[MikeNomad]

Since I am not a lawyer, could someone please explain (given the subject, perhaps, "Explain like I am five") how this bit from the article:

"Unlike in felony criminal cases in federal court, children charged with violating immigration laws have no right to appointed counsel, even though the government is represented by Department of Homeland Security attorneys."

is allowed when we have this (from a Wikipedia entry)?

"The Sixth Amendment (Amendment VI) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions. The Supreme Court has applied the protections of this amendment to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

[rayiner]

The very first words of the sixth amendment limit it to "criminal prosecutions." Deportation proceedings are not criminal prosecutions.

[maaku]

Entering the country illegally isn't a crime?

[aroch]

Deportation hearings aren't to determine the legality of your presence (That's already been established, hence the hearing to decide whether you should be deported). So the "criminal" part is already decided, deportation hearings are administrative and AFAIK court appointed representation is not required for administrative hearings

[rayiner]

Deportation isn't a punishment for entering the country illegally. Deportation is the administrative removal of a person who doesn't have a right to be here.

An analogous example is trespass. A landowner can call the police to kick you off his property. That's not a criminal proceeding. But then the state might then prosecute you for criminal trespass, punishing you by depriving you of liberty (jailing) or property (fines). That is a criminal proceeding.

[rev_bird]

It is, but deportation isn't a conviction -- separate courts, separate processes.

[losvedir]

I think that while entering the country illegally is a criminal misdemeanor, overstaying your valid entry is not a criminal offense (it's civil).

[nkrisc]

The same applies if you were sued in a civil matter. You won't get appointed an attorney, you either hire one or represent yourself.

[HarryHirsch]

On the other hand, the legislative powers have recognized that SLAPP lawsuits are a problem - there are certain issues that need to be decided equitably in court even though the power (read money) differential between plaintiff and defendant is just to great. Patent trolling is probably a subset of SLAPP.

Following that reasoning it's fair, I think, that a minor in immigration proceedings should be appointed a lawyer by the government.

[rayiner]

The immigration statute actually provides for appointed counsel so long as it can be had at no cost to the government.

[MikeNomad]

Sure. GOV has no obligation to represent either side in a bit between private parties. The curve for me is that the children in question are on the other side of the "v." from United States.

[nkrisc]

I have to agree with that. Pitting a child (or most people, really) with no representation against the government in an immigration case is a judicial charade.

[rst]

The Bill of Rights is taken to apply with full force only to US Citizens. The kids aren't.

[zeckalpha]

If so, then why do we use Guantanamo Bay to house people we don't want to have constitutional rights?

[chimeracoder]

It's not that it doesn't apply at all to non-citizens; it's just that the extent to which it applies is comparatively limited.

Guantanamo Bay is also different because it's also believed to be violating international law.

[briandear]

That isn't true. The sixth amendment relates to criminal law and not civil proceedings. The Constitution applies to everyone in the United States. Plenty of cases of illegal aliens have been thrown out due to Miranda violations, etc but a deportation hearing is civil.

[ikeboy]

Seems more complicated. The criminal amendments apply, but the second is disputed.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/255281-yes...

https://reason.com/blog/2015/08/24/ilegal-aliens-have-second...

https://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2012/12/court-illegal-ali...

[chris_wot]

That's the thing about a constitution - it only applies to citizens. How else do you think that FISA can be constitutional?