Hacker News Reader

Comment by gpm | Hacker News Reader

The mother and child were in custody, the father was not, and was prompt in acquiring legal counsel, arranging this, and suing, leading to exceptionally clear circumstances in this case. This is the docket for the lawsuit: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69940863/v-m-l-v-harper...

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.

View on HN

> 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.

Based on your wording alone, would it be safe to say the mother was unable to avail herself of counsel before making a decision?

To the extent that they let the mother make a decision, which is itself unclear, I would say all evidence points to that.

We only really have the father's and judge's account of events here.

> 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.

The fact that there's a lawsuit here with briefs describing what happened in detail, and rulings from a judge with detailed timelines, means we have a great deal more accurate information than most news stories provide. If you're not willing to make a judgement off of this information, when it is so unambiguous, you're never going to be able to make a judgement in time to react to anything.

The point of due process is to construct such a record. The fact that due process is being denied in these circumstances is one of the reasons that so much of the public discussion is rumor and innuendo.

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.

> The point of due process is to construct such a record.

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!

If the mother is not a us citizen is she entitled to counsel? Or entitled to anything else? Curious to know to what parts of US law apply to non citizens and what parts do not.

Yes, the sixth amendment is very clear on this.

In noncriminal matters such as deportations, there's no right to counsel at public expense. The broader rights to due process of law and habeas corpus have generally been held by the courts to apply to immigration detention and deportation, and people are certainly free to hire counsel at their own expense in such proceedings.

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.

> In noncriminal matters

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.

I agree with the substance of your point. I'd argue that it is less "interesting" and quite horrifying to be on the receiving end!

You do seem to be defending the actions by asserting that it was the parents decision rather than an action forced by ICE.

I don't see how you come to that conclusion.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com