4 ms·

I've been seeing this fallacy a lot lately in these times. If you're ever in this situation: the longer you're held without a lawyer, the higher the liability o

I've been seeing this fallacy a lot lately in these times. If you're ever in this situation: the longer you're held without a lawyer, the higher the liability on your captor becomes. Period. This is where million dollar lawsuits by the ACLU and jail time for corruption begins. The US was founded on habeas corpus, and it doesn't matter what laws have been written since, or what national threats have been used as an excuse to undermine our inalienable rights. Your duty is to the future people of the US so that their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness aren't infringed. My feeling is that this house of cards of government officials skirting the law and pleading ignorance is going to come crashing down in the near future. They know that they are breaking the law. They're just assuming that you will be afraid and let them. I had hoped that we were past all this and the 21st century would to be free of injustice, but unfortunately we're all going to have to fight just like our ancestors did. But I think that better times really are just around the corner, as long as we stay informed and unified. Related: congresswoman Nanette Barragan questions Kirstjen Nielsen on asylum seekers being turned away at US border crossings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQ-cURrFLVk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQ-cURrFLVk

TurkishPoptart 7y ago
Thank you for sharing this, as well as the link of Nielsen getting grilled by a Congressional hero. I'm inspired. More people need to see this.
willmadden 7y ago
There is no constitutional right for people outside of the US to seek asylum in the US. Asylum seekers are granted refugee status by the United Nations if they meet two broad requirements. The US accepts a limited number each year (notably more than any other country since WW2, however).
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- zackmorris 7y ago
  Personally, I think that the American Dream was always an ideal to live up to, not something established that only exists in the US. If we deny someone's dignity and rights simply because they aren't a US citizen, then we've embraced injustice and broken our pledge of liberty and justice for all. I'm not a lawyer, but reading through this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in_the_United_States Something stood out: An applicant initially presents his claim to an asylum officer, who may either grant asylum or refer the application to an Immigration Judge. So I think that the "Nanette Barragan questions Kirstjen Nielsen" video I linked shows that the border crossing agent committed a crime when she turned away people seeking asylum. She should have either: a) granted their asylum or b) admitted them to go before an immigration judge. From there, the border crossing agent should be tried in court for her actions. In which case, she can either say that she is guilty and take the penalty, or that she was following orders and then the next person up in rank should go through the process until it reaches Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen. In which case, she can accept responsibility, or claim that she was following orders from the president. It looks like Kirstjen Nielsen resigned on April 10, 2019, a month after the March 2 video: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kirstjen-nielsen-resigning-dhs-secretary-expected-to-offer-resignation-today-live-updates-2019-04-07/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kirstjen-nielsen-resigning-dhs-... We're seeing this a lot lately, where high-ranking officials are skirting the law, then resigning to shield the president. That's not how it should work in America. I say all of this because I imagine if I was a border crossing agent, and I denied asylum to someone outright, then found out later they died because of my actions, I'd likely get PTSD and never recover. At the very least, I don't know how I'd be able to sleep at night. Which is why I think I'm right as far as the spirit of the law, even if the letter of the law doesn't match up with what I'm saying.
devicetray0 7y ago
> I've been seeing this fallacy a lot lately in these times. If you're ever in this situation: the longer you're held without a lawyer, the higher the liability on your captor becomes. Period. This is where million dollar lawsuits by the ACLU and jail time for corruption begins. This itself is actually the fallacy. Take a look at this: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/01/540903038/u-s-citizen-held-by-immigration-for-3-years-denied-compensation-by-appeals-court https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/01/540903038... > Watson was correct all along: He was a U.S. citizen. After he was released, he filed a complaint. Last year, a district judge in New York awarded him $82,500 in damages, citing "regrettable failures of the government." > On Monday, an appeals court ruled that Watson, now 32, is not eligible for any of that money — because while his case is "disturbing," the statute of limitations actually expired while he was still in ICE custody without a lawyer.
- tropdrop 7y ago
  This is astounding. It seems that there is actually an incentive to keep a person claiming to be a citizen imprisoned, since if they keep them imprisoned long enough, then any financial debt owed for the injustice will magically disappear thanks to statute of limitation. "Flessner, Watson's lawyer, says the ruling "turns false imprisonment statute of limitation claims kind of on their head." It means a person in custody for an extended period of time would have to file a false-imprisonment claim while detained, "before it's been determined that they've been falsely imprisoned," he said. "I mean, this is not only applicable to immigration cases ... there's lots of citizens that are falsely or wrongly imprisoned."
  - zackmorris 7y ago
    Thank you devicetray0, I hadn't heard of that case, I agree with tropdrop that that is _astounding_. A few thoughts comes to mind: * Corrupt public officials are hacking our legal system through thin cracks like differences between citizen and non-citizen rights and the statute of limitations to commit injustice. * This case needs to be appealed and go all the way to the Supreme Court, because it's pretty self-evidently an infringement of Davino Watson's rights. * The Supreme Court as it stands now would likely make an unjust decision in that case, because it has been packed with judges that lean more towards libertarianism/corporatism than justice. Mitch McConnell blocked Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland, which opened the door to Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/05/mitch-mcconnell-supreme-court-2020 https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/05/mitch-mcconnell-supr...

TurkishPoptart 7y ago

Thank you for sharing this, as well as the link of Nielsen getting grilled by a Congressional hero. I'm inspired. More people need to see this.

willmadden 7y ago

There is no constitutional right for people outside of the US to seek asylum in the US. Asylum seekers are granted refugee status by the United Nations if they meet two broad requirements. The US accepts a limited number each year (notably more than any other country since WW2, however).

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
zackmorris 7y ago
Personally, I think that the American Dream was always an ideal to live up to, not something established that only exists in the US. If we deny someone's dignity and rights simply because they aren't a US citizen, then we've embraced injustice and broken our pledge of liberty and justice for all. I'm not a lawyer, but reading through this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in_the_United_States Something stood out: An applicant initially presents his claim to an asylum officer, who may either grant asylum or refer the application to an Immigration Judge. So I think that the "Nanette Barragan questions Kirstjen Nielsen" video I linked shows that the border crossing agent committed a crime when she turned away people seeking asylum. She should have either: a) granted their asylum or b) admitted them to go before an immigration judge. From there, the border crossing agent should be tried in court for her actions. In which case, she can either say that she is guilty and take the penalty, or that she was following orders and then the next person up in rank should go through the process until it reaches Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen. In which case, she can accept responsibility, or claim that she was following orders from the president. It looks like Kirstjen Nielsen resigned on April 10, 2019, a month after the March 2 video: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kirstjen-nielsen-resigning-dhs-secretary-expected-to-offer-resignation-today-live-updates-2019-04-07/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kirstjen-nielsen-resigning-dhs-... We're seeing this a lot lately, where high-ranking officials are skirting the law, then resigning to shield the president. That's not how it should work in America. I say all of this because I imagine if I was a border crossing agent, and I denied asylum to someone outright, then found out later they died because of my actions, I'd likely get PTSD and never recover. At the very least, I don't know how I'd be able to sleep at night. Which is why I think I'm right as far as the spirit of the law, even if the letter of the law doesn't match up with what I'm saying.

devicetray0 7y ago

> I've been seeing this fallacy a lot lately in these times. If you're ever in this situation: the longer you're held without a lawyer, the higher the liability on your captor becomes. Period. This is where million dollar lawsuits by the ACLU and jail time for corruption begins. This itself is actually the fallacy. Take a look at this: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/01/540903038/u-s-citizen-held-by-immigration-for-3-years-denied-compensation-by-appeals-court https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/01/540903038... > Watson was correct all along: He was a U.S. citizen. After he was released, he filed a complaint. Last year, a district judge in New York awarded him $82,500 in damages, citing "regrettable failures of the government." > On Monday, an appeals court ruled that Watson, now 32, is not eligible for any of that money — because while his case is "disturbing," the statute of limitations actually expired while he was still in ICE custody without a lawyer.

tropdrop 7y ago
This is astounding. It seems that there is actually an incentive to keep a person claiming to be a citizen imprisoned, since if they keep them imprisoned long enough, then any financial debt owed for the injustice will magically disappear thanks to statute of limitation. "Flessner, Watson's lawyer, says the ruling "turns false imprisonment statute of limitation claims kind of on their head." It means a person in custody for an extended period of time would have to file a false-imprisonment claim while detained, "before it's been determined that they've been falsely imprisoned," he said. "I mean, this is not only applicable to immigration cases ... there's lots of citizens that are falsely or wrongly imprisoned."
- zackmorris 7y ago
  Thank you devicetray0, I hadn't heard of that case, I agree with tropdrop that that is _astounding_. A few thoughts comes to mind: * Corrupt public officials are hacking our legal system through thin cracks like differences between citizen and non-citizen rights and the statute of limitations to commit injustice. * This case needs to be appealed and go all the way to the Supreme Court, because it's pretty self-evidently an infringement of Davino Watson's rights. * The Supreme Court as it stands now would likely make an unjust decision in that case, because it has been packed with judges that lean more towards libertarianism/corporatism than justice. Mitch McConnell blocked Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland, which opened the door to Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/05/mitch-mcconnell-supreme-court-2020 https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/05/mitch-mcconnell-supr...