What did hear last night.. The President of ES was not in, so he talked to the VP and the VP said if he got the OK from the US Embassy he could talk to Garcia via phone and the Embassy didn't clear it.

What a chitshow.

I guess my question is, did the good Senator fly on his own dime or the taxpayer dime? Why didn't he confirm before boarding who he needed to see would be there to see him or if he'd be allowed? Doesn't seem too eco friendly to me?

What’s legal about being an illegal?

(04-17-2025 06:53 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  So, what did I miss? Has this tanq demagogue fully educated all you fools on immigration and deportation law?

Have you bothered to read the CFR rules on 'Burden of Proof' for immigration proceedings yet? The ones that you ostensibly didnt know about about in your '20 years with DHS' that you throw out as some sort of magic amulet of knowledge?

Good Lord

20 years of working in the DHS system on this very subject pales in comparison to Tanq's all knowing visage of everything in the universe.

(04-17-2025 07:39 AM)450bench Wrote:  What’s legal about being an illegal?

The Dems can’t help themselves. Trump brings common sense against illegal aliens, trannies in sports, and for putting America first. The morons on the left are so eat up with TDS that they pick the opposite side every time, and look ridiculously stupid in doing so. But they are all low life America hating trash.

Let them keep it up!

(04-17-2025 07:41 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 06:53 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  So, what did I miss? Has this tanq demagogue fully educated all you fools on immigration and deportation law?

Have you bothered to read the CFR rules on 'Burden of Proof' for immigration proceedings yet? The ones that you ostensibly didnt know about about in your '20 years with DHS' that you throw out as some sort of magic amulet of knowledge?

Sigh. You have this utopian idea that all illegal immigrant cases go to some sort Matlock trial. That is not the case. Most cases either a) end up with the alien in expedited removal proceedings which there is no court and there is no other process; or b) an alien is seeking relief from removal because they know they have no juice to contest the illegal entry.

The only instance when the burden of proof is on the government is when a person has presented legally and the govt is still attempting remove. These are almost always predicated on asylum cases (which many aliens have been coached on by leftist groups even when there is no credible fear).

If an individual enters the United States illegally the burden or proof is on the alien. End of story. In fact, most all cases that go to court - the illegal alien is actually not contesting the illegal entry and only seeking for a ruling for relief (again the burden of proof at this moment is on the alien). If an alien enters illegally, is captured, and is then coached on requesting asylum those cases will always go before an IJ. But again burden of proof is on the alien. Only if the alien entered legally is the burden on the govt.

An example might be an individual enter the U.S. 20 years ago from Iran. He was conscripted into the IRGC for two years, and then later (in 2019) IRGC is designated as an FTO. He's attempting to become a naturalized U.S. citizen but now has ties to an FTO. The govt would then have to bear the burden of proof if there was an attempt to remove him regarding his IRGC affiliation and whether the designation some 15 year later implicates his time in service or whether his role in the Iranian military was relevant to the issue.

You have this vision in your head that all the cases are the same and everyone's situation is identical. It's not. There's actually even a lot more nuance than what I just referenced above.

(04-17-2025 07:54 AM)TripleA Wrote:  20 years of working in the DHS system on this very subject pales in comparison to Tanq's all knowing visage of everything in the universe.

I would think the fact of the provision in 8 CFR would be rather determinative of the issue, as well as in the actual Immigration Proceedings Guidebook, published by ICE (the DHS).

Much as I would about 14 appellate court rulings that cite the case I pulled up.

Glad you are just whiny and bitchy and want the opposite, and are just being a churlish ***** on the subject.

Do you think 8 CFR is incorrect? Do you think the provisions of the Immigration Proceedings Guidebook, published by ICE (the DHS) are simply made up and illusory?

Ill stack those on the table. Its called using 'base materials' in citation. Sorry they exist Mr Whine. Using them correctly tends to be advantageous, champ. Just saying.

I’ll take A. Clear out all of the Illegals.

That should take care of 99%

No problem with LEGAL IMMIGRATION

Tired of taxpayers funding illegal squatters

Remove asap

(04-17-2025 08:27 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 07:54 AM)TripleA Wrote:  20 years of working in the DHS system on this very subject pales in comparison to Tanq's all knowing visage of everything in the universe.

I would think the fact of the provision in 8 CFR would be rather determinative of the issue, as well as in the actual Immigration Proceedings Guidebook, published by ICE (the DHS).

Much as I would about 14 appellate court rulings that cite the case I pulled up.

Glad you are just whiny and bitchy and want the opposite, and are just being a churlish ***** on the subject.

Do you think 8 CFR is incorrect? Do you think the provisions of the Immigration Proceedings Guidebook, published by ICE (the DHS) are simply made up and illusory?

Ill stack those on the table. Its called using 'base materials' in citation. Sorry they exist Mr Whine. Using them correctly tends to be advantageous, champ. Just saying.

I know nothing about the intricacies of deportation cases, nor do I purport to do so. My position is clear, as I have said it over and over.

What you need to do is debate this with the one person here who has intimate knowledge of the process, and from what he has posted so far, vs. you, from my seat, he has you beat. By far.

Carry on, Clarence.

(04-17-2025 08:28 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  I’ll take A. Clear out all of the Illegals.

That should take care of 99%

No problem with LEGAL IMMIGRATION

Tired of taxpayers funding illegal squatters

Remove asap

Exactly how I feel. You come in illegally, you go out "illegally" if necessary.

The idea that we can drop our drawers and let in 20M illegals with ZERO vetting, but then we have to adjudicate each one on the way out, is ludicrous beyond belief.

And that is exactly what the Dems are counting on.

While Clarence screams for due process, the country goes down the crapper trying deportation cases for the next 400 years.

Yeah, marvelous idea.

(04-17-2025 08:33 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

Hey Clarence, America just took a vote and you lost. This is not a normal due process situation where a person is guaranteed not to be railroaded unfairly.

When you enter illegally, nobody is railroading you. They are simply reversing the illegal process.

Why is that so hard for these stupid liberals to understand?

(04-17-2025 08:22 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 07:41 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 06:53 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  So, what did I miss? Has this tanq demagogue fully educated all you fools on immigration and deportation law?

Have you bothered to read the CFR rules on 'Burden of Proof' for immigration proceedings yet? The ones that you ostensibly didnt know about about in your '20 years with DHS' that you throw out as some sort of magic amulet of knowledge?

Sigh. You have this utopian idea that all illegal immigrant cases go to some sort Matlock trial. That is not the case. Most cases either a) end up with the alien in expedited removal proceedings which there is no court and there is no other process; or b) an alien is seeking relief from removal because they know they have no juice to contest the illegal entry.

The only instance when the burden of proof is on the government is when a person has presented legally and the govt is still attempting remove. These are almost always predicated on asylum cases (which many aliens have been coached on by leftist groups even when there is no credible fear).

If an individual enters the United States illegally the burden or proof is on the alien. End of story. In fact, most all cases that go to court - the illegal alien is actually not contesting the illegal entry and only seeking for a ruling for relief (again the burden of proof at this moment is on the alien). If an alien enters illegally, is captured, and is then coached on requesting asylum those cases will always go before an IJ. But again burden of proof is on the alien. Only if the alien entered legally is the burden on the govt.

An example might be an individual enter the U.S. 20 years ago from Iran. He was conscripted into the IRGC for two years, and then later (in 2019) IRGC is designated as an FTO. He's attempting to become a naturalized U.S. citizen but now has ties to an FTO. The govt would then have to bear the burden of proof if there was an attempt to remove him regarding his IRGC affiliation and whether the designation some 15 year later implicates his time in service or whether his role in the Iranian military was relevant to the issue.

You have this vision in your head that all the cases are the same and everyone's situation is identical. It's not. There's actually even a lot more nuance than what I just referenced above.

Answer this one, Tanq. You are conveniently ignoring it, as usual.

(04-17-2025 08:45 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 08:22 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 07:41 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 06:53 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  So, what did I miss? Has this tanq demagogue fully educated all you fools on immigration and deportation law?

Have you bothered to read the CFR rules on 'Burden of Proof' for immigration proceedings yet? The ones that you ostensibly didnt know about about in your '20 years with DHS' that you throw out as some sort of magic amulet of knowledge?

Sigh. You have this utopian idea that all illegal immigrant cases go to some sort Matlock trial. That is not the case. Most cases either a) end up with the alien in expedited removal proceedings which there is no court and there is no other process; or b) an alien is seeking relief from removal because they know they have no juice to contest the illegal entry.

The only instance when the burden of proof is on the government is when a person has presented legally and the govt is still attempting remove. These are almost always predicated on asylum cases (which many aliens have been coached on by leftist groups even when there is no credible fear).

If an individual enters the United States illegally the burden or proof is on the alien. End of story. In fact, most all cases that go to court - the illegal alien is actually not contesting the illegal entry and only seeking for a ruling for relief (again the burden of proof at this moment is on the alien). If an alien enters illegally, is captured, and is then coached on requesting asylum those cases will always go before an IJ. But again burden of proof is on the alien. Only if the alien entered legally is the burden on the govt.

An example might be an individual enter the U.S. 20 years ago from Iran. He was conscripted into the IRGC for two years, and then later (in 2019) IRGC is designated as an FTO. He's attempting to become a naturalized U.S. citizen but now has ties to an FTO. The govt would then have to bear the burden of proof if there was an attempt to remove him regarding his IRGC affiliation and whether the designation some 15 year later implicates his time in service or whether his role in the Iranian military was relevant to the issue.

You have this vision in your head that all the cases are the same and everyone's situation is identical. It's not. There's actually even a lot more nuance than what I just referenced above.

Answer this one, Tanq. You are conveniently ignoring it, as usual.

Yall are just pulling wings of a fly ....burning ants with a magnifying glass.


Narcissistic sociopaths can only take so much of a beatdown.

But carry on

He was here illegally. He got his due process when the government deported him back to his home country.

(04-16-2025 05:37 PM)fsquid Wrote:  523 posts on this, did not have that on my bingo card.

In fairness, this is sort of becoming a Constitutional crisis.

(04-17-2025 09:15 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-16-2025 05:37 PM)fsquid Wrote:  523 posts on this, did not have that on my bingo card.

In fairness, this is sort of becoming a Constitutional crisis.

No its become a beatdown thread.

Muh constitutional crisis.

Reeeeeeeee