
Can a 3-year old represent herself in immigration court? This judge thinks so - rl3
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/can-a-3-year-old-represent-herself-in-immigration-court-this-judge-thinks-so/2016/03/03/5be59a32-db25-11e5-925f-1d10062cc82d_story.html
======
sandworm101
Americans like to believe that there exists some bright line between citizens
and non-citizens. As a US lawyer, I'll tell you there is no such line. There
are dozens of different classes of citizenship, each with a unique set of
rights. These kids are at the bottom of that list.

The world is most aware of the two highest-level citizenship classes,
specifically the line between natural and naturalized citizens. The former is
the higher, with the later not being allowed certain high offices (ie being
president) and that their citizenship can be stripped. The next set of lines
is between citizens of states (Ohio et al) and those residing in non-states
such as DC, Guam and like territories. Such non-state citizens have various
subset voting right depending on local. Some cannot serve on juries.

The next line down are people like convicted felons (non-voting) children (can
be forced into delinquency proceedings) and members of the military (subject
to different laws/courts). Some jurists would even list males as a subset
since, unlike females, males are subject to selective service rules and can
therefore be forced into the previous class.

At the bottom of this pile are these kids. Non-state non-citizens, under-age
without guardians, the are treated like chattel (property). Their deportation
proceedings read like the comical cases brought against property seized at
boarder crossings (civil forfeiture). But even non-sentient objects,
specifically guns, sometimes have the right to representation. Any US person
facing criminal conviction is due adequate representation, but not facing
criminal action and not being a citizen of any state or territory, the US
justice system has little respect for these kids.

Don't like it? There is an election coming up.

~~~
saganus
> But even non-sentient objects, specifically guns, sometimes have the right
> to representation

Wait. What?

Do you have any links for more info on this? I can't even start to imagine
what does it even mean for an object to have legal representation.

Is this something known to happen in other countries (i.e. this is an artifact
due to complex interaction inside legal systems) or just in the US?

~~~
antognini
I believe GP is referring to asset forfeiture. Asset forfeiture is a legal
fiction in which objects associated with a crime are charged. So if drug
dealer was transacting drug deals in his car, the government could seize the
car and charge the car with a crime. The owner would then have to try to
represent the car and prove the car's innocence in the crime. But because
asset forfeiture is normally a civil proceeding, the burden of proof is much
lower for the government (preponderance of the evidence rather than proof
beyond a reasonable doubt). So even if the owner was found not guilty of the
original crime, the asset can still be found "guilty" and seized.

Here's a good flowchart on the rules that the owner must go through (at the
federal level) to win their assets back:
[http://reason.com/assets/mc/2015_06/forfeitchart.jpg](http://reason.com/assets/mc/2015_06/forfeitchart.jpg)

These two Wikipedia articles have more:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_rem_jurisdiction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_rem_jurisdiction)

~~~
saganus
Thanks a lot for the info.

I've heard about asset forfeiture before, but I had no idea it worked that
way.

Seems a bit insane that you can charge objects with crimes.

------
zyxley
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
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
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
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#Ca...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_flat_Earth_societies#Canadian_society)

------
jrockway
Oh why did I read the comments section on that article.

Why is everyone so afraid of immigration? I don't see the downside. We need to
grow our tax base to support all of our borrowing against future tax revenue.
There are two ways to do that: have kids, or allow immigration.

I always hear the argument "they're taking our jobs", but that's not true, is
it? As the economy gets larger because of the influx of people, more jobs
become available.

Watching this year's Presidential election makes me think I'm really out of
touch with reality, living in a large city. But maybe everyone else is wrong
and I'm right...

And even if you're afraid of immigration, why is allowing everyone to have
fair representation in court so unappealing? I thought the whole point of
America is that everyone is equal and everyone has a chance. That includes
non-citizens; our laws apply, so our guarantee of a right to a fair trial
should also apply. That's what separates us from North Korea, right?

~~~
mc32
There are different kinds of immigrants. There are ones who immediately add to
the economy, typically professionals, and there are the uneducated
undereducated who have low skills no skills whose contribution can take much
longer to realize.

Many countries want the highly skilled to immigrate, and conversely countries
don't want them to emigrate (brain drain). No one country with low skills
emigrants puts of a fuss to keep them, they are happy to let them go and they
have no concern about lowering population or concern for potential tax base
loss.

In the end the question is, do you want to regulate immigration or just let
anyone and everyone in? There is no reason to have two tracks where the ones
who want to go the legal way have to wait years while others can just go the
alternate route with few consequences.

And, w/re Mexico, they also deport a good number of illegal immigrants into
their country, so it's not like they think one way and the US an Europe and
Japan and China etc. think another way.

~~~
gclaramunt
I wouldn't immediately discard the economic advantage of having a cheap labor
pool...

~~~
mc32
It means the minimum wage hasn't kept up with inflation. If people because of
status or lack of skills are willing to work for low wages, this depresses the
need of employers to hike their wages for our domestic low skills labor pool.

~~~
gclaramunt
sure, that doesn't really help the low skill domestic labor pool (and the lack
of a social security net makes it worse in the US), but in some cases, it
might help the economy overall (at the expense of the low skilled domestic
workers) e.g. in your example, by reducing the inflationary pressure of the
minimum wage.

------
chishaku
Full transcript:

[https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/jefm-v-lynch-
deposition-...](https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/jefm-v-lynch-deposition-
honorable-jack-h-weil)

The comments in question start on page 18.

\---

Q. It must be true that there's some children that are so young that even if
they receive the notice and even if they're given an explanation by the judge,
they're still not going to understand what's going on right?

A. I have to do a case-by-case basis determination. I've taught immigration
law literally to three year olds and four year olds. It takes a lot of time.
It takes a lot of patience. They get it. It's not the most efficient, but it
can be done.

Q. I understand that you think it can be done. Are you aware of any experts in
child psychology or comparable experts who agree with the assessment that
three and four year olds ca be taught immigration law

A. I haven't read any studies one way or another.

Q. What about like a one year old?

A. I mean, I think there's a point that there has to be communication. There
has to be communication at some point.

Q. So what do you train judges as to cases in which communication is
impossible because the child is too young?

A. What we train is if a respondent, child or adult, cannot perform functions
necessary for the hearing to be fair, the judge should not proceed.

~~~
venomsnake
I read it as a judge going onion. The fact that he teaches them means that
they do have need for council. The fact that it is inefficient is "look at the
stupid shit I have to do, to be able to do my job"

I may be wrong of course. But after all if the system wanted to protect said 3
years old - they would not have gone to hearing anyway.

Btw - can't the kids get protection under cruel and unusual punishment?

~~~
maxlybbert
> can't the kids get protection under cruel and unusual punishment?

It's possible to be declared a refugee if you can prove you'll be persecuted
in your home country for any number of reasons (gender, religion, ethnic
group, etc.). I have no idea how difficult it is to do that.

~~~
venomsnake
Hmm ... I was thinking for the whole fact of a four year old being put in
front of the judge to be cruel (sadly not unusual)

~~~
Dylan16807
A four year old talking to someone without understanding what's going on is a
typical day. What's 'cruel'?

~~~
venomsnake
That the fate of said four year old depends on the result of talking. That is
cruel.

~~~
Dylan16807
It's stupid, but the conversation itself is not cruel by any stretch of the
imagination. It's just a conversation.

------
MrQuincle
That must be out of context. Three-year olds don't even have a fully developed
theory of mind:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind).

They confuse what they think themselves with what they think the other thinks.

~~~
jacquesm
According to the article the person that said that was then repeatedly asked
if they really meant it and they said they did with reference to their prior
utterance.

Later they back-pedaled on the statement (presumably because of the fall-out)
but at the moment of the original statement they were very much aware of what
they were saying and the context seems to be accurate.

~~~
venomsnake
And if I told that I have live edited mission critical production code on the
server, and I mean it - there are two readings - 1) I am crazy 2) My company
is so broken that it was inevitable.

After all - he was TEACHING them immigration law. With patience. I have no
experience with USA legal system but teaching law does not seem like a item on
a judge's jobs description list.

The shameful part was that said kids were brought before him.

------
MikeNomad
Since I am not a lawyer, could someone please explain (given the subject,
perhaps, "Explain like I am five") how this bit from the article:

"Unlike in felony criminal cases in federal court, children charged with
violating immigration laws have no right to appointed counsel, even though the
government is represented by Department of Homeland Security attorneys."

is allowed when we have this (from a Wikipedia entry)?

"The Sixth Amendment (Amendment VI) to the United States Constitution is the
part of the United States Bill of Rights that sets forth rights related to
criminal prosecutions. The Supreme Court has applied the protections of this
amendment to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment."

~~~
nkrisc
The same applies if you were sued in a civil matter. You won't get appointed
an attorney, you either hire one or represent yourself.

~~~
HarryHirsch
On the other hand, the legislative powers have recognized that SLAPP lawsuits
are a problem - there are certain issues that need to be decided equitably in
court even though the power (read money) differential between plaintiff and
defendant is just to great. Patent trolling is probably a subset of SLAPP.

Following that reasoning it's fair, I think, that a minor in immigration
proceedings should be appointed a lawyer by the government.

~~~
rayiner
The immigration statute actually provides for appointed counsel so long as it
can be had at no cost to the government.

------
norea-armozel
It seems better than treating the child as property, but honestly I don't
think the child should be forced to represent themselves w/o counsel. In fact,
I honestly wonder why our immigration and deportation laws don't have a
requirement to have legal counsel automatically assigned to children if their
legal parents are not present. At that point, if they have parents then their
parents should have some legal counsel to represent all affected. Either way,
I just think this seems down right fishy for any judge to do mostly because
it's a conflict of interest. Plus, children are easily manipulated into saying
things they don't mean or never experienced. So, I'd rather the judge not have
that power to manipulate children. If they must be deported then at least
deport them w/ the proper authorities of their native country so they can be
cared for. Otherwise, this just seems...weird.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Remember these children are a special category, with almost no rights. To fix
this, we'd have to extend American rights to minor people of other countries,
which is about the largest stretch I can imagine.

~~~
norea-armozel
Didn't the US refuse to sign the UN declaration of Child Rights?

------
DanBC
Just checking: Is the judge saying that you should listen to the views of
children, even very young children, during court cases about those children?
(Because that seems reasonable, so long as those children also have full and
proper representation from skilled qualified legal professionals).

Or is the judge actually saying that the children don't need lawyers?

~~~
gambiting
The latter. He's saying that the American taxpayer should not pay for lawyers
for immigrant children, and he goes as far as to say that he personally
trained 3 and 4 year old children in immigration law to a point where they
could defend themselves in court.

------
jacquesm
That judge should be a defendant instead.

~~~
Kliment
And judged by three year olds.

~~~
Pxtl
After three hours of jury deliberations, naps, and goldfish crackers, he was
found to be a poopy-head.

------
marmaduke
This was taken out of context, wè havé no idea what he meant.

The judge may dislike such a situation and compensate for it by trying to
teach the children the law. He mentioned it's inefficient, perhaps in the
context of an argument that it would be cheaper to pay for the children's
legal representative than waste all that time teaching them the law.

Just another spin on a quote out of context.

------
bakhy
it seems like the judge who made these preposterous claims stands to lose
budget if these children had the right to council? which they should, of
course, have.

> Weil is not just any immigration official. As an assistant chief immigration
> judge in EOIR’s Office of the Chief Immigration Judge — which sets and
> oversees policies for the nation’s 58 immigration courts — he is responsible
> for coordinating the Justice Department’s training of immigration judges.

------
Joof
Learning milestones for age 3-4 by WebMD:
[http://www.webmd.com/parenting/guide/3-to-4-year-old-
milesto...](http://www.webmd.com/parenting/guide/3-to-4-year-old-milestones)

Some fun milestones: \- Understand the idea of same and different \- Follow 3
part commands \- Sort objects by shape and color

Yeah, that's pretty much all you need right?

A judge may ask, for example, if the child wants to leave the country
voluntarily or would rather be ordered deported. If the child chooses either
option, he or she cannot apply for other forms of immigration relief such as
asylum in the United States.

Nope, they're fucked. Most adults probably have difficulty with this one.

------
xg15
What I find more shocking than the incident is its background:

 _According to Justice Department figures, 42 percent of the more than 20,000
unaccompanied children involved in deportation proceedings completed between
July 2014 and late December had no attorney [...]_

 _Susan J. Terrio, a Georgetown University anthropology professor, said she
observed hundreds of children in various immigration court proceedings, many
of whom couldn’t speak English, [...]

Some were as young as 10. They “were incredibly passive,” she said. And “they
responded with monosyllabic answers._

So, if I read this correctly, it's _already_ common practice in the US to have
children put in court, without any aid or counsel and expect them to have a
conversation with judges and attorneys about immigration law? Is this actually
true?

------
known
wtf

