Thread: New Case Could Undermine ACLU’s Push To Secure U.S. Abortions For Illegal Immigrants

• ABORTION

New Case Could Undermine ACLU’s Push To Secure U.S. Abortions For Illegal Immigrants

Why are two activist lawyers trying to get an abortion for an underage noncitizen who insists she doesn’t want one?

By Margot Cleveland
FEBRUARY 20, 2018


Last week, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services filed papers in federal court claiming lawyers Rochelle Garza and Myles Garza forced a noncitizen pregnant minor in the care of the Office of Refugee Resettlement to sign paperwork appointing them to serve as her legal representatives. According to the document, the minor, identified only as Jane Doe, is detained in a Brownsville, Texas shelter and she does not seek an abortion or want the Garzas to represent her interests.

If the name Garza seems familiar in this context, it should: Rochelle Garza is the named plaintiff in Garza v. Hargan, the case the American Civil Liberties Union brought in October in which it sought to force the federal government to facilitate an abortion for a then-17-year-old illegal alien listed as J.D. Rochelle Garza served as J.D.’s guardian ad litem, lending her name to the caption, but in that case, it was the ACLU’s misconduct that drew the government’s attention.


As I explained at length at the time, the ACLU misled the Fifth Circuit during oral argument, then misrepresented to the government the timing of J.D.’s abortion, allowing her to be whisked away at 4:30 a.m. to obtain an abortion before the U.S. Department of Justice could appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is currently considering whether the ACLU’s conduct justifies vacating the Fifth Circuit’s decision that illegal alien minors have a constitutional “right” to an abortion. To date, the justices have discussed the Garza case at three separate conferences and a decision could come as early as 9:30 this morning when the Supreme Court releases its latest orders.

Something Else Is Going on Here

Garza v. Hargan, however, involves an entirely separate case, and in it Rochelle Garza is not working on behalf of the ACLU. The latest filing came in In the Interest of Jane Doe, and it is in this case that the ORR seeks review of Rochelle and Myles Garza’s conduct relating to a different minor, asserting: “The minor has written and signed two statements attesting to being ‘made’ to sign a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) G-28 attorney representation form by the guardian and attorney ad litem, and that she no longer wants to receive further assistance from them, and does not want to obtain an abortion.”

In Texas, for a minor to obtain an abortion, the minor must obtain parental consent or a “judicial bypass.” A state court judge must authorize a minor to obtain an abortion if the minor demonstrates that she is mature and sufficiently well informed to choose abortion, that notifying either of the minor’s parents would not be in the minor’s best interests, or that notifying either of the minor’s parents would lead to abuse of the minor. In this case, the federal government stands in place of the parents since Jane Doe is an unaccompanied minor.

Although the government did not indicate the nature of the pending state court proceedings, given the context, the scheduled hearing was invariably for a judicial bypass to authorize Jane Doe to obtain an abortion. However, as the ORR explained in the court filing, Doe “does not seek an abortion, and does not want the state-appointed guardian ad litem, Rochelle Garza, and attorney ad litem, Myles Garza, to represent her interests.”
This Is Complicated, So Current Reports Aren’t Accurate

The media has remained quiet over this recent development, with Fox News, the Daily Caller, and pro-life outlets providing the only coverage of the government’s claim that the Garzas pushed the minor to sign papers appointing them her legal representatives. Also, this reporting is inaccurate, mainly because of the complexities of the case and the sealed nature of the proceedings.

For instance, in its report, Fox News stated that the “government’s filing asked United States District Judge Rolando Olvera to replace the Garzas as the minor’s guardians. Olvera has granted the request.” That cannot be correct because, while the ORR “removed” the Jane Doe case from state court to the federal district court, Olvera refused to accept jurisdiction. Instead, on February 15, 2018, Olvera remanded the case back to the state court system. Absent jurisdiction, a federal court remains powerless to do anything, including replacing the Garzas as Jane Doe’s legal representatives.

However, the case is not over, because the ORR immediately appealed Olvera’s order that would have sent Doe’s case back to state court. Also, on Friday, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals entered a temporary stay, keeping Jane Doe’s case in the federal court system, pending a decision by the Fifth Circuit on the ORR’s motion for a stay pending a full appeal.

This development is significant because, so long as the case remains in the federal court system, the state court lacks the power to proceed on the judicial bypass the Garzas filed on behalf of Jane Doe. Thus, not only was the February 12, 2018, hearing canceled, the state court cannot rule until the federal courts rule. One would think that, now that they know Jane Doe no longer wants their assistance, they would withdraw from the case. But the Fifth Circuit record continues to list Myles Garza as Doe’s legal representative.

What’s At Stake: Federal Control of Illegal Immigrants

The Fifth Circuit will likely rule on the ORR’s motion for stay pending appeal within the week and if granted—which I predict—it is likely the federal appellate court will also expedite the government’s appeal. The question for the Fifth Circuit will then be whether the ORR can remove cases involving the care of unaccompanied minors from the state court system. This question has ramifications much beyond this Jane Doe’s case.

To explain: In the United States we have two separate court systems, state and federal. Judicial bypass proceedings for abortions usually proceed in the state court system because typically the minor is a ward of the state or within the custody of her own parents. But in the case of unaccompanied minors, the federal government has custody. Yet attorneys such as the Garzas are heading to a local state court judge and obtaining orders that demand the federal government submit to the authority of a state court. That occurred in the Garza v. Hargan case, likely before the ACLU ever became involved.

The ORR, however, was ready this time and, immediately upon receiving an order to release Jane Doe to the state court system, the U.S. Department of Justice instead removed the case to a federal court. In the ordinary course of litigation, that’s where proceedings affecting the federal government are resolved.

If the federal government succeeds on appeal to the Fifth Circuit in this case, that will establish precedent allowing the ORR to remove other cases from the state court system, including cases involving minors seeking a judicial bypass, and in which the minor truly wants an abortion. That’s the real reason the Garzas are not standing down.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/20/...al-immigrants/

Minor foreign runaway...fast track deport her out of here!

Originally Posted by Beezer

Minor foreign runaway...fast track deport her out of here!

You're right. Enough of this crap already. Just release her at the border crossing gate to Mexican authorities or turn her over to the Mexican embassy for return to her parents or relatives in Mexico! Come on Trump, DHS, ICE or all three. Let's figure this out and make it happen.

The law has to be repealed by Congress that requires DHS to arrest and detain unaccompanied minors at the border, unlike non-minors whom they can kick back at the border. The minors are then transferred per the law to the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement. This law was passed during the Bush Administration in 2003. Trump has requested a repeal of this law in his immigration proposals to Congress.

Originally Posted by Judy

The law has to be repealed by Congress that requires DHS to arrest and detain unaccompanied minors at the border, unlike non-minors whom they can kick back at the border. The minors are then transferred per the law to the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement. This law was passed during the Bush Administration in 2003. Trump has requested a repeal of this law in his immigration proposals to Congress.

What you're saying doesn't jell with this:

Will illegal immigrant kids stay or be sent home? Depends if they have a lawyer



By Barnini Chakraborty
Published August 08, 2014 Fox News


Two female detainees sleep in a holding cell, as the children are separated by age group and gender, as hundreds of mostly Central American immigrant children are being processed and held at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Nogales Placement Center in Nogales, Arizona, June 18, 2014. (Reuters)


WASHINGTON – What a difference a lawyer makes.

As the immigration crisis along the U.S.-Mexico border deepens, a review of deportation hearings for minors caught crossing reveals stark disparities depending on their legal representation. If they've got an attorney, they stand a fairly good chance of staying in the U.S. Without one -- they're probably getting sent home.
That is, if they show up at court at all.

The differences are detailed in a recent report from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University. The report traces the status of more than 100,000 cases involving juveniles clogging the system.

Because crossing the U.S. border without authorization or documentation is a civil offense and not a criminal one, the government is not required to provide children -- no matter how young -- with publicly funded counsel. But legal representation is a key factor.

The report found that in cases where the child had an attorney, they were allowed to stay in the United States nearly half the time. Children who appeared in court alone or without any type of legal representation were deported nine out of 10 times, according to the report.

While foes of illegal immigration worry that the surge of illegal immigrant minors is going to open the door to "amnesty," immigrant advocates are now focusing on the legal representation issue in a bid to aid those currently going through the court system.

Meanwhile, a growing number of children are taking a third option that's not desired by either side of the debate -- not showing up at court at all and effectively disappearing into the U.S.

At a July 22 federal immigration court hearing in Dallas, for example, 90 percent of the kids were no shows. In the past, the rate has hovered around 46 percent.

But groups are trying to bring the minors out of the shadows, and back into the courts. Near New Orleans, immigration lawyer Kathleen Gasparian is spearheading a campaign to pair area legal experts and Spanish-speaking translators with unaccompanied minors waiting for their deportation hearing.

Gasparian, a managing partner at law firm Ware Gasparian in Metairie, La., said her practice, which deals solely with immigration issues, saw a spike about six months ago in the number of children who needed legal counsel.

In the first seven months of 2014, 450 cases involving minors were referred to Louisiana’s immigration courts compared with a total of 71 cases in 2011.

Gasparian’s firm is offering a free training session in September for lawyers, legal workers and other volunteers, such as translators, interested in donating their time, Gasparian told FoxNews.com.
“Our firm has always had a strong commitment to pro bono work, but this is much more than we could handle,” she said. “The response from the community has been wonderful.”

So far, 15 attorneys have signed up for the September session. “Our goal is to get 20,” Gasparian said.
The New Orleans immigration court, one of only two in Louisiana that handles deportation cases, is currently facing a big backlog.

As of June 30, there were 1,216 pending cases in the state. Of those, 81 percent – 985 child defendants – did not have legal representation.

The State Bar of Texas has been actively looking for pro bono lawyers too.

“Please understand that legal assistance is going to be needed for many months,” the organization wrote on its website. According to the site, lawyers will be needed to help with deportation hearings, asylum cases and with assisting qualifying minors who want to apply for special immigrant juvenile status.

The surge of children making the more than 1,000-mile journey from Central America to the U.S.-Mexico border to escape reported violence in their own countries has triggered calls for more funding from the Obama administration. Congress has not passed compromise legislation to address this, so President Obama has warned he may allocate resources on his own.

The majority of minors detained at the border not only face language barriers but also lack financial resources to hire legal help.

Several civil rights groups are suing the federal government for allegedly failing to provide free attorneys to juveniles facing detainment and deportation hearings.

The ACLU, for example, argues in its case that children are ill-equipped to represent themselves and therefore should have access to a lawyer. As that fight coils its way through the court system, several other legal aid groups are offering their services to children for free.

In California, immigrant rights attorneys also filed a lawsuit on July 31 seeking a preliminary injunction to block the U.S. Department of Justice from fast-tracking the deportation of Central American children without first making sure they have legal counsel.

Last year, 38,759 unaccompanied minors – mostly from Central American countries -- crossed the southern border illegally. Of those, 1,800 were deported, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security said.

The rest were either granted asylum or are waiting for their cases to be heard as the brutal backlog of cases in U.S. immigration courts grows.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...n-country.html


Obviously the law you're referring to, if one does exist, doesn't apply here because this article was published in 2014. Besides that, you're not giving Trump much credit. His administration should take a more active role in figuring this out ....... quickly!

They are NOT our responsibility. Get rid of these loopholes and laws and send them right back to their country within 24 hours!

We are not the daycare center for the World to dump their children, THEIR citizens, over our border!

They must take care of them. Stop this human trafficking now. The more that are fast tracked out of here...the better to shut the trafficking down!

Trump Wants to Make It Easier to Detain and Deport Unaccompanied Central American Children

The White House insists on overhauling how children at the border are treated as part of any deal that protect Dreamers.

Noah Lanard
Oct. 13, 2017 6:00 AM

In the waning days of George W. Bush’s presidency, Democrats and Republicans in Congress unanimously agreed to increase protections for victims of human trafficking. Years later, as tens of thousands of Central American children arrived at the border alone, those safeguards took on new significance. Instead of the rapid deportations faced by adults, child migrants were able to live with family members in the United States as they made their case for staying in the country.

But that could soon change. The White House is now demanding that Congress gut those protections as part of any legislation to spare undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as kids—known as Dreamers—from potential deportation.

On Sunday, President Donald Trump unveiled a list of provisions that would have to be included in order for him to back a bill protecting Dreamers. Among those provisions is one that would subject all unaccompanied children at the border to rapid removal proceedings that are currently used only for minors from Mexico and Canada. Trump also called for children seeking asylum to make their cases before judges, instead of less-adversarial asylum officers.

Immigrant advocates say the proposals, which would need to be approved by Congress, would deprive children of due process and put many at risk of being sent back to dangerous conditions in Central American countries racked by violence. The changes “would decimate the protections for these children,” says Megan McKenna, communications director of the advocacy group Kids in Need of Defense.

The administration’s proposals are designed to deter Central American children from coming to the United States. Between 2011 and 2014, the number of unaccompanied minors apprehended at the border each year quadrupled from 15,701 to 67,339, before falling to about 44,000 in the past year.

The increase has further strained America’s underfunded immigration courts. More than 40 percent of cases started by unaccompanied children in 2013 had not been resolved about two years later, the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute found. Trump’s proposal calls for hiring 370 new judges, though it also asks for 10,000 Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers who will put more people into deportation proceedings.
“The kids are basically being used as bait at this point,” a federal field specialist told the news agency McClatchy in June

While child migrants wait for their cases to be decided, many live with family members who are already in the United States. The Migration Policy Institute has reported that the prospect of joining family creates a pull for kids to come north, along with the push provided by poverty and devastating gang violence in parts of Central America. The organization recommended hiring more judges to speed up the process, rather than weakening protections for children.

The Trump administration is trying to block these reunifications by targeting undocumented family members of children who come to the United States alone. Under the new “surge initiative,” Customs and Border Protection officers provide immigration agents with data to track down the children’s relatives in the United States. The family members are then detained, and possibly deported, for immigration violations or arrested for human smuggling.

“The kids are basically being used as bait at this point,” a field specialist with the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), the federal agency responsible for unaccompanied minors, told the news agency McClatchy in June. Leah Chavla, a program officer at the Women’s Refugee Commission, says going after relatives has led more kids to “languish in detention.”

The White House’s proposal would also make it much easier to deport kids while they’re still at the border. In 2008, Congress created two processes for handling undocumented children who arrive at the border. Most of these children are placed by ORR in the setting that is in their “best interest,” which often means living with parents or other relatives. But Congress was concerned that too many kids from Mexico would come, Chavla says. So Mexican and Canadian children are given 48 hours to convince a Customs and Border Protection official that they are likely to be trafficked or persecuted in their home country. If they can, ORR takes custody. If they can’t, they’re quickly turned over to authorities in Mexico or Canada. Trump wants all unaccompanied children to be subject to the procedures for Mexican and Canadian kids.

Chavla says it can be tough for kids to tell border officials about experiences that give them a right to protection. Lenni Benson, an immigration law professor at New York Law School, says that CBP officers lack the training and expertise needed to get children to talk about trauma. A report released by Amnesty International in June found that CBP agents often use their discretion to make “arbitrary decisions” that violate laws protecting asylum seekers.

If you’re a child, “how are you going to represent yourself in court?”

In 2016, Mexicans made up 20 percent of unaccompanied minors but only 3 percent of children in ORR custody—meaning that most failed to convince border officials they deserved protection. Chavla says that doesn’t square with data from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees showing that Mexican youth are just as likely to meet criteria for international protection as those from Central America.

For children who aren’t immediately deported, Trump’s proposal would force them to make their asylum claims before a judge, instead of asylum officers. Sarah Pierce, a policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, says going before a judge is much more confrontational than what kids face now. If you’re a child, “how are you going to represent yourself in court?” Chavla asks, adding, “It’s just not due process.”

About 30 percent of unaccompanied children in court—some of whom go to court after failing in initial asylum claims—do not have legal representation, according to the nonpartisan Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. The group has found that women and children are 14 times likelier to win their cases if they have representation. (Many children get pro-bono legal services, while others gain representation through a fund administered by ORR that would be eliminated under a House Republican bill backed by the White House.)

While kids argue their cases, the White House wants more authority to keep them in detention. It hopes to get it by having Congress scrap a 1997 settlement agreement that was reached after more than a decade of litigation. Under the settlement, unaccompanied children must have access to things like classroom education and be placed with parents or legal guardians without “unnecessary delay.”

Trump is also demanding that Congress ensure that children at the border are not considered “unaccompanied” if they have relatives in the United States. That change, which Pierce says Trump could make without Congress, would stop them from being transferred to ORR. Instead, they’d stay in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security. On Wednesday, CNN published a Justice Department memo that allows immigration judges to decide for themselves whether someone is an unaccompanied minor. That enables judges to strip migrants of unaccompanied-minor status if they’ve been been reunited with family or turned 18 since getting to the United States—forcing them to make asylum claims before a judge rather than an asylum officer.

Republicans have defended similar reforms by arguing that they will prevent children from making dangerous journeys to the United States. Before he became attorney general, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) co-introduced legislation that included three of the five policies for unaccompanied minors that the White House proposed on Sunday. The bill was called the “Protection of Children Act.”

In August, the Trump administration ended an Obama-era program that allowed some at-risk children in Central America to avoid smugglers by getting temporary permission to come to the United States before they left home. New York Law School’s Benson says the rhetoric about helping children is just that. “We are in an Orwellian world here,” she says. “That is not accurate. Not true. Propaganda. And they basically want to roll back the protections.”

https://www.motherjones.com/politics...ican-children/

Is this the law you're talking about? If so, it doesn't apply.

What The Law Actually Says About Unaccompanied Immigrant Minors

by James Spurgeon in Foreign Policy Jul 10, 2014

211

Since October 2013, 52,000 children from Central America have been apprehended crossing the U.S.-Mexico border illegally. They are coming here by themselves, many searching for their parents. It’s just one more piece in the larger immigration debate that seems to have quieted down until after the November election.

Republicans in Congress are quick to point the finger at the Obama administration. Two years ago, the administration decided to defer deporting young immigrants who met certain criteria and have lived in the states continuously since June 2007. But, as usual with partisan rhetoric, they are missing half of the debate.

In 2008, Congress passed the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), which the Senate passed by unanimous consent, and was signed by President George W. Bush. Though the law’s main intent deals with human trafficking, it does contain a section that deals with children arriving in the U.S. illegally unaccompanied by an adult.

Children from Mexico are returned immediately, as they would be if they were an adult apprehended illegally entering the U.S. However, children from a non-contiguous nation, such as those in Central America, have a different process.

• 
  
• 
  

The children must be turned over to the Department of Health and Human Services which is in charge of their care, finds them safe housing, and apprises them of their legal rights as their immigration cases are decided. Deportation proceedings can take time as immigration courts are generally backed up.

Republicans, who in recent weeks have claimed that the Obama administration is not enforcing the laws passed by Congress, are actually demanding that the president not enforce the TVPRA and send the children back to their home countries immediately without any deportation hearings.Last week, President Obama signaled a willingness to do so but only if Congress modified the TVPRA. The leadership of both the House and the Senate do not seem to be interested in changing the current law, and as of July 7, the Obama administration has backtracked a little though it still would like more authority to act.

Until the law is changed, the children that have come here unaccompanied have to go through the process outlined by the TVPRA. President Obama has asked Congress for $4 billion in extra funds to deal with the situation.

In the debate surrounding these children, it should be noted that they are not refugees or seeking asylum which would be completely different. Asylum and refugee status are special legal protections only available to people who have fled their home countries out of fear and cannot return and can only be sought once they have entered the U.S. There are strict requirements that a person must show in order to be granted those protections.

And though we debate this issue now in regards to Mexicans and those from Central American countries, this is not the first time we as a nation have had this discussion. In the mid-19th century, it was over Irish immigrants. Most were processed legally through Ellis Island but the same arguments that were used then are still being used today against legal and illegal immigrants.

In the end, the TVPRA is a law passed by Congress that President Obama must enforce. If Republicans in Congress have a problem with that, then they need to change the law instead of telling the president not to enforce it.

This doesn’t come as a result of a DREAM Act. It comes from an inability to deal with our broken immigration system in terms of those wanting to come here legally, and what to do with those who enter illegally.

Abraham Lincoln once said, “The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.” For now, as we detain these illegal immigrant children, we need to treat them humanely until they are eventually returned to their countries of origin. If Republicans want this process to be sped up, then they need to revise the TVPRA.

https://ivn.us/2014/07/10/law-actually-says-unaccompanied-immigrant-minors/

Okay, seems children from Mexico can be returned immediately if caught at the border just like any other illegal caught within 100 miles of the border. The children this trafficking law covers are those children from other countries. However, even they can be sent home, depending on the final disposition of their court case. This law took effect in 2008, not 2003.

In 2008, Congress passed the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), which the Senate passed by unanimous consent, and was signed by President George W. Bush. Though the law’s main intent deals with human trafficking, it does contain a section that deals with children arriving in the U.S. illegally unaccompanied by an adult.

This covers UACs from central america and was "re-authorized" by trump last year - he should not have done that.

Originally Posted by artist

This covers UACs from central america and was "re-authorized" by trump last year - he should not have done that.

Are you serious, did he actually re-authorize it?