International Do you support very fast mass deportations with quick trials?

[Deleted member 592570]

Ehh, I have plenty of time. How about you?

Without a passport? Okey.

 

[jk7707]

This thread is amazing.

The majority of Americans want ALL illegal migrants to be deported, not just the ones who commit crime. They don't care if there's a chance of some negative consequences.

Let's say the Trump administration comes up with a good quick process for deportations WITH very quick migration trials, using a large army of immigration judges. They appoint extra 5,000 judges all across the country and they can output 10 trials per day that comes to a total of 50,000 processed illegals and deportations PER DAY.

Would you support this? I know conservatives will, but I'm more interested in seeing what Liberal leaning people think of this scenario. I have a feeling they just don't want illegals deported, period.

Yea? Then why did Trump torpedo the bi-partisan immigration bill Lankford proposed that would have funded more immigration judges? Why hasn't he hired those 5,000 judges to do this?

Why has he tried to send hundreds of people to a gulag in El Salvador in a matter of days without ever having access to a lawyer?

 

[NoSmilez]

Where were all you 'due process' advocates when Biden threw open the borders to illegal aliens without them having to go through the legal immigration process to become legal residents or US citizens?

Since they came into the US without due process, they should be thrown out without due process. By crossing the border illegally, they have shown they have no respect for any of our laws.

They came in America seeking asylum. That was the legal route. It is to show up to the border and claim asylum. You can't make the claim without being on US soil. They got some sort of temporary protection. The issue is that they are due for some hearing to determine their status. It is part of the US law. Entering the US illegally is a separate thing.

 

[Cartiac]

They came in America seeking asylum. That was the legal route. It is to show up to the border and claim asylum. You can't make the claim without being on US soil. They got some sort of temporary protection. The issue is that they are due for some hearing to determine their status. It is part of the US law. Entering the US illegally is a separate thing.

True and INA § 235 grants significant authority to conduct those hearings to immigration officers with no further hearings and those orders subject to review by the Attorney General. This idea that everyone gets a full trial before a judge is ridiculous and not supported by law at all. The laws are clear that this is a function of the executive branch which makes it so concerning that these district court judges are attempting to grant themselves individual power to override Presidential orders, something that takes a 67% vote from both houses of Congress or majority decision of the SCOTUS to do.

 

[NoSmilez]

True and INA § 235 grants significant authority to conduct those hearings to immigration officers with no further hearings and those orders subject to review by the Attorney General. This idea that everyone gets a full trial before a judge is ridiculous and not supported by law at all. The laws are clear that this is a function of the executive branch which makes it so concerning that these district court judges are attempting to grant themselves individual power to override Presidential orders, something that takes a 67% vote from both houses of Congress or majority decision of the SCOTUS to do.

INA 235 happens at the border control. It’s for people who try to enter with fake documents or people who illegally crossed without being interviewed and paroled. It’s not for people who are currently paroled in America filing for asylum.

Even if someone gets denied at the border and they suddenly claim asylum. There needs to be an interview with an asylum officer. That officer conducts a credible fear interview to see if the asylum claim is credible or not. The rest of that subsection is crazy but it’s the law. If that person doesn’t agree with the interview results then they can request for an immigration hearing with a judge.

 

[Brigfa2]

Daddy Trump should punish warlord lover terrorists(Belal Muhammad's relatives) who burn the US flag. If they are not a citizen then deport them, if they are citizens then throw them in jail.
But of course i'm unbiased so if an American immigrant does the same in Iran, Saudi Arabia etc., they should get punished too but do i really need to say that?

 

[Cartiac]

INA 235 happens at the border control. It’s for people who try to enter with fake documents. It’s not for people who are currently in America filing for asylum.

Nope INA § 235(b)(1)(A)(iii) specifically states otherwise. In that section titled "Application to certain other aliens", it even states "Such designation shall be in the sole and unreviewable discretion of the Attorney General "

 

[NoSmilez]

Nope INA § 235(b)(1)(A)(iii) specifically states otherwise. In that section titled "Application to certain other aliens", it even states "Such designation shall be in the sole and unreviewable discretion of the Attorney General "

(ii) Claims for asylum​

If an immigration officer determines that an alien (other than an alien described in subparagraph (F)) who is arriving in the United States or is described in clause (iii) is inadmissible under section 1182(a)(6)(C) or 1182(a)(7) of this title and the alien indicates either an intention to apply for asylum under section 1158 of this title or a fear of persecution, the officer shall refer the alien for an interview by an asylum officer under subparagraph (B).

 

[Cartiac]

(ii) Claims for asylum​

If an immigration officer determines that an alien (other than an alien described in subparagraph (F)) who is arriving in the United States or is described in clause (iii) is inadmissible under section 1182(a)(6)(C) or 1182(a)(7) of this title and the alien indicates either an intention to apply for asylum under section 1158 of this title or a fear of persecution, the officer shall refer the alien for an interview by an asylum officer under subparagraph (B).

And your point is?

 

[NoSmilez]

And your point is?

The immigration officer does not conduct formal hearings.

Expedited removal is for mainly for 3 types of scenarios. The immigration officer does not have the ability to do what an immigration judge does.

 

[Cartiac]

The immigration officer does not conduct formal hearings.

Expedited removal is for mainly for 3 types of scenarios. The immigration officer does not have the ability to do what an immigration judge does.

Where does it say that in the law? Go read the definition of an asylum officer, they are also immigration officers not judges. The law actually states "the court shall not have jurisdiction to hear any claim attacking the validity of an order of removal entered under subparagraph (A)(i) or (B)(iii)."

In fact the only clause I see in this law that escalates to an immigration judge is if one immigration officer challenges the decision of another immigration officer to admit an alien.

 

[NoSmilez]

Where does it say that in the law? Go read the definition of an asylum officer, they are also immigration officers not judges. The law actually states "the court shall not have jurisdiction to hear any claim attacking the validity of an order of removal entered under subparagraph (A)(i) or (B)(iii)."

In fact the only clause I see in this law that escalates to an immigration judge is if one immigration officer challenges the decision of another immigration officer to admit an alien.

You aren’t reading your own document that you referenced. It lists what the expedited removal consists of and what the immigration officer can do or cannot do. It also tells you how it is supposed to be implemented.

There is a big difference between a preliminary hearing/screening vs a full legal review.

 

[Cartiac]

You aren’t reading your own document that you referenced. It lists what the expedited removal consists of and what the immigration officer can do or cannot do. It also tells you how it is supposed to be implemented.

There is a big difference between a preliminary hearing/screening vs a full legal review.

It ain't my document bro, I'm reading and quoting directly from uscode.house.gov to support my points, you can't do the same

 

[NoSmilez]

It ain't my document bro, I'm reading and quoting directly from uscode.house.gov to support my points, you can't do the same

Dude you are not understanding what you are reading.

You are just searching terms within the document. Read the sub paragraph listed. It states the courts don’t have jurisdiction under certain conditions. If you read the document then you know you aren’t correct.

This is what you posted and please look up sub paragraph A or B.
"the court shall not have jurisdiction to hear any claim attacking the validity of an order of removal entered under subparagraph (A)(i) or (B)(iii)."

 

[lowlife]

Because it was the policies of Biden that got us into this mess in the first place. He allowed over 11 million illegal aliens to freely enter during the four years of his administration.

The law is also very clear that no one is to enter the country without going through the immigration process.

Since you're cool with Biden ignoring US laws to let millions of illegal aliens into the country without due process, I'm cool with Trump throwing them out without due process.

Who said I was "cool" with Biden "ignoring US laws?" Do you understand that those are two separate actions? Do you understand that they are both wrong? I swear you people can't think your way out of a paper bag.

 

[lowlife]

Joe Biden was the president before Trump.

https://townsquare.media/site/725/files/2019/09/more-you-know.png%3fw%3d1200%26h%3d0%26zc%3d1%26s%3d0%26a%3dt%26q%3d89

and what does that have to do with what trump is doing? can you only think in whataboutisms? Have you ever in your life heard the saying "two wrongs don't make a right?" jfc.

 

[Cartiac]

and what does that have to do with what trump is doing? can you only think in whataboutisms? Have you ever in your life heard the saying "two wrongs don't make a right?" jfc.

You have clearly no understanding of the concept of precedence in law. What you want to dismiss as "whataboutisms" when you can't intelligently defend your nonsense is actually a very fundamental, defining concept of law. Previous actions hold very strong significance in law. because without it the entire justice system is worthless.

 

[lowlife]

You have clearly no understanding of the concept of precedence in law. What you want to dismiss as "whataboutisms" when you can't intelligently defend your nonsense is actually a very fundamental, defining concept of law. Previous actions hold very strong significance in law. because without it the entire justice system is worthless.

Look at you trying to sound smart lol. It's against the law to deny anyone due process, so unless you want to bring up previous actions in the course of writing/lobbying for a new law, it is fucking irrelevant. You follow the law, plain and simple. Your stupid whataboutisms are a lame attempt to justify illegal actions. Is that simple enough for you to understand?

 

[lowlife]

The law doesn't state "Do this unless the guy before you did X, if he did you can ignore this law." How is that hard to understand?

 

[Deleted member 592570]

and what does that have to do with what trump is doing? can you only think in whataboutisms? Have you ever in your life heard the saying "two wrongs don't make a right?" jfc.

So you admit Biden did wrong?