Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 82
Thanks Tree21Thanks

Thread: Session - Says Domestic Violence Is Not Grounds for Asylum

  1. #61
    "Mr. Original". the watchman's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    81,397
    Thanks
    43900

    From
    becoming more and more
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    The judges would be prohibited from offering that input, because they are constitutionally prohibited from acting in an advisory capacity.
    judges are prohibited from getting clarification on what they're being ordered by the justice department to do? Also. Could you please stop editing my comments like that?

  2. #62
    your better Rev. Hellh0und's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    39,942
    Thanks
    4333

    From
    NYC
    Quote Originally Posted by HayJenn View Post
    WASHINGTON — Attorney General Jeff Sessions said on Monday that fear of domestic violence is not legal grounds for asylum in a closely watched immigration case that could have a broad effect on the asylum process, women who have endured extreme violence and the independence of immigration judges. Mr. Sessions reversed a decision by a Justice Department immigration appeals court that had given asylum to a woman from El Salvador who had been raped and abused by her husband. The appeals court decision had overruled earlier orders in similar cases. “The prototypical refugee flees her home country because the government has persecuted her,” Mr. Session wrote in his decision. “An alien may suffer threats and violence in a foreign country for any number of reasons relating to her social, economic, family, or other personal circumstances.

    His decision echoes remarks he made earlier Monday morning at a gathering of immigration judges in Virginia. While there, Mr. Sessions said he would soon issue a decision that “restores sound principles of asylum and long standing principles of immigration law.” Immigration courts are housed under the Justice Department, not the judiciary branch of government, meaning Mr. Sessions has the authority to refer cases to himself and overturn earlier decisions.

    The Board of Immigration Appeals had found in December 2016 that the woman was part of what the asylum system refers to as a “particular social group.” She therefore qualified for asylum, the court said, because women in El Salvador are often unable to leave violent relationships and their government has not been able to protect them.

    Mr. Sessions said that the category of “particular social group” has become too broadly defined.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/11/u...gtype=Homepage

    WTH??? Story after story of people in Central American fleeing violence from all the drug cartels. Especially women and children. And he over rule's his own department?

    For shame. I hope this get's kicked up the courts.




    If a husband beats a wife that's not grounds for asylum, if there is an oppressive force of people beating women that is. otherwise you are interfering with the law and order of another nation.

  3. #63
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    64,915
    Thanks
    36471

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by the watchman View Post
    you were the one asking for a legal justification. All I said is that they should object. If they don't agree with Sessions interpretation they can make their objections known. That's called "freedom of speech". Why wouldn't they be able to do that?
    But we were talking about courts and getting courts to act. On what basis would someone bring a legal challenge? "Freedom of speech" isn't a legal challenge. You can exercise your free speech rights on the steps of a courthouse all you like--that will have no bearing on what happens inside.

  4. #64
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    64,915
    Thanks
    36471

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by the watchman View Post
    you need the concept of "freedom of speech" explained to you?
    I need your legal reasoning explained.

  5. #65
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    64,915
    Thanks
    36471

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by BoiseBo View Post
    NYT has using Viglink instead of a standard pop-up for past few weeks. It's a bad way of doing business, but just click the blue box that says "take me to NYT"
    They never do that to me because I pay for a subscription. This idea that somehow news is free is nonsense.

  6. #66
    "Mr. Original". the watchman's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    81,397
    Thanks
    43900

    From
    becoming more and more
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    But we were talking about courts and getting courts to act. On what basis would someone bring a legal challenge? "Freedom of speech" isn't a legal challenge. You can exercise your free speech rights on the steps of a courthouse all you like--that will have no bearing on what happens inside.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    I need your legal reasoning explained.
    "need"? I was asked on what legal basis could judges object. So, I replied by saying the legal concept of freedom of speech. Before that, I wasn't the one talking about any legal challenge. I just asked what if the judges tell Sessions to go piss up a robe. Is there some sort of legal case law regarding telling someone to piss up a rope, other than freedom of speech, that I'm not aware of?

  7. #67
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    64,915
    Thanks
    36471

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by the watchman View Post
    "need"? I was asked on what legal basis could judges object. So, I replied by saying the legal concept of freedom of speech. Before that, I wasn't the one talking about any legal challenge. I just asked what if the judges tell Sessions to go piss up a robe. Is there some sort of legal case law regarding telling someone to piss up a rope, other than freedom of speech, that I'm not aware of?
    Now I'm totally confused because what you're saying makes no sense to me. No one will act without a court case. No court case can be brought without an argument. Judges never say "piss up a rope." I'm pretty sure that phrase has never been used in a legal opinion, so I don't know what you're talking about.

    As Ian explained, judges never do anything independently without someone taking an action to ask a court to do something. They don't operate on their own.

  8. #68
    Moderator HayJenn's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    52,640
    Thanks
    40511

    From
    CA
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    Isn't the fact that 40% of the world lives on less than $2/day isn't shameful? Should we offer a place in our country for all of them? "Asylum" is a political concept, a solution for a political problem. Domestic violence is not a political problem, no matter how tragic might be any individual case you could bring to the discussion. And while seeking asylum in the US is a hard and long task, it's hard and long for the US, since we're obliged to keep people safe and reasonably well-cared for in the meantime.

    To really get to the heart of this discussion, we have to ask why we have asylum laws in the first place. We do it because we seek to help people achieve political self-determination. It's part of our identity as a nation to help others become politically self-determining. Feeding the world, making sure people around the world treat in other well in their domestic affairs, and quelling violence around the world are not part of our mission as a nation. We would beggar ourselves if we tried that mission on for size.
    So your trying to equate poor people to domestic/gang violence? Pretty sure the victims of violence who have been granted asylum here are self-determining. As in getting out from beneath violence.

    BTW, when the Court first granted asylum to the women from Guatemala - she was classified as part of the "membership in a particular social group". So that kind of blows up part your reasoning here. And Sessions.

    Historic decision recognizes domestic violence victims as eligible for asylum claims | Formica Williams, P.C.

  9. #69
    Moderator HayJenn's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    52,640
    Thanks
    40511

    From
    CA
    Quote Originally Posted by Rev. Hellh0und View Post
    If a husband beats a wife that's not grounds for asylum, if there is an oppressive force of people beating women that is. otherwise you are interfering with the law and order of another nation.
    So gangs don't count? Pretty sure they would be considered an oppressive force of people.

  10. #70
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    64,915
    Thanks
    36471

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by HayJenn View Post
    So your trying to equate poor people to domestic/gang violence?
    No, I'm trying to differentiate between political needs and other kinds of needs.
    Pretty sure the victims of violence who have been granted asylum here are self-determining. As in getting out from beneath violence.
    Actually, no. We grant asylum to people against whom other commit political violence. People who suffer violence for political reasons are by definition not self-determining.

    BTW, when the Court first granted asylum to the women from Guatemala - she was classified as part of the "membership in a particular social group". So that kind of blows up part your reasoning here. And Sessions.
    That argument only holds if the court granting asylum to the woman from Guatemala set a precedent that has to be followed by other courts, forever. I'm sure that's not true. Courts make mistakes. I believe that was a mistake.

    Historic decision recognizes domestic violence victims as eligible for asylum claims | Formica Williams, P.C.[/QUOTE]"Historic" just means it never happened before. It doesn't mean that court gets to set the precedent for all other courts. I think it's a bad decision that flies in the face of the reasons we give people asylum.

Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Decriminalizing domestic violence
    By The Man in forum Sexuality
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 3rd December 2017, 03:20 PM
  2. Replies: 28
    Last Post: 1st March 2017, 10:43 AM
  3. NFL: New Domestic Violence Consequences
    By boontito in forum Current Events
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 31st August 2014, 08:28 PM
  4. Domestic Violence
    By Gypsy in forum Civil Rights
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 22nd September 2010, 04:17 AM
  5. On Domestic Violence in the US
    By MisterE in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 24th May 2007, 03:42 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed