Quote (NetflixAdaptationWidow @ Oct 29 2021 12:04am)

Best part is its directly trumps fault.

We're settling because of the previous administration.

Quote (thundercock @ Oct 29 2021 02:13am)

It doesn't really matter from a political standpoint though. The story will be that Biden gave illegal aliens half a million dollars in compensation and no one is going to really dig deeper. It might be more prudent to face the lawsuit head-on so everything can be exposed. Throw some DHS employees under the bus, etc.

Quote (thundercock @ Oct 29 2021 02:03am)

I don't think this is going to be in the news for very long. The people who are swayed by this are already voting red. Having said that, if this is to settle a lawsuit....what kind of damages are we actually looking at here? Will we be liable to pay out even MORE if they don't settle?

Quote

"Any claim based upon an act or omission of an employee of the Government, exercising due care, in the execution of a statute or regulation . . . or based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty";

Quote

The government has moved to dismiss the case on a number of grounds, including the argument that plaintiffs cannot sue the government under the FTCA for enforcing federal immigration laws or for exercising discretionary functions. At issue is the fact that G.C. has a criminal record dating from 2010, which excluded him from a class action (Ms. L. v. ICE) filed on behalf of parents seeking to reunite with their children and ostensibly gave the government discretionary grounds to refuse to either release him into the community or house him in a residential center with his son. The government also argued that the ATS claims fail on sovereign immunity grounds.

In opposition to the motion to dismiss, I joined an amicus curiae brief with colleagues from Stanford University’s Human Rights in Trauma Mental Health Program: Dr. Daryn Reicherter and Dr. Ryan Matlow. Drawing upon established research on the physical and psychological changes and mental health pathologies caused by extreme trauma, the brief argued that forcible separation inflicts severe pain and suffering – mental and physical – on both parents and children. When it comes to little D.J.C.V. in particular, who was separated from his father during a critical stage of his development, the brief notes:

...

We argue that whether or not a course of conduct constitutes torture must be assessed on the basis of its cumulative effect on the survivors. The brief notes that the trauma of forced family separation is likely to “significantly worsen psychological outcomes by compounding the prior traumas experienced by children seeking refuge in the United States (commonly including abuse, discrimination, traumatic loss, and exposure to violence).” The brief also argues that the policy was intentionally implemented for impermissible purposes, namely to punish, coerce, deter, and intimidate asylum seekers on discriminatory grounds (given that family separation was primarily implemented against people from Latin America arriving at the southern border). All told, the brief concludes that G.C. and D.J.C.V. suffered torture under both the international and U.S. definitions.

Quote (Goomshill @ Oct 29 2021 12:29am)

Do you really think there's legal basis to actually win a lawsuit claiming that someone who violated the law is responsible for damages from a completely legal and authorized executive policy, when their life circumstances already greatly benefited from crossing the border?
The federal government bats down lawsuits like this all day long because of sovereign immunity.
The FTCA is pretty explicit that if you're bringing a such a suit, its automatically invalid;



Cases brought under a claim that the federal government lawfully and faithfully carried out a legal policy, be it the execution of legislation or the vaguely defined executive powers to set administrative policy, are simply invalidated.
It would seem prima facie to be a clear example of the discretionary function exception rule

If anyone could bring lawsuits to challenge executive policy like this, it would serve as judicial overstep to infringe upon the executive's sphere. Whatever vaguely defined delegated powers exist elsewhere, the president's power to enforce immigration policy at the borders is pretty clear-cut.