Tonight, the ACLU has fully briefed their pleas. The facts are. . . appalling. 45 and his goons are trampling our Constitution's "Due Process" Clause, with every passing day here -- and likely in hundreds of other cases, not yet known to the plaintiffs' lawyers. Read the whole 52 page brief (as a PDF) here -- and I'll post a bit, tonight -- before tomorrow's hearing in San Diego:
. . . .As set forth below, there has been no finding that Ms. Q. and Mr. C. are unfit, neglectful, or dangerous to their children. In fact, the evidence shows that both children are suffering greatly without the care of their loving parents, and even regressing in their development as a result of their lengthy custody. J was toilet trained when he came to the United States with his mother, but now he needs diapers after having several accidents. D., for his part, is a toddler confused about being in a shelter and is struggling to make sense of life without his father. This Court has explained that the Due Process Clause does not permit the government to separate parents from their children without “a determination that the parent was unfit or presented a danger to the child.”
[An earlier Immigration Court Judge's opinion and order:] My understanding is that in 2010, Mr. C was convicted of misdemeanor aggravated assault under Louisiana law, for which he received a sentence of 48 days in jail. My understanding is that the government has refused to reunify Mr. C with his son on the sole basis of this criminal conviction, and that he has no other criminal history. . . . In Ms. Q.’s case. . . . the warrant [conclusions only about some dubious gang activity long ago] does not come close to supporting a reasonable suspicion that she would endanger her son or is unfit to care for him. . . .
In my opinion, neither Mr. Q nor Mr. C’s criminal histories justifies separating them from their children. Considerably more would have to be alleged to deny parents their constitutionally protected right to the care and custody of their children. In the United States, under both federal and state law in all jurisdictions, there is no lawful basis to deny parents custody of their children based on the parents’ alleged criminal activities without a particularized showing that keeping or reuniting a child with her parent would place the child at imminent risk of serious harm. In these two instances, neither parent’s criminal histories, standing alone, would even permit a finding that reunification with the parent is not in the child’s best interests, much less justify their removal from their parents in the first instance. . . .
Hundreds of thousands of people with felony convictions in the United States have the constitutional right to the care and custody of their children once they served their sentences and are released from custody. To deny a father the same right for behavior that warranted a 48 day jail sentence would be manifestly unsupportable under the law governing this context. . . .
I (would like to still) believe Mr. Trump will certainly answer in Eternity, for these, his crimes against humanity -- even if we, the people, aren't able to have him answer directly, in a court of law, for them -- in this lifetime.
But based on life-changing experiences, I have surrendered my belief in much of that covenant: no, in fact, I think all that we have -- all that we are -- all that we will be -- is right here and now. This lifetime. This moment. And Mr. Trump must be brought to justice -- for these ongoing crimes.
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment