The judge accuses the administration of Trump of “manufacturing” of chaos in the migrant expulsion case

Washington (AP) – A federal judge suggested that the Trump administration “manufactured” chaos and said that he hoped that “reason could take over on rhetoric” in a scathing order in a case on government efforts to expel A handful of migrants from various countries in South Sudan.

In The published order On Monday evening, judge Brian Murphy wrote that he had given the Trump administration “remarkable flexibility with a minimum surveillance” in the case and stressed the many times he tried to work with the government.

“From the course of conduct, it is difficult to achieve a conclusion other than what the defendants invite a lack of clarity as a means of escape,” wrote Murphy based in Boston in the order of 17 pages.

Murphy oversees a case in which immigration defenders are trying to prevent the Trump administration from sending migrants they are trying to deport the United States to countries with which they do not give them a chance to protest against their withdrawal.

The judge said that men could not defend themselves

In an audience last week called to approach reports that eight immigrants had been sent to South Sudan, Murphy said that the men had not been able to argue that the expulsion could endanger them.

But instead of ordering the government to return men to the United States for hearings – as the complainants wanted it – it gave the government the opportunity to hold hearings in Djibouti where the plane had stolen from South Sudan as the men remained in the US government. A few days later, the Trump administration filed another request by saying that Murphy forced them to have “dangerous criminals in a sensitive place”.

But in his order on Monday, he repeatedly pointed out that it was the “own suggestion” of the government that they were authorized to deal with men’s claims when they were still abroad.

“It turns out that having an immigration procedure on another continent is more difficult and heavier than the defendants have provided it,” wrote Murphy.

The government argued that men had a history with the immigration system, which gave them previous opportunities to express the fear of being expelled in a country outside their homeland. And they said that the male home – Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, Vietnam and South Sudan – would not bring them back.

The administration has also repeatedly stressed the criminal history of men in the United States and described them as national security threats.

The administration is based on third countries

The Trump administration has more and more based on third countries to take immigrants who cannot be sent to their country of origin for various reasons. Some countries simply refuse to resume their expelled citizens while others take up some but not all their citizens. And some cannot be sent to their country of origin due to the concerns that they will be tortured or injured.

Historically, this has indicated that those responsible for the application of immigration had to release people in the United States which he wants to expel but cannot.

But the Trump administration relied on other countries to take them. In the western hemisphere, El Salvador, Costa Rica and Panama have all agreed to take certain people abducted from the United States, El Salvador being the most controversial example because he holds people expelled from the United States in a notorious prison.

The Trump administration said it explores other third countries for deportations.

Murphy said in his order that the eight men were initially informed on May 19 that they would go to South Africa, then later the same day, they were told that they were going to South Sudan. He noted that the US government “has issued warnings struck about South Sudan”.

He said that men had less than 16 hours between the obligation they were going to be removed and will go to the airport “, most of which were not hours of war” and “limited capacity, if necessary” to speak to the family or a lawyer. “Given all circumstances, it is difficult to take the idea that the defendants wanted these people to have a real opportunity to make a valid complaint,” wrote the judge.