Judge threatens to hold AG Jeff Sessions in contempt of court over deportations
Image via mark reinstein / Shutterstock.com
Attorney General Jeff Sessions has found himself in a rather compromising position with a federal judge.
After deporting a woman and her child back to El Salvador, a federal judge threatened to hold Sessions in contempt of court.
According to reports, a woman seeking asylum from El Salvador had been assured she would not be deported until her case was heard.
Her specific case was of importance because the ruling was expected to set a major precedent to test the administration’s enforcement of immigration laws.
Judge Emmet G. Sullivan said the woman was “spirited away” by the administration — and he was not going to stand for it.
The judge ordered them to “turn that plane around,” and bring the woman and her child back to the United States.
The judge was so upset, in fact, he said he would hold administration officials in contempt if she was not brought back immediately.
“I’m gonna start with the Attorney General,” he said.
The plane was not immediately turned around, as the judge requested, but after landing, the woman and her child remained aboard and were eventually returned to the United States for the hearing.
Sessions recently reevaluated what people can seek asylum for in the United States.
Sessions said that domestic abuse and gang violence are not viable reasons to seek asylum.
Not to be unsympathetic, but we have plenty of domestic abuse and gang violence on our streets, too.
That is not exactly a reason to leave someone’s home country.
Sessions is now demanding asylum seekers must prove some type of persecution aimed directly at them by their government.
According to Sessions, this would bring the definition of seeking asylum back to the letter of the law.
Liberal advocates are not buying it, though.
Jennifer Chang Newell, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), stated: “In its rush to deport as many immigrants as possible, the Trump administration is putting these women and children in grave dangers of being raped, beaten or killed.”
But what is the government and/or law enforcement of their native country doing to protect these women and children from these circumstances?
Doesn’t that responsibility fall on their officials, rather than forcing us to open up our borders for every case of abuse?
This is a landmark decision that can, and will, dramatically impact the state of our borders in coming years.