So it's time to donate to groups who represent asylum seekers. They're the ones on the front lines and need our financial help.

Is this even legal?

Using the military to incarcerate immigrants? Is this posse comitatus?

They don't practice immigration law. Could be a fatal flaw here.

They can get sufficiently up to speed to prosecute misdemeanor immigration cases in a day or two of training.

Right to counsel for immigration cases is they are civil. If these are criminal, there should be a right to counsel.

A misdemeanor, punishable by up to 6 months in jail and fines of up to $250 for a first offense. Even non-citizens do have a right not to be puitively imprisoned without cousel. My guess is that what they will do is slap them with $250 fine + no prison time (even though they have been waiting in jail all this time) to avoid having to provide them with counsel.

(You are correct as to the deportation process - but these attorneys are being commissioned to prosecute the criminal charges relating to entering the country at the wrong location.)

There is in criminal cases

You cannot be jailed (as a punishment after conviction) without having been provided with counsel. But since there is no mandatory minimum jail time, they can enforce the law by imposing a fine, and still pass constitutional muster.

Any time you are imprisoned before conviction doesn't count as punitive imprisonment (even though it is often rolled into the sentence after the fact).

It's sort of like the photo trafic tickets. They can't impose point on your license if they can't prove it is you driving, so they settle for just imposing hefty fines against the car owner (even though the offense was eligible for points on your license).

violated some law, then the immigrants should be entitled to legal representation -- say a public defender.

They are being accused of violating a law. That is the excuse used for taking away the children -- that the parents broke a law.

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that Trump and his minions are hoisted on their own petard.

They can't be deprived of life or liberty without counsel. In this case, the crime is a misdemeanor that does not have a mandatory minimum sentence - so they can be convicted of the misdemeanor crossing the border (and not given a jail sentence) and still satisfy constitutional requirements.

The children are being removed not becaue the parents broke the law, but becase the parents are being detained while waiting trial, and (by law) their children are not permitted to be detained with them for more than 20 (going by memory here) days.

There is no law, however, that requires detention prior to trial - that is the change implemented by Trump, et al. We don't routinely imprison everyone arrested for possession of pot, or shopliting (both of which are equivalent misdemenaors), but Trump made the decision to imprison all of these immigrants acused of an equivalent misdemeanor - and to keep them impriosned until trial. Once that choice was made, they cannot detain the children with their parents without running afoul of a Supreme Court decision.

If the parents are not being imprisoned while awaiting trial, why are their children taken from them? I understand that normally for a misdemeanor, they may or may not be sentenced to jail or prison time, but in this case, they are effectively being detained or jailed or imprisoned. That is why I reason they should be assigned an attorney. I realize I could be wrong, but the parents are confined. Doesn't that change the situation?

crimnial trial. Merely being held without bail to ensure your appearance in court does not entitle you to an attorney - what entitles you to an attorney is being punished by imprisonment.

Yes, it seems like semantics, but legally there is a difference.

There is usually no right to appointed counsel in misdemeanor cases. The Trump administration canceled a federal grant program to provide counsel in these cases.

It may be a misdemeanor but it is still a criminal case.

Under Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 US 25 (1972), counsel is necessary if imprisonment is possible. The requirement to provide counsel is dodged in first-time immigration cases is dodged by the government not seeking imprisonment.

The government doesn't want to jail people convicted of first time illegal entry anyway. They are routinely sentenced to time served and put on a bus.

based on my quick earlier research. As long as a jail sentence is not actually imposed, no harm - no foul. (They can't actually sentence them to time served, becaue that is imposing imprisonment - and then they have a right to counsel). But they can impose criminal fines. Just like a person who was held prior to a trial - but not convicted - the time in jail ahead of conviction counts for nothing.

parents? Are they confined? Are they imprisoned already? Why are the children taken from them?

A couple in California is crowdfunding money to pay the bail of the parents. Doesn't that suggest they are already imprisoned? If they are imprisoned while waiting for trial, shouldn't they have counsel?

If not, if they are free to go, why can't they be with their children?

Seems to me the status is unclear here. I understand the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony and the implication of that status on the right to counsel, but . . . . what is the specific status of these parents?

I have a few issues with this detail of JAs to prosecute misdemeanor immigration cases in federal court.

First, Army Regulation (AR) 27-1, Para. 3-2 states:
Use of judge advocate officers a. JA officers perform their duties under commanders of their assigned or attached commands or under other supervisory JAs, such as the Staff Judge Advocate; Chief, Trial Judiciary; or the Chief, Trial Defense Service. b. JA officers receive technical legal supervision from TJAG and from the SJAs of superior commands.

I read this to mean that JAs cannot be assigned or attached outside of their commands or outside the supervision of senior JAs.

Second, JAs are paid from funds appropriated for the military personnel costs. Paying JAs with military personnel funds to perform services for DoJ would violate the federal appropriation law. It's the wrong "color of money."

Third, I have concerns about possible violations of the Posse Comitatus Act. JAs are used as "Special Assistant US Attorneys" to prosecute misdemeanors before US Magistrates for violations by civilians on military installations. That seems acceptable to me because the violation occurred within the "federal enclave." I see no exception to Posse Comitatus for the use of JAs to prosecute strictly civilian misdemeanors in strictly civilian courts.

Fourth, it really doesn't make sense to require yet another family separation for a non-military mission.

Fifth, this simply ain't what people signed-up for in joining the JAG Corps.

The JAG Corps do not need to have this stink put on them.

I agree with everything you've written. They were the first to object to the tribunals at Guantanamo and did so strongly. They are dedicated to justice. But this is no way to use them. This whole business is filthy.

...to represent people caught by aTrump’s Muslim ban?