They would transfer custody to an individual who was allowed to remain in the US. This had been organized in the case of at least one of the US citizens deported (expelled?) here.
The mother was also technically able to speak with the father, though monitored, for less than a minute, and they were interrupted when the father attempted to give a number for the attorney to the mother.
To be clear, I'm not defending any of ICEs actions here, I'm saying that they kidnapped this child who had arrangements made to remain in the US despite ICEs best (also almost certainly illegal) attempts to prevent that from happening.
I am arguing by pointing to the most clear and egregious violation of the law and human rights, that isn't meant to excuse any other violations.
I am not asserting that ICE followed any of the parents decisions, so I don't see that I could have possibly accidentally implied that ICEs actions were ok because they made the parents make an impossible choice and then followed it.
Based on your wording alone, would it be safe to say the mother was unable to avail herself of counsel before making a decision?
We only really have the father's and judge's account of events here.
Given that, then this whole thread is pointless. I just assumed people were more informed based on what they’re claiming.
And this is actually one of the many things that this executive doesn't seem to grasp about the fundamentals of how this England-inherited, American-modified government functions. Due process doesn't just protect the people. It protects the king from rumors abounding about his tyranny that eventually lead to his beheading, because if there is no record to show then there is no record to justify the actions of the crown either.
The Magna Carta has stood for about a thousand years. But it has stood because every monarch who tried to place themselves above it found themselves much shorter by the end of their reign.
Right a lack of records is itself an indicator due-process wasn't provided.
So in this case, a common saying does not apply: Absence of evidence is evidence of absence!
It gets tricky when a deportation is completed before a court can hear the case. Attempting to prevent a detainee from communicating their location and situation to someone who could bring a legal action on their behalf doesn't appear to be explicitly illegal, but it's certainly an attempt to subvert due process and probably ought to be illegal.
It’s interesting how the administration always talks about these people being here illegally and that they’re all criminals but then leverages the non-criminal aspect of the proceedings to their advantage.