—> ICE / Immigration Catch-All

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 3K
  • Views: 108K
  • Politics 
Below is an NYT story of a guy who showed up at the border last year and was admitted based on a temporary asylum grant. He took a wrong turn onto the Ambassador Bridge and was detained when he tried to re-enter the country. So far everything is by the book - temporary asylum grantees don't have re-entry rights (although I don't think that restriction is meant for wrong turns in which 30 seconds have elapsed).

But now, after he was detained by ICE, nobody knows where he is. Our government has disappeared him. America has become 1970's Argentina.

NYT: Deported Venezuelan has Disappeared
 
nycfan said:
Click to expand...

I don't understand this document. It's filed by Garcia's lawyers. But it includes the section of "defendant's position," which seems like it was written by the government, so why is it included in this letter? It's not written like, "the government contends that . . ."; it's more like a motion that the government might file (e.g. "Next, the Plaintiffs suggest that the government has refused to answer interrogatories or produce document based on assertions of privilege. That statement is, at best, misleading. The Defendants provided specific responses to each interrogatory, and a forthcoming privilege log will provide more specific invocations as to document production. The Plaintiffs make no suggestion that the Defendants have not provided specific answers to interrogatories within the scope of discovery not protected by privilege.")

What is this? I've never done big discovery disputes.
 
superrific said:
I don't understand this document. It's filed by Garcia's lawyers. But it includes the section of "defendant's position," which seems like it was written by the government, so why is it included in this letter? It's not written like, "the government contends that . . ."; it's more like a motion that the government might file (e.g. "Next, the Plaintiffs suggest that the government has refused to answer interrogatories or produce document based on assertions of privilege. That statement is, at best, misleading. The Defendants provided specific responses to each interrogatory, and a forthcoming privilege log will provide more specific invocations as to document production. The Plaintiffs make no suggestion that the Defendants have not provided specific answers to interrogatories within the scope of discovery not protected by privilege.")

What is this? I've never done big discovery disputes.
Click to expand...
It is actually co-signed by counsel to plaintiffs (left column with carryover to next page) and counsel to defendants (right column). Each side is stating its position in a dispute that I assume the court previously directed them to try to work out in discovery.

I’ve only occasionally had any involvement in discovery practice (mainly litigators asking for input on details in their correspondence with a court), so I totally defer to our litigators, but I have seen these sorts of co-authored plaintiff/defense discovery letters in discovery disputes.
 
Huh? said:
But now, after he was detained by ICE, nobody knows where he is. Our government has disappeared him. America has become 1970's Argentina.

NYT: Deported Venezuelan has Disappeared
Click to expand...
That's not a misplaced comparison (indeed I've long compared Trump to Peron), but it's not quite right in my view.

1. In Argentina, it was enemies of the administration who were disappeared. This guy is an enemy to Trump in one sense just by virtue of being a migrants/asylee. But that puts him in a category with millions of others, and all of them are below Dems and progressives on the Trump enemy list. So disappearing this guy has a certain pointlessness to it -- and indeed, is this really the fight the administration wants? Of all the test cases, the "guy working a job to contribute to America and took a wrong turn onto a bridge" doesn't have the best optics.

2. It's true that dictatorships always use fear, and often a key element of the fear is arbitrariness. The dictator wants everyone to fear that they might be next. So I get that.

3. But what if this is of a different character? That they didn't try to disappear him, but actually in fact lost him? It's not malice per se; it's malice-crusted incompetence. Sort of like the family separations from the first term. Maybe this is more like, "we don't give a fuck about people so we're not going to be at all careful." Not sure if that's more or less scary.
 
nycfan said:
It is actually co-signed by counsel to plaintiffs (left column with carryover to next page) and counsel to defendants (right column). Each side is stating its position in a dispute that I assume the court previously directed them to try to work out in discovery.

I’ve only occasionally had any involvement in discovery practice (mainly litigators asking for input on details in their correspondence with a court), so I totally defer to our litigators, but I have seen these sorts of co-authored plaintiff/defense discovery letters in discovery disputes.
Click to expand...
Right. I missed the right column on the signature page. Normally when I see those big blocks of attorney signatures, I just gloss over it, thinking it's just one of those lawyer- job-program procedures in which 20 lawyers are pulled onto a matter that could be easily covered by one or two . . .
 
BluHevn said:
Put Trump in jail for contempt of court and then impeach him.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court pretty much gave Trump blanket immunity unity for acts committed during his Presidency. You could go after his Attorney General but the administration wouldn't comply, and then we are staring down a constitutional crisis (which is inevitable, but I suspect all parties prefer to kick that can down the road.)
 
farce© said:
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court pretty much gave Trump blanket immunity unity for acts committed during his Presidency. You could go after his Attorney General but the administration wouldn't comply, and then we are staring down a constitutional crisis (which is inevitable, but I suspect all parties prefer to kick that can down the road.)
Click to expand...
Th good news there may be several Cabinet members that are potentially being held in contempt . Maybe reign them in a bit
 
As an old Boomer, I'm beginning to tire of living in interesting times...

Civil Rights movement
President Kennedy assassination
MLK assassination
Bobby Kennedy Assassination
Anti- Viet Nam War movement
Watergate
2008 Great Recession
Covid pandemic
the end of the Democratic republic in America

in the words of the great Cosmo Kramer:

It's too much ! it's too much !
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top