AwesomeLowlander

That is literally the meaning of first. Nobody has done it before. It does not necessarily imply there will be a second

It's not a ship if its real

No argument there, this is a farce of a kangaroo court

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.

It's not about citizens or not. It's limited to criminal cases. Immigration cases are a different thing.

Oh would you just read the article before spouting off already?

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.

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.

This is not a criminal court. From the article:

Unlike in criminal court, people — including adults and children — in immigration court aren’t guaranteed pro bono attorneys if their incomes fall below a certain threshold.

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 🤦

Well now I want a poison ring

Ukraine, for anybody wondering where the heck this is about.