? 

DAVID COLE: No. 

AMY GOODMAN: And finally, in the last 15 seconds, Fatima Goss Graves, what are you going to be doing in these next months, the National Women’s Law Center? 

FATIMA GOSS GRAVES: We’re going all in. We believe that this is a fight that we can win. And the same way people counted out the ACA, we know that women will rise. They’ll be making the calls. They’ll be showing up at town halls. So people got to get ready. 

AMY GOODMAN: We want to thank you all for being with us. And of course we’ll continue to cover this process. David Cole, legal director of the ACLU. Cecile Richards, former head of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Rachel Tiven, head of Lambda Legal Defense. And Fatima Goss Graves, with the National Women’s Law Center. 

Fuente: www.democracynow.org 

http://inmigracionyvisas.com/a3845-Jueza-dictamina-no-encarcelar-indefinidamente-a-inmigrantes.html

Juez Federal Dictamina Que Estados Unidos No Puede Detener A Solicitantes De Asilo

El juez federal de distrito James Boasberg dictaminó que el gobierno de Donald Trump no puede detener arbitrariamente a personas que solicitan asilo en Estados Unidos. El juez dictaminó que a los solicitantes de asilo que hayan aprobado una entrevista de “temor creíble” se les debe otorgar la libertad condicional humanitaria, no la detención indefinida. 

La demanda fue presentada por la Unión Estadounidense de Libertades Civiles, la organización sin fines de lucro Human Rights First y el Centro de Estudios de Género y Refugiados. 

Para conocer más del tema, puede ver la entrevista que democracynow.org hiciera a Eunice Lee, una de las directoras legales del Centro de Estudios de Género y Refugiados.

 

 

NERMEEN SHAIKH: A federal judge has ruled that the Trump administration may not arbitrarily detain people seeking asylum. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ruled asylum seekers who have passed a credible fear interview should be given humanitarian parole, not indefinite detention. The suit was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, Human Rights First and the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies. Siding with nine plaintiffs who have been awaiting asylum determinations, Judge Boasberg ordered the government to begin case-by-case release reviews at five ICE offices where he said detention had become the “default” operation: Los Angeles; Detroit; Philadelphia; Newark, New Jersey; and El Paso, Texas. 

AMY GOODMAN: The ruling comes in the midst of the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” crackdown against immigrants. Earlier this month, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced domestic violence will no longer be grounds for asylum—a far-reaching shift that could affect thousands of women fleeing gender-based violence, particularly from Central America. 

ATTORNEY GENERAL JEFF SESSIONS: You do not get to come to America if you have a private threat or a—someone personally attacks you. You do not get to have asylum for that. It’s based on your race, your religion, your nationality, that you’re part of some special, identifiable group that’s being persecuted in your home country. That’s what it takes to have an asylum. And we need to get this straight. And I think it will help us, the decision I made. I believe it’s right legally. I’m totally confident it’s consistent with the intent of the drafters of the INA, our law. And I believe it will help us manage our caseloads better and give more focus to the people who deserve to be given asylum, and help us eliminate those that are not worthy of this asylum. 

AMY GOODMAN: Meanwhile, on Tuesday, Attorney General Sessions rescinded a 2011 Department of Justice guidance that dictated refugees and asylum seekers have the right to work in the United States. 

Well, for more, we’re joined by Eunice Lee. She’s co-legal director at the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies, one of the groups that brought the challenge against the Trump administration’s immigration detention policies. 

Welcome to Democracy Now!, Eunice. Start off by talking about the significance of Judge Boasberg’s ruling. 

EUNICE LEE: Thank you, Amy. And thank you for having me on your show. 

So, the judge’s order essentially just required the government to do what it should have been doing all along, which is provide a meaningful opportunity for individuals who are asylum seekers in immigration detention to be released after they pass their credible fear interviews. And, in fact, the department’s own written guidance states that there’s a presumption of release, unless the individual poses an individualized flight risk or danger that warrants their detention. And, in fact, the judge’s ruling recognized that this is not what ICE has been doing in the five field offices where we brought suit, and he ordered the government to follow its own written policy. 

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Eunice, can you explain why this ruling applies only to these five jurisdictions? 

EUNICE LEE: Sure. So we brought suit in five jurisdictions where asylum seekers there were facing detention rates of 90-plus percent. So, for 90-plus percent of our class plaintiffs, they were, in fact, not being released. They were being denied release or parole, as it’s called, despite this written guidance that states that they should be released unless there is a real need to detain them. And what we saw with these 90-plus percent denial rates is that, essentially, there was no meaningful review of detention decisions by ICE, and there was near-blanket detention of people who should have been released, you know, after establishing a credible fear of persecution. 

AMY GOODMAN: So, these five jurisdictions—Los Angeles, Detroit, Philadelphia, Newark and El Paso—explain exactly what will come out of this now. I assume the government is appealing this. But if they were to follow Boasberg’s ruling, what has to happen? Will thousands of people be released? 

EUNICE LEE: Well, we haven’t yet seen that the government is appealing this. And, in fact, what the judge’s order orders—requires the government to do is to provide a review of a person’s detention. And this should be an automatic review that applies a presumption that favors release. So, in general, the department’s guidance states that it’s not in the public interest to detain asylum seekers unnecessarily after they pass their initial screening interview establishing a likelihood of asylum eligibility. So, what will happen after this order takes effect is that ICE will have to go back, and for our class members who are asylum seekers in detention in these five jurisdictions, ICE will have to actually provide a meaningful process to review whether their detention is necessary. 

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And could other jurisdictions eventually benefit from this ruling? 

EUNICE LEE: Well, the ruling is limited, again, to the five jurisdictions where we brought our lawsuit. Certainly, we hope that ICE—you know, that the ruling will prompt ICE to look at its practices and decide to follow its written guidance, you know, as it should, throughout the country, in all jurisdictions. But, you know, the ruling is limited to those five jurisdictions because that’s where we saw the most striking and egregious problems. 

AMY GOODMAN: Let me ask you about the case of Ansly Damus, the named plaintiff in the lawsuit, in Damus v. Nielsen. As explained by the ACLU, Ansly is an ethics teacher in his early forties who fled violence and political persecution in Haiti after speaking out against the corruption of a local politician. He was attacked by a local gang, whose members severely beat him, set his motorcycle on fire, threatened to kill him. Fearing for his life, he fled […] Haiti, leaving behind his wife, 8-year-old daughter and 4-year-old son. He not only passed his screening, but an immigration judge here granted his application twice. In each instance, the U.S. government appealed the decision, extending his case proceedings. Yet he’s currently locked up in Ohio, where immigrant detainees are kept in windowless rooms. And he has not been allowed outside in 16 months, in well over a year? 

EUNICE LEE: That’s right, Amy. So, our lead plaintiff, Mr. Damus, as you mentioned, is an ethics teacher from Haiti who fled political persecution, and he came to our shores seeking protection. And as you note, he was, in fact, granted twice—granted asylum twice by an immigration judge, and both times the government appealed. And the government, during all this time, which it’s now been over a year and a half, has refused to release him, despite multiple requests by his attorney, or by him, brought, you know, together with his attorney. And he has provided all sorts of information to show that he is not a flight risk or a danger. I mean, he was an ethics teacher in Haiti. He has community support. He had a letter from a pastor. He had a place to live. He has no criminal history. And yet ICE has denied multiple requests for him to be released, even after an immigration judge twice granted him asylum, which was appealed by the department. 

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Eunice, could you explain whether Judge Boasberg’s ruling will apply to any of the families of the over 2,000 children who have been separated from their parents, who the Trump administration is threatening to detain together, the parents and the children? Will the ruling affect that at all? 

EUNICE LEE: So, the ruling—the class members in our suit do include some parents who were separated from their children. But I do want to clarify that the class members are those individuals who presented at a border—at a port of entry, so either Border Patrol port of entry or an airport, and they were taken into immigration custody from there. So, the suit does not apply to families who first crossed the border and then were later apprehended by immigration officials. But, you know, as I said, there are families who presented together at a border point of entry and who were separated by immigration authorities, and our lawsuit would apply to the parents in those circumstances who were separated from their children and are in detention. AMY GOODMAN: And again, how many people does your case—does your suit cover? 

EUNICE LEE: So, we estimate that there are over a thousand class members each year detained in these five jurisdictions. So, it should—you know, going forward, it should affect several hundred to over a thousand individuals in detention each year. 

AMY GOODMAN: And what about the people who are trying to get over the border? Democracy Now! was just there last week. We went over two bridges, from Matamoros to Brownsville. And people are just being told the country is full. And so they’re waiting. They’re baking in the hot sun.We were there last week, we went over two bridges to Brownsville. People are just being told the country is full, so they are waiting, baking in the hot sun. Some, eventually, I think, will leave and not go to a legal port of entry. Others just sit there and sit there—that’s the legal way to do it—and are turned back. 

EUNICE LEE: * Right. So—exactly. So, the reason many people are forced to cross in between ports of entry is exactly as you said, because ICE—or, because CBP, Customs and Border Protection, is simply not letting people through. They’re not accepting people who are trying to go to the ports of entry and say, “I would like to seek asylum.” And, in fact, they are supposed to allow folks to seek asylum. Our laws provide a right to seek asylum. We’ve signed on to international treaties that oblige us to recognize that right. And yet, asylum seekers are still being turned away at ports of entry. And this is, as you say, creating a humanitarian crisis for folks who are waiting for their turn, and driving many people in desperation to cross first and then ask for asylum. 

AMY GOODMAN: Eunice Lee, we want to thank you very much for being with us, co-legal director at the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies, co-counsel on the litigation challenging the Trump administration’s immigration detention policies. A federal judge has just ruled in their favor.

 

Fuente: www.democracynow.org 

http://inmigracionyvisas.com/a3843-juez-de-Estados-Unidos-falla-en-favor-de-solicitantes-de-asilo.html