5 ms·

This is crazy - which is to say, if the quotes are reasonably accurate, I would literally doubt the sanity of the person who said them. "I can teach a three-ye

by zyxley 11y ago

This is crazy - which is to say, if the quotes are reasonably accurate, I would literally doubt the sanity of the person who said them. "I can teach a three-year-old immigration law sufficient to represent themselves in court" is about on the same level as "I can cure cancer by hopping on one foot and squinting real hard" or "the Earth is actually hollow and the inside is inhabited by escaped Nazis".

nefitty 11y ago
There are some equally irrational, sincerely held, if not more ridiculous, beliefs out there: Flat earth society: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/ http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/ James H. Fetzer's entire career after 1990: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_H._Fetzer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_H._Fetzer Should I continue with links? Because that last one really bums me out beyond belief. Fetzer seriously seems like a body that inherited the respect of an intellectual but deteriorated under the stress of an undiagnosed paranoid psychosis.
- themartorana 11y ago
  I'm honestly having difficulty understanding if the Flat Earth Society is a elaborate and hilarious troll, or, well... It's almost too scary to consider the alternative... Are there actually people that believe the earth is flat, and anything else is a conspiracy??
  - graeme 11y ago
    There was an elaborate flat earth society parody in Canada for a few decades. I saw an exhibit at the art gallery in my hometown. Maybe this is a continuation/something similar? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_flat_Earth_societies#Canadian_society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_flat_Earth_societies#Ca...
- user_0001 11y ago
  Human beings are not rational . Take the popularity of religion for example. Trumps your "flat earth society" by several hundred levels of magnitude
  - nacs 11y ago
    I thought you were missing an apostrophe in the last sentence and read it differently: Trump is your "flat earth society" by several hundred levels of magnitude
maxlybbert 11y ago
I'm sure the "immigration law" in question was either simple evidence standards ("there's a difference between things you saw, and things somebody told you about"), or rules about what qualifies for refugee status. The thing is, if the court does appoint an attorney, the attorney will need to explain these same concepts to the child as part of preparing a defense.
- shawn-furyan 11y ago
  > if the court does appoint an attorney, the attorney will need to explain these same concepts to the child as part of preparing a defense. There are lightears of space between doing your best to see that someone who can't defend themselves in court has qualified representation (even if there are difficulties that the representative will face in conducting defense), and pitting the same person against an expert litigation team without a qualified advocate. The former situation is a good faith effort to give the defendant a fair trial. The latter situation is a sham trial.
  - maxlybbert 11y ago
    I've served on a jury in one criminal case, and watched the beginning of another case without being on the jury. One thing that stood out was how few objections ever included a reason, and the ones that did were usually described in one word: attorney: "objection," judge: "sustained"/attorney: "objection, speculation," judge: "overruled." It felt mechanical. Based on how quickly the judges ruled, it was obvious they knew what the objection would be before the attorneys opened their mouths. I would be OK if the judge were to accept responsibility of allowing only acceptable questions, especially since the judge decides what's acceptable. Please note, I have no idea if a judge can accept that responsibility in an immigration hearing; but if they could, I would be fine with it. The obvious danger, in a criminal hearing, would be for the accused to say something that they weren't required to say, and that hurt their case. That is one obvious reason people have a right to an attorney. I don't know enough about immigration law to say whether that's a possibility. In a criminal case, you have a right to remain silent. You don't have that right in a civil case (you can punished for contempt, and the judge is allowed to assume the reason you want to remain silent is that the truth would hurt your case ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Refusal_to_testify_in_a_civil_case https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_Unite... )). I have no idea if you have the right to remain silent in an immigration hearing, but it wouldn't surprise me if the right is severely limited. If you have a right to remain silent in an immigration hearing, then it would be impossible to guarantee a fair hearing without providing an attorney.
xg15 11y ago
The only way I could see that statement as making some kind of sense is that the children were rote-learning the correct answers to the judge's questions. But then you could ask who is supposed to teach the child the answers and why that person couldn't simply act as its defense attorney in the first place. Even if you accept the insanity, I don't see how some persons being able to defend themselves (the children who miraculously learned immigration law) implies that all persons are able to, and therefore aid is never needed. This seems like a basic logical fallacy to me.

by zyxley 11y ago

nefitty 11y ago

There are some equally irrational, sincerely held, if not more ridiculous, beliefs out there: Flat earth society: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/ http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/ James H. Fetzer's entire career after 1990: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_H._Fetzer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_H._Fetzer Should I continue with links? Because that last one really bums me out beyond belief. Fetzer seriously seems like a body that inherited the respect of an intellectual but deteriorated under the stress of an undiagnosed paranoid psychosis.

themartorana 11y ago
I'm honestly having difficulty understanding if the Flat Earth Society is a elaborate and hilarious troll, or, well... It's almost too scary to consider the alternative... Are there actually people that believe the earth is flat, and anything else is a conspiracy??
- graeme 11y ago
  There was an elaborate flat earth society parody in Canada for a few decades. I saw an exhibit at the art gallery in my hometown. Maybe this is a continuation/something similar? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_flat_Earth_societies#Canadian_society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_flat_Earth_societies#Ca...
user_0001 11y ago
Human beings are not rational . Take the popularity of religion for example. Trumps your "flat earth society" by several hundred levels of magnitude
- nacs 11y ago
  I thought you were missing an apostrophe in the last sentence and read it differently: Trump is your "flat earth society" by several hundred levels of magnitude

maxlybbert 11y ago

I'm sure the "immigration law" in question was either simple evidence standards ("there's a difference between things you saw, and things somebody told you about"), or rules about what qualifies for refugee status. The thing is, if the court does appoint an attorney, the attorney will need to explain these same concepts to the child as part of preparing a defense.

shawn-furyan 11y ago
> if the court does appoint an attorney, the attorney will need to explain these same concepts to the child as part of preparing a defense. There are lightears of space between doing your best to see that someone who can't defend themselves in court has qualified representation (even if there are difficulties that the representative will face in conducting defense), and pitting the same person against an expert litigation team without a qualified advocate. The former situation is a good faith effort to give the defendant a fair trial. The latter situation is a sham trial.
- maxlybbert 11y ago
  I've served on a jury in one criminal case, and watched the beginning of another case without being on the jury. One thing that stood out was how few objections ever included a reason, and the ones that did were usually described in one word: attorney: "objection," judge: "sustained"/attorney: "objection, speculation," judge: "overruled." It felt mechanical. Based on how quickly the judges ruled, it was obvious they knew what the objection would be before the attorneys opened their mouths. I would be OK if the judge were to accept responsibility of allowing only acceptable questions, especially since the judge decides what's acceptable. Please note, I have no idea if a judge can accept that responsibility in an immigration hearing; but if they could, I would be fine with it. The obvious danger, in a criminal hearing, would be for the accused to say something that they weren't required to say, and that hurt their case. That is one obvious reason people have a right to an attorney. I don't know enough about immigration law to say whether that's a possibility. In a criminal case, you have a right to remain silent. You don't have that right in a civil case (you can punished for contempt, and the judge is allowed to assume the reason you want to remain silent is that the truth would hurt your case ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Refusal_to_testify_in_a_civil_case https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_Unite... )). I have no idea if you have the right to remain silent in an immigration hearing, but it wouldn't surprise me if the right is severely limited. If you have a right to remain silent in an immigration hearing, then it would be impossible to guarantee a fair hearing without providing an attorney.

xg15 11y ago

The only way I could see that statement as making some kind of sense is that the children were rote-learning the correct answers to the judge's questions. But then you could ask who is supposed to teach the child the answers and why that person couldn't simply act as its defense attorney in the first place. Even if you accept the insanity, I don't see how some persons being able to defend themselves (the children who miraculously learned immigration law) implies that all persons are able to, and therefore aid is never needed. This seems like a basic logical fallacy to me.