counsel that is commensurate with the access that they would have received had these procedures
occurred within the United States prior to their deportation, including remote access where
in-person access would otherwise be available.
This is the part of the judge's order that I quoted in my OP, and my questioning how this "remote access" process can be verified, if it depends upon a dubiously credible DHS assertion. IF the deportees are already somewhere in South Sudan, how is this "remote access" going to be set up practicably?
Here is the TPM "live blog" of yesterday's hearing in Judge Murphy's court, and where I grabbed the original quote, FWIW:
Admittedly, the citations got a bit bollixed, as I first saw the "remote access" business cited in David Kurz's Morning Memo, which he summarized from his TPM live-blogging of yesterday's hearing here:
"Over objections from the migrantsтАЩ counsel, Murphy ordered that deportees would remain abroad somewhere in U.S. custody and be given all of the due process remotely that they had been entitled to receive before their unlawful removals."
My point remains about verifying upshot of remote access, IF the immigrants in question indeed receive unfettered counsel access "somewhere in US custody". Do you believe that's a given?
Right, no, I've done the work myself to find where that was, hence, telling you it was TPM. I listened to several hours of arguments, so there is nothing in there I don't know.
I still don't get your point here. The order, which is listed in my report, answers your question, which you keep not responding to: These people get counsel. That person can obviously raise any issues about compliance. (Again, and to reiterate: I am not defending this decision, but I am describing it, and you just seem uninterested in acknowledging that key aspect of the order, which is in my initial report.)
Not at all, please. Not my intention, but given the government's track record to date, isn't it reasonable to anticipate *some* interference in granting counsel "remote" access? I totally respect your position on this тАФ and the court's тАФ it's the government's compliance I question, no more no less.
Sure, we absolutely must be skeptical of the response, but, that said, the class counsel is on top of this тАФ obviously, given their actions this week тАФ and any lawyers for these six people will then provide additional protection. ItтАЩs not ideal, but I think the treatment of these six people will be closely monitored.
Huh? That's the order I shared. I'm now totally lost.
Each individual must be afforded access to
counsel that is commensurate with the access that they would have received had these procedures
occurred within the United States prior to their deportation, including remote access where
in-person access would otherwise be available.
This is the part of the judge's order that I quoted in my OP, and my questioning how this "remote access" process can be verified, if it depends upon a dubiously credible DHS assertion. IF the deportees are already somewhere in South Sudan, how is this "remote access" going to be set up practicably?
Here is the TPM "live blog" of yesterday's hearing in Judge Murphy's court, and where I grabbed the original quote, FWIW:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/live-blog/judge-threatens-dhs-with-contempt-over-migrant-removals-to-south-sudan
I am still confused. (And, I'm not sure why you quoted from TPM without linking, and then sent a link to a court order.)
That aside: If they have access to counsel, how could counsel *not* verify what's happening?
Admittedly, the citations got a bit bollixed, as I first saw the "remote access" business cited in David Kurz's Morning Memo, which he summarized from his TPM live-blogging of yesterday's hearing here:
"Over objections from the migrantsтАЩ counsel, Murphy ordered that deportees would remain abroad somewhere in U.S. custody and be given all of the due process remotely that they had been entitled to receive before their unlawful removals."
https://morningmemo.talkingpointsmemo.com/p/welcome-to-the-white-christian-nationalist
My point remains about verifying upshot of remote access, IF the immigrants in question indeed receive unfettered counsel access "somewhere in US custody". Do you believe that's a given?
Right, no, I've done the work myself to find where that was, hence, telling you it was TPM. I listened to several hours of arguments, so there is nothing in there I don't know.
I still don't get your point here. The order, which is listed in my report, answers your question, which you keep not responding to: These people get counsel. That person can obviously raise any issues about compliance. (Again, and to reiterate: I am not defending this decision, but I am describing it, and you just seem uninterested in acknowledging that key aspect of the order, which is in my initial report.)
Not at all, please. Not my intention, but given the government's track record to date, isn't it reasonable to anticipate *some* interference in granting counsel "remote" access? I totally respect your position on this тАФ and the court's тАФ it's the government's compliance I question, no more no less.
Sure, we absolutely must be skeptical of the response, but, that said, the class counsel is on top of this тАФ obviously, given their actions this week тАФ and any lawyers for these six people will then provide additional protection. ItтАЩs not ideal, but I think the treatment of these six people will be closely monitored.