this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2025
600 points (99.5% liked)
Not The Onion
15969 readers
1345 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Judge Ubaid ul-Haq should be ashamed for even presiding over that farce.
They can preside over it, but they should just have dismissed the case with prejudice for the government not providing a lawyer.
Unfortunately the law does not obligate the govt to provide a lawyer.
Edit: In immigration court. This is not a criminal court.
Edit edit: The number of people unable to comprehend the difference is giving me insight into just how bad the education system is in the states.
Edit edit edit: Apparently me explaining the facts of the matter makes me a bad guy 🤦
You are correct, and ultimately the issue is that the laws shouldn't be different for immigration courts or immigration agents, because wrongful detention or deportation can be worse than wrongful imprisonment.
No argument there, this is a farce of a kangaroo court
In fact it does, the sixth amendment guarantees, and I quote, "to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."
checks upvotes
Looks like lemmy is just as poorly informed as the rest of the internet
This is not a criminal court. From the article:
That doesn't matter
The constitution doesn't make convenience exceptions.
The constitution specifically states criminal trials, which this is not. 5 seconds of googling would tell you as much, instead of making baseless claims here.
They didnt even need to googlr it, their own link specifies "criminal" defendants
Apparently it does?
It doesn't as it is a major human rights violation
In the US there are certain human rights you can't just wave way. They are alienable by definition. It is only a matter of time before these "trials" get challenged
Oh would you just read the article before spouting off already?
American exceptionalism is one hell of a drug.
It's always hilarious when idiots speak with confidence. Makes my day
Haha your bio is spot on
"Yet the immigration system does not provided [sic] court-appointed counsel to immigrants facing deportation who are unable to afford a lawyer."
https://immigrantjustice.org/issues/access-counsel
Everyone's right. It's horrible, but it's the way it has been. It's just getting and will continue to get worse.
Funny you should say that....
I would read the bill of rights. It is very important to know as a US citizen.
I emphasized the key word there. There is no guarantee in civil or other courts (which sucks - try finding a divorce lawyer once your ex saps the bank account lol).
This is about IMMIGRATION court. They are not US citizens, and the constitution specifically states the right to an attorney is only for CRIMINAL court, which this is not.
My own reading of that amendment is that it puts requirements on the US government, period. It does not limit things to US citizens.
Of course, I know that's not the way the courts interpret the amendment. 😔
It's not about citizens or not. It's limited to criminal cases. Immigration cases are a different thing.
Why did you mention them not being US citizens then? 🤔
Ah. Yeah that bit's irrelevant. I was just dashing a quick reply off to the other guy, and the last thing he mentioned was US citizens so I guess that wormed its way into my reply.