9th Circuit: Immigrant children aren't entitled to government-paid lawyers in deportation hearings.

[WingNot]

A federal appeals court decided unanimously Monday that minor immigrants who are in the country without legal authorization are not entitled to government-paid lawyers in hearings that could lead to their deportation.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an immigration judge's decision to deny asylum to a minor identified as C.J.L.G., who left Honduras at age 13 after being threatened by gangs.

The boy did not have a lawyer, and his mother was unable to find free legal help.

The 9th Circuit said federal law did not guarantee paid lawyers for children in immigration court and that the teenage boy failed to show that he needed a lawyer to safeguard his rights.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-immigrant-children-9th-circuit-20180129-story.html

[driftdiver]

Im shocked this came out of the 9th.

[Oceander]

Im shocked this came out of the 9th.

Indeed. 

[Sanguine]

Wow. 

[ABX]

Color me mixed on this.

One of the main points about court appointed lawyers (actually, THE main point) is protection of the citizen against the government.

Now, in this case, we are dealing with non-Citizens -- hopefully. But in the case of a deportation hearing, the government has to prove the person they are deporting is a non-Citizen. While it should be rare, it has happened before that legal US Citizens have been caught up in the deportation court bureaucracy and have been deported. According to this, 4,000 US Citizens were wrongly detained and/or deported in 2010 (I suspect this is fudged a bit) - https://news.vice.com/article/the-us-keeps-mistakenly-deporting-its-own-citizens

At the bare minimum when it comes to these cases, the US Government has an obligation to prove that the person they want to deport is not a legal citizen. A child caught up in this does not have the knowledge or wherewithal to even ask for legal assistance.

This isn't about defending illegals, it is about protecting US Citizens form over-zealous government action.

[ABX]

Since the last post, I've been pondering the question, why?  Why would the 9th make this decision, which, on its surface, is against the typical 'bleeding heart liberal' train of thought and seems to be what immigration hawks would want. Did they suddenly become hawks themselves? Doubtful.

It just dawned on me.

This decision if used as precedent, could possibly solidify the power of the courts.

Take the immigration angle out for a moment. Think about the issue regarding a person's right to a defender (an advocate against the State). Without this, the court is the final say and the accused doesn't have either a knowledgeable voice against the State in their corner, they don't have an advocate against improper action by the court/State.

Many times a defender does more than represent a client in court. Often, they are the ones who go to bat after the verdict when something isn't proper- even if they are technically a 'public defender'.

So what happens when this ruling, sometime in the future, us used against citizens, let's say someone the court deems a 'political dissident'? They can deem, based on this precedent, this person doesn't have the right to a public defender and the court is the final say with no recourse or real defense....  I really don't think this is a stretch. As I pointed out in the post above, this already has the potential to impact citizens' rights and protections if they get caught up in immigration courts in error (which has happened thousands of times).

I'm sure the liberal activists on the 9th would love that power.

Is, what appears to be a hawkish victory really worth it in the big picture?

[DCPatriot]

Since the last post, I've been pondering the question, why?  Why would the 9th make this decision, which, on its surface, is against the typical 'bleeding heart liberal' train of thought and seems to be what immigration hawks would want. Did they suddenly become hawks themselves? Doubtful.

It just dawned on me.

This decision if used as precedent, could possibly solidify the power of the courts.

Take the immigration angle out for a moment. Think about the issue regarding a person's right to a defender (an advocate against the State). Without this, the court is the final say and the accused doesn't have either a knowledgeable voice against the State in their corner, they don't have an advocate against improper action by the court/State.

Many times a defender does more than represent a client in court. Often, they are the ones who go to bat after the verdict when something isn't proper- even if they are technically a 'public defender'.

So what happens when this ruling, sometime in the future, us used against citizens, let's say someone the court deems a 'political dissident'? They can deem, based on this precedent, this person doesn't have the right to a public defender and the court is the final say with no recourse or real defense....  I really don't think this is a stretch. As I pointed out in the post above, this already has the potential to impact citizens' rights and protections if they get caught up in immigration courts in error (which has happened thousands of times).

I'm sure the liberal activists on the 9th would love that power.

Is, what appears to be a hawkish victory really worth it in the big picture?

Good take on this!  @AbaraXas