Sick Migrants Undergoing Lifesaving Care Can Now Be Deported

[billsherman]

You clearly don’t live in the USA.

The courts here have full jurisdiction over the legislative branch, it’s called ‘checks & balances’. They have the ability to stop a deportation.

You mean the Executive Branch first of all.

Second, and far more importantly, you don’t understand our legal system as well as you think you do. Deferred Action IS NOT something an Immigration Court handles, it is something ICE grants. It is NOT a legal proceeding. It IS NOT reviewable by any court.

Something called the Chevron Deference and the related Seminole Rock Deference are the reasons why courts don’t review administrative agency interpretations of their own rules. I think you and I would agree that this is a terrible legal precedent, but regardless of what we think, it exists.

Now, do you really think Jesus would deport this woman? If not, why should we? If so, what makes you think that?

For more information:

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. - Wikipedia.

Here is an opinion piece on the most recent SCOTUS decision reaffirming that administrative agency interpretations of their rules are NOT reviewable by courts:

Opinion analysis: Justices leave agency deference doctrine in place – with limits (Updated) - SCOTUSblog

Editor's Note: This post, originally published at 11:49 a.m., was expanded at 1:26 p.m. A divided Supreme Court issued a major opinion on administrative law today. The justices declined to overrule a longstanding line of cases instructing courts to defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own r

www.scotusblog.com

 

[Victoria33]

I do not believe Christian charity would okay fraud in immigration. Immigration is full of fraud. Her individual case is not being treated, her classification group is.

 

[Cruciferi]

Why should she need to go to Canada.

Because she’ll still have access to medical care, unlike in Guatemala. Also, she’ll still be eligible for reentry into the US.

She was invited to the US by the doctors studying her condition. They were able to develop treatment allowing her to live.

Invitations are not necessarily permanent. Also, Medical Deferred Action is not intended for perpetual treatment.

She’s a young woman who is ill. The children in Boston are ill. Why do they have to leave?

I would argue that anyone entering under such an agreement should’ve known that this was a possibility. This was, at least from what I’m reading, never intended as a permanent arrangement.

Giving care to sick children is the right thing to do.

Ending care to sick children is the wrong thing to do

What level of care is necessary? St. Teresa of Calcutta cared for the sick but it wasn’t anything extraordinary.

In the absence of a Green Card or a Path to Citizenship, as @Theo520 said,

Our responsibility would be to provide his/her care givers back home with the knowledge to continue perpetual care.

 

[F_Marturana]

No. Her condition is only treatable by her medical team. They developed her care regimen.

Canada I assume could take other kids.

 

[Victoria33]

White House says it’ll look again at deportation deferral requests

The Trump administration, facing criticism over deportations from lawmakers and civil rights groups, said on Monday it would reopen consideration of some deferral requests for compelling circumstan…

www.mercurynews.com

Faced With Criticism, Trump Administration Reverses Abrupt End to Humanitarian Relief (Published 2019)

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services said it was reviewing a scaled back “deferred action” program to allow some migrants facing medical crises to stay in the country.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Theo520]

Second, and far more importantly, you don’t understand our legal system as well as you think you do. Deferred Action IS NOT something an Immigration Court handles, it is something ICE grants. It is NOT a legal proceeding. It IS NOT reviewable by any court.

You grossly misunderstand the power of the courts
https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/immigration/deportation/cancellation-of-removal.html

 

[Theo520]

No. Her condition is only treatable by her medical team. They developed her care regimen.

So you are saying they refuse to share her care regime with her doctors back home? I seriously doubt the veracity of that statement.

 

[Annie]

Jesus wouldn’t deport this woman, so why should we?

You do not know what He would do. He might perform a miracle and cure her.

Don’t you remember how He sliced through people’s arguments in the Bible?

I think it is very presumptuous to bring Him into a discussion this way.

 

[billsherman]

You grossly misunderstand the power of the courts
https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/immigration/deportation/cancellation-of-removal.html

Cancellation of Removal is no longer a remedy that IJ’s can grant over ICE objection - Thank you Jeff Sessions! ICE will object in this case, because since 2018 or so, they object in every single case.

This girl will die if this policy stands. Sorry that’s the way it is. The policy is inhumane, and while your need to defend every action of the Trump Administration is probably appreciated by the White House, it makes me wonder if there is any policy they can issue that you won’t defend. I mean, honestly, is there?

And in all seriousness, why are you defending this? A woman WILL die if this policy remains. This isn’t theoretical, a real person will be dead.

 

[billsherman]

You do not know what He would do.

I know he wouldn’t kill her. That’s what deportation would do.

I think it is very presumptuous to bring Him into a discussion this way.

I don’t. I think if you take Christ seriously, you ask questions like these. God’s commands are always, always, always, more important than your political loyalties.

And why are you defending this policy? Are you ok with this woman’s death? Why on Earth is that ok?

 

[Annie]

I am not defending the action which has been described, and have already stated that since there is no burden, that withdrawing medical care would be immoral.

I simply object to someone’s saying Jesus would or would not do this or that, even when I agree with the person.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

This is good news.

 

[pnewton]

I have read the original Vatican documents, not just the UCSSB and Catechism and I believe abortion is clearly singled out as a grave wrong.

I do not know what you mean by singled out, but it is far from the only grave wrong, that is mortal sin.

 

[sallybutler]

But it is the easiest to rail against if you know you are incapable of committing it (age , gender, lack of necessary organs due to surgery, etc).

 

[dvdjs]

This is good news.

I commend Trump for reviewing this change of policy and hope that he reverses it.
I commend those who were out front in the criticism that led to this review.
The voices of the fans, who find a way to defend everything that Trump does, did not help.

 

[Theo520]

Cancellation of Removal is no longer a remedy that IJ’s can grant over ICE objection - Thank you Jeff Sessions! ICE will object in this case, because since 2018 or so, they object in every single case.

Jeff Sessions has no authority over the courts, so please provide a source to back up your claim he somehow limited the purview of the courts.

 

[billsherman]

Jeff Sessions has no authority over the courts, so please provide a source to back up your claim he somehow limited the purview of the courts.

Immigration Courts aren’t part of the Judiciary Branch. They are part of the Department of Justice, which the Attorney General has control over.

The Attorney General hires, and can fire, Immigration Judges. The Attorney General also appoints judges to the Board of Immigration Appeals (which is the first step of appealing a ruling from an IJ). And additionally, the Attorney General has the power to personally intervene and overturn any decision issued by any IJ.

Immigration Courts aren’t really courts, they are Administrative Courts, which means they work for the President.

On the specific practice of IJ’s closing cases over ICE objection, the precedent is Matter of Castro-Tum, which was handed down by Jeff Sessions in 2018. You can read a little more about it here: https://www.njimmigrationattorney.c...ive-closure-for-immigration-court-cases.shtml

Here is a blog post that goes into the practice of the AG referring cases to himself for review of an IJ’s decision a bit more when Session was in charge:

The AG's Certifying of BIA Decisions — Jeffrey S. Chase | Opinions/Analysis on Immigration Law

The recent flurry of case certifications by Attorney General Jeff Sessions (he has certified four BIA decisions to himself since January) raises the question of the continued appropriateness of the practice. Certification allows a political appointee who heads an enforcement agency, and is

www.jeffreyschase.com

With that said, now that the Administration is reviewing this policy, I hope you can agree that they should overturn it.

 

[Theo520]

With that said, now that the Administration is reviewing this policy, I hope you can agree that they should overturn it.

You are saying SCOTUS and all the lower courts have no jurisdiction over ICE because they have review judges? I still call BS on that.

I’m 100% for smart exceptions, whether they extend current programs or replace them with new ones. If only 1,000 families were using this route for legal stay, it seems to be contained to legit need rather than a loophole.

 

[dvdjs]

I still call BS on that.

Background on Judicial Review of Immigration Decisions

“Judicial review” refers to federal court review of an immigration agency decision. Some individuals whose immigration benefits applications are denied or who are ordered removed from the United States may seek judicial review. However, the immigration law contains many technical barriers to...

www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org

 

[Theo520]

Your article supports my claim that they do have the option of judicial review for exceptions. Granted they are bound by our laws and thus it’s not an open field.