U.S. judge expands order blocking Iraqis' deportation

[webfact]

U.S. judge expands order blocking Iraqis' deportation

By Steve Friess

 

Family members of detainees line up to enter the federal court just before a hearing to consider a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of Iraqi nationals facing deportation, in Detroit, Michigan, U.S., June 21, 2017. REUTERS/Rebecca Cook

 

DETROIT (Reuters) - A federal judge late on Monday halted the deportation of all Iraqi nationals detained during immigration sweeps this month across the United States until at least July 10, expanding a stay he imposed last week that initially only protected 114 detainees from the Detroit area.

 

U.S. District Judge Mark Goldsmith sided with lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union who filed an amended complaint on Saturday seeking to prevent Immigration and Customs Enforcement from deporting 85 Iraqis from elsewhere in the United States.

 

The ACLU said in its Saturday filing that those being deported could face persecution or torture because many were Chaldean Catholics or Iraqi Kurds and that both groups were recognised as targets of ill-treatment in Iraq.

 

The advocacy group also filed a motion asking the judge to extend his order nationwide to ensure that people who could face persecution, torture or death in Iraq are not deported.

 

The arrests of the Iraqis in Michigan were part of a sweep by immigration authorities who detained about 199 Iraqi immigrants around the country. They had final deportation orders and convictions for serious crimes.

 

Goldsmith on Thursday ordered a stay in the Michigan Iraqis' deportation for at least two weeks while he decides whether he has jurisdiction over the merits of deporting immigrants who could face physical danger in their countries of origin.

 

On Monday, he expanded his stay to the broader class of Iraqi nationals nationwide, saying his stay applies to the removal of all Iraqi nationals in the United States with final orders of removal who have been or will be detained by ICE.

 

Goldsmith also said his stays were designed to give detainees time to find legal representation to appeal their deportation orders, and to give him time to weigh the question of his jurisdiction.

 

A representative for U.S. Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

 

ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt praised the ruling for saying that "the lives of these individuals should not depend on what part of the United States they reside and whether they could find a lawyer to file a federal court action."

 

(Reporting by Steve Friess in Detroit; Editing by Eric M. Johnson and Bill Trott)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-06-27

[boomerangutang]

Have the detainees been involved with serious crimes prior?  If so, that would put some perspective on it.

[Scott]

28 minutes ago, webfact said:

They had final deportation orders and convictions for serious crimes.

It would seem that they did have convictions for serious crimes.  

[MyFriend You]

Deport them to Europe, there's plenty of room for them there.........Deerborn Michagin has a huge Iraqi population, it is guessed 30% are Visa over stayers - Deerborn & Lansing are sanctuary cities as well.

[nasanews]

What happened to the dream land, the land of opportunity!

[retarius]

Sorry...people convicted of serious crimes should be deported. 

[Srikcir]

9 hours ago, Scott said:

It would seem that they did have convictions for serious crimes.  

ACLU lawyers acknowledge the criminal history of those arrested, but say most of the detainees have complied with their conditions of supervision and have had no further run-ins with the law, according to the news release.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/16/us/aclu-files-against-ice-for-iraqi-nationals/index.html

Some served out their sentences years ago and some even had their convictions expunged.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/16/us/aclu-files-against-ice-for-iraqi-nationals/index.html

[Trouble]

3 hours ago, nasanews said:

What happened to the dream land, the land of opportunity!

Maybe some in the US want to save dreamland and make opportunity for our own citizens.  The US does not need criminal aliens.  

[Stargeezr]

If these people were criminals in their home country,  well too GD bad for them.  Send them back and let them take their punishment, what ever it is.

Geezer

[Scott]

36 minutes ago, Stargrazer9889 said:

If these people were criminals in their home country,  well too GD bad for them.  Send them back and let them take their punishment, what ever it is.

Geezer

 

They would have had criminal convictions in the US, most likely not in their home country.   If they had convictions in their home country (other than those that would qualify them for refugee status), they would not have legally been admitted to the US.  

[mrwebb8825]

On 6/28/2017 at 4:46 AM, Scott said:

 

They would have had criminal convictions in the US, most likely not in their home country.   If they had convictions in their home country (other than those that would qualify them for refugee status), they would not have legally been admitted to the US.  

They weren't legally admitted to the country. That's why ICE arrested them.

 

I can't believe (or I guess I should by now) that a federal judge has ordered a stay so he can decide if he even has the authority to issue a stay or anything else going against congressionally enacted, presidentially signed government law. 

Since when does a judge get to choose which laws he likes and which laws he doesn't like?

[Dagnabbit]

They weren't legally admitted to the country. That's why ICE arrested them.
 
I can't believe (or I guess I should by now) that a federal judge has ordered a stay so he can decide if he even has the authority to issue a stay or anything else going against congressionally enacted, presidentially signed government law. 
Since when does a judge get to choose which laws he likes and which laws he doesn't like?

It is bizarre. One man has unilaterally blocked all deportations of Iraqi nationals despite not knowing if he has the power to do so.

Sent from my SM-A720F using Tapatalk

[stevenl]

34 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

They weren't legally admitted to the country. That's why ICE arrested them.

 

I can't believe (or I guess I should by now) that a federal judge has ordered a stay so he can decide if he even has the authority to issue a stay or anything else going against congressionally enacted, presidentially signed government law. 

Since when does a judge get to choose which laws he likes and which laws he doesn't like?

They weren't legally admitted to the country. That's why ICE arrested them.

 

Unlikely, 'They weren't legally in the country. That's why ICE arrested them.' is more likely.

[simple1]

40 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

They weren't legally admitted to the country. That's why ICE arrested them.

 

I can't believe (or I guess I should by now) that a federal judge has ordered a stay so he can decide if he even has the authority to issue a stay or anything else going against congressionally enacted, presidentially signed government law. 

Since when does a judge get to choose which laws he likes and which laws he doesn't like?

Your first sentence would be incorrect., if you wish to dispute provide facts, not opinions.

 

With reference to your second paragraph, a quote from the OP...

 

those being deported could face persecution or torture because many were Chaldean Catholics or Iraqi Kurds and that both groups were recognised as targets of ill-treatment in Iraq.

 

Does the US President have the constitutional authority to deport people who could easily face torture / death because of their religious / political orientation? If so, something very wrong with the US.

[mrwebb8825]

31 minutes ago, simple1 said:

those being deported could face persecution or torture because many were Chaldean Catholics or Iraqi Kurds and that both groups were recognised as targets of ill-treatment in Iraq.

 

Does the US President have the constitutional authority to deport people who could easily face torture / death because of their religious / political orientation? If so, something very wrong with the US.

Could also be completely false claims just to avoid being sent back. Easy way to determine, have them quote verses from the Bible.

[simple1]

4 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

Could also be completely false claims just to avoid being sent back. Easy way to determine, have them quote verses from the Bible.

You're avoiding my question. However, one assumes the two year vetting of asylum seekers confirms their background

[mrwebb8825]

42 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Does the US President have the constitutional authority to deport people who could easily face torture / death because of their religious / political orientation? If so, something very wrong with the US.

Not avoiding your question as it has no merit. The president has Always had the power to deport people entering the US illegally AND committing crimes while here illegally.

You're trying to make this a Trump point where it has been this way for 2-3 decades or more. America has laws on the books regarding immigration that haven't been enforced for decades as well. That's 1 of the biggest reasons we are where we are today. We finally have someone willing to enforce them and everybody suddenly gets all soft and mushy crying for those poor illegals and what Might or might Not happen to them if they were sent back. Problem is, you're forgetting about their poor American Citizen Victims who never would have been had they never been allowed in in the first place.

[mrwebb8825]

11 minutes ago, simple1 said:

However, one assumes the two year vetting of asylum seekers confirms their background

Obviously it didn't.

[simple1]

25 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

Obviously it didn't.

Entering the realm of silliness / deflection - you have no proof US Immi did not correctly identify religion of the applicants. their ethnicity. nor that the people in the OP entered the US illegally

Edited June 29, 2017 by simple1

[mrwebb8825]

11 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Entering the realm of silliness / deflection - you have no proof US Immi did not correctly identify religion of the applicants or their ethnicity 

"In the past, refugee applicants were most likely asked about their religious affiliations only if they had applied for resettlement for reasons of religious persecution, said Royce Murray, policy director for the American Immigration Council.

If they had applied citing fear of persecution based on any of the other four categories -- race, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group -- then the topic of religion may have not even been a factor in the interview process, Murray said."

 

and you have no proof that they did.

[simple1]

13 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

"In the past, refugee applicants were most likely asked about their religious affiliations only if they had applied for resettlement for reasons of religious persecution, said Royce Murray, policy director for the American Immigration Council.

If they had applied citing fear of persecution based on any of the other four categories -- race, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group -- then the topic of religion may have not even been a factor in the interview process, Murray said."

 

and you have no proof that they did.

If an asylum seeker was an Iraqi Christian, as stated in the OP,  on what basis do you believe they would be claiming refugee status for vetting? However, the full context of your quote is provided at the URL below which does provide much more relevant contextual information than your inference.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/government-strives-refugee-applicant-lying-christian/story?id=45127055

 

Last response to you on this matter as your spin has become boring

[Usernames]

The case is never over until the illegal alien wins.

[ELVIS123456]

3 hours ago, Dagnabbit said:

It is bizarre. One man has unilaterally blocked all deportations of Iraqi nationals despite not knowing if he has the power to do so.

Sent from my SM-A720F using Tapatalk

 

This type of issue, and many many others with the same anti-American outcomes, resulted in Trump winning the Presidency.

 

It will take time, but eventually the People of America will again control the Laws through their elected Officials (POTUS, Congress, Senate).

 

It would not surprise me if within Trump's time in Office that a Federal Law is passed by Congress/Senate and approved by SCOTUS, that any Judge who makes a ruling that affects the enforcement of any valid and legal law, who then has the validity of that ruling overturned by SCOTUS, ends up being automatically suspended from duty pending a Judicial Investigation into deliberate political interference (which is illegal for a Judge to do).  POTUS, Congress and Senate are elected by the People to serve the People. Federal/District Judges are not. 

 

Edited June 29, 2017 by ELVIS123456
typo

[ilostmypassword]

3 minutes ago, ELVIS123456 said:

This type of issue, and many many others with the same anti-American outcomes, resulted in Trump winning the Presidency.

 

It will take time, but eventually the People of America will again control the Laws through their elected Officials (POTUS, Congress, Senate).

 

It would not surprise me if within Trump's time in Office that a Federal Law is passed by Congress/Senate and approved by SCOTUS, that any Judge who makes a ruling that affects the enforcement of any valid and legal law, who then has the validity of that ruling overturned by SCOTUS, ends up being automatically suspended from duty pending a Judicial Investigation into deliberate political interference (which is illegal for a Judge to do).  POTUS, Congress and Senate are elected by the People to serve the People. Federal/District Judges are not. 

 

I'm sure it wouldn't surprise you. For those of us who have even a rudimentary understanding of the Constitution, though, it definitely would come as a surprise.

[Si Thea01]

5 hours ago, mrwebb8825 said:

Could also be completely false claims just to avoid being sent back. Easy way to determine, have them quote verses from the Bible.

I know Australia is not America but this is happening there.  Saying they are in fear of death or persecution, yet a number of them have gone back to their home country on holidays, not once but twice or in a couple of cases three times.  And they too have criminal records for crimes committed in Australia.  They seem to be skilled liars, not all but many.  The refugee lawyers are up to the noses in this BS but the Immigration minister finally overruled the court or tribunal's decision and deported most of them. This judge ought to be removed, he is playing politics, nothing more.  Doesn't even know if he has jurisdiction, what a joke.

[Scott]

It is highly unlikely that they entered the US illegally.   Getting from Iraq to the US generally requires travel by air and that doesn't happen without a valid visa and passport (or refugee travel documents).  

 

Documents for resettlement are pretty intrusive and they do ask about religion, so they would have declared their religion prior to resettlement.   Religion is not considered as a factor unless it is for refugee purposes, but it is asked.   If they converted, that can be documented.  

 

Once in the US, they are required to abide by the laws, and if they don't, they are eligible for an order of deportation.   If they have been ordered to be deported, they still have access to the Court system if they believe that the order is not legal.   A court will almost always grant a stay or a continuance until it has time to review the legality of the order.   

 

The US is a signatory to the Conventions on Refugees and that precludes returning a refugee to his/her country if they face persecution. 

 

As a very general statement, Christians in Iraq do not face persecution because of their religion.   They do face discrimination, but it doesn't generally amount to persecution.   The difficulty is that many of the religious groups back specific political groups and therefore may face persecution for political reasons and their religion may be a factor in that.  

 

The question most likely isn't whether the order to deport is legal or not, but whether they are violating international agreements in carrying it out.  

 

Legally, they can be arrested and like everyone inside the US, they have the right to have a hearing to determine if that arrest is legal or not and whether.