(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.

You are stating the issues in 1240 (b). Cases where the alien has not contested the initial removal and it goes to a cancellation proceeding. The stance in Pereida.

Your bolded is simply incorrect for initial removal actions under 1240.8 (a). And you are correct that a vast amount are processed under expedited proceedings, and proceedings under 1240.8 (b) (upon arrival cases) and those proceedings are done with the burden of proof on the alien.

Cases under 1240.8 © have a dual burden. *First* the government must prove the alienage. After that burden is met, the burden shifts to the alien.

If you want to change your bolded to 'a large majority of alien removals are performed where the burden of proof is on the alien' -- that is correct. Your bolded statement is very incorrect. It is not 'end of story'.

As to the expedited proceedings, they are only available when the alien is within 100 miles of a point of entry *and* hasnt been in the country more than two years. In those cases where the predicate for expedited removal isnt met, the burden can very well shift to the government.

And, with all respect to your background and service, I would hope that a person with your experience would understand the difference between your bolded blanket statements and the italicized above.

Quote:when 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).

That is the issue in your case on Pereida. And falls under 1240.8 (d). Respectfully, the SCOTUS Pereida case was not on point for removal actions, but however states the correct posture for what it was -- an action to *cancel* a previous removal.

But even in the worst cases -- some measure of due process is afforded. An expedited hearing still has notice, has the right to to counsel (except in the 9th Cir.), has the right to the hearing (even as limited as the hearing is defined), has the right to challenge evidence, has the right to present evidence, and the detainees have the right to outside communication. All basics in the concept of due process. The burden on the government is more of an elevated due process. And that burden isnt absent as a blanket statement, which seems to be your position stated in bold.

Quote: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.

Ive never contended that. The structure of 8 CFR pointedly makes that crystal clear. When you have a section in the CFR that outlines fundamental different presumptions of lawful admission distinguishing upon land entry, Virgin Islands, Japanese aliens, indigenous to the Asiatic zone defined in section 3 of the Act of February 5, 1917, Citizens of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands who entered Guam prior to December 24, 1952, aliens entering through Guam -- I fully subscribe to the issue that the practice is absolutely highly nuanced.

And to be clear -- I am fully on board with your comment that 'most proceedings occur with the burden of proof on the alien' -- the sheer reported numbers of expedited hearings tell that story.

But to be as nuanced as the immigration practice is, I fully disagree with your blanket statements bolded above, that is "Only if the alien entered legally is the burden on the govt" -- An alien that hadnt presented themselves to a point of entry and falling under 1240.8 ©, where there are dual burdens defined. Or, when the
alien isnt eligible for expedited removal such as one who has and can show that he or she has been continuously present in the United States for two or more years.

I dont doubt your comment that a huge number, and dont doubt your assertion that a vast majority of them dont enjoy the larger protection of a burden of proof by the government. But your blanket statements of *all* simply are not borne out by 8 CFR, nor the structure of the burden of proof designations in there.

Not trying to be smarky, trying to have a level headed discussion.

Biden FBI Ordered Release of ‘Maryland Father’ After Officers Suspected Him of Human Trafficking: Report

Quote:The FBI ordered the Tennessee Highway Patrol in 2022 to release Kilmar Abrego Garcia after a traffic stop yielded proof that he was operating a vehicle without a valid license, and despite concerns from officers that he was engaged in human trafficking.

Abrego Garcia is the man portrayed in the media as little more than a 'Maryland father' who was recently deported to El Salvador under President Donald Trump. Democrats have latched onto his case after it was discovered his removal was the result of a clerical error.

But a new report by The Tennessee Star shows there are layers of complexity to the man's case.

According to the outlet, Tennessee Highway Patrol (THP) stopped Abrego Garcia in December 2022, and an officer who filed the report on the incident confirmed that he was transporting seven other individuals in the vehicle from Texas to Maryland.

Abrego Garcia was discovered to be operating the vehicle without a valid driver’s license, prompting a more thorough background check. The lack of a valid license alone is a misdemeanor offense that could have lead to jail time.

More ominously, the officer at the scene indicated he had suspicions that Abrego Garcia was "engaged in human trafficking."

Conflicting sources cited by The Tennessee Star state that either Abrego Garcia or somebody inside the vehicle had been determined to be on a terrorist watch list. Law enforcement officials, however, were unable to locate a deportation order.

THP's concerns prompted them to contact the FBI, which former Director Christopher Wray then led under the Biden administration.

"The FBI instructed the THP officers at the scene to capture photographs of all eight people in the vehicle and document its contents," the Star notes, but the bureau ultimately directed the eight individuals in the vehicle to be released without incident.

It is unclear if Abrego Garcia was allowed to continue driving without a proper license or if someone else in the vehicle may have been capable of operating it thereafter.

The Tennessee Star goes on to report that they have identified the officer involved in the 2022 traffic stop and that he is "well-respected within the Tennessee Highway Patrol."

Abrego Garcia, the man Democrats and the media have latched onto to portray President Trump's deportation operation as heartless, according to an immigration judge in 2019, had evidence of an association with the violent MS-13 gang.

In fact, two judges have determined he is likely to be a member of MS-13.

RedState Managing Editor Jennifer Van Laar reported Wednesday evening that Abrego Garcia was detained by Prince George's County, Maryland officials in 2019. During that altercation with law enforcement, he was determined to be loitering outside a Home Depot with several other men with either known or suspected MS-13 ties.

Details of the incident indicate extensive ties between the 'Maryland father' and his gang affiliates, including one man with a comprehensive and violent criminal history, and a revelation that Abrego-Garcia and others at the scene were "detained in connection to a murder investigation."

All of this information and reporting comes as Democrat lawmakers remain intent on defending Abrego Garcia as a victim. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) went so far as to try to visit him in prison in El Salvador.

Vice President JD Vance tore into Democrat lawmakers and the media for trying to paint this man as an innocent father caught up in the mass deportation efforts of the administration.

"This is not exactly Father of the Year here. This is a person that we don't think should be in our country," said Vance.

"This was unquestionably an illegal alien. This was unquestionably a person who broke the laws to get into our country. This is unquestionably a person an immigration judge found had zero right to be in the United States of America," Vance continued.

“We do not ask permission from far-left Democrats before we deport illegal immigrants. We do the American people’s business.”

U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis and the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration must “facilitate” his release from prison in El Salvador. The administration has resisted, citing executive authority over foreign affairs.

President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador has dismissed any such notion that Abrego Garcia would be released and returned to the United States, noting that he is currently deemed a "terrorist" under the Trump administration.

“I don’t have the power to return him to the United States. How could I smuggle a terrorist into the United States? Of course, I’m not going to do it," Bukele said at a recent Oval Office meeting with President Trump.

If there were a way to smuggle this terrorist into America, Democrats, including Van Hollen, would have found it by now.

(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.

I just did, champ. Good grief, this hasnt been up more than 3/4 of an hour..... I guess if I dont answer something within 20 min Im 'ignoring it' in your pissy ***** mind? Awesome. God you are a *******. Please keep showing us how much of one.... lolz.

(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.

Correct. The supreme court told the idiot judge she had to clarify what she said, and she had to stay in her lane and not interfere with foreign policy. The idiot judge has done neither.

(04-17-2025 09:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(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.

I just did, champ. Good grief, this hasnt been up more than 3/4 of an hour..... I guess if I dont answer something within 20 min Im 'ignoring it' in your pissy ***** mind? Awesome. God you are a *******. Please keep showing us how much of one.... lolz.

Name calling, Ace, more name calling…
Didn’t the nice people at the nervous hospital tell you to be a little bit more aware of your narcissistic tendencies and focus on more measured behavioral patterns??

(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.

Actually, the senile retard that you voted for allowing millions to enter illegally and unchecked is much more of a constitutional crisis than any of this

(04-17-2025 09:13 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

Who is trying to change anybody's mind? We're just pointing out the error of their ways, and making fun of them, due to their overwhelming arrogance. Nobody on earth could change any lefty's mind. Or tanq's, since he is technically not a lefty, per him.

(04-17-2025 09:56 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 09:13 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

Who is trying to change anybody's mind? We're just pointing out the error of their ways, and making fun of them, due to their overwhelming arrogance. Nobody on earth could change any lefty's mind. Or tanq's, since he is technically not a lefty, per him.

That is the point. Theyve been programmed.

Our friend Yuri just explained it in 1984.

(04-17-2025 09:41 AM)450bench Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 09:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 08:45 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

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

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

I just did, champ. Good grief, this hasnt been up more than 3/4 of an hour..... I guess if I dont answer something within 20 min Im 'ignoring it' in your pissy ***** mind? Awesome. God you are a *******. Please keep showing us how much of one.... lolz.

Name calling, Ace, more name calling…
Didn’t the nice people at the nervous hospital tell you to be a little bit more aware of your narcissistic tendencies and focus on more measured behavioral patterns??

Wait!?!?? Are you saying there are psychological personality disorders on full display?

There are medications for that you know!

(04-17-2025 09:28 AM)tanqtonic 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.

You are stating the issues in 1240 (b). Cases where the alien has not contested the initial removal and it goes to a cancellation proceeding. The stance in Pereida.

Your bolded is simply incorrect for initial removal actions under 1240.8 (a). And you are correct that a vast amount are processed under expedited proceedings, and proceedings under 1240.8 (b) (upon arrival cases) and those proceedings are done with the burden of proof on the alien.

Cases under 1240.8 © have a dual burden. *First* the government must prove the alienage. After that burden is met, the burden shifts to the alien.

If you want to change your bolded to 'a large majority of alien removals are performed where the burden of proof is on the alien' -- that is correct. Your bolded statement is very incorrect. It is not 'end of story'.

As to the expedited proceedings, they are only available when the alien is within 100 miles of a point of entry *and* hasnt been in the country more than two years. In those cases where the predicate for expedited removal isnt met, the burden can very well shift to the government.

And, with all respect to your background and service, I would hope that a person with your experience would understand the difference between your bolded blanket statements and the italicized above.

Quote:when 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).

That is the issue in your case on Pereida. And falls under 1240.8 (d). Respectfully, the SCOTUS Pereida case was not on point for removal actions, but however states the correct posture for what it was -- an action to *cancel* a previous removal.

But even in the worst cases -- some measure of due process is afforded. An expedited hearing still has notice, has the right to to counsel (except in the 9th Cir.), has the right to the hearing (even as limited as the hearing is defined), has the right to challenge evidence, has the right to present evidence, and the detainees have the right to outside communication. All basics in the concept of due process. The burden on the government is more of an elevated due process. And that burden isnt absent as a blanket statement, which seems to be your position stated in bold.

Quote: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.

Ive never contended that. The structure of 8 CFR pointedly makes that crystal clear. When you have a section in the CFR that outlines fundamental different presumptions of lawful admission distinguishing upon land entry, Virgin Islands, Japanese aliens, indigenous to the Asiatic zone defined in section 3 of the Act of February 5, 1917, Citizens of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands who entered Guam prior to December 24, 1952, aliens entering through Guam -- I fully subscribe to the issue that the practice is absolutely highly nuanced.

And to be clear -- I am fully on board with your comment that 'most proceedings occur with the burden of proof on the alien' -- the sheer reported numbers of expedited hearings tell that story.

But to be as nuanced as the immigration practice is, I fully disagree with your blanket statements bolded above, that is "Only if the alien entered legally is the burden on the govt" -- An alien that hadnt presented themselves to a point of entry and falling under 1240.8 ©, where there are dual burdens defined. Or, when the
alien isnt eligible for expedited removal such as one who has and can show that he or she has been continuously present in the United States for two or more years.

I dont doubt your comment that a huge number, and dont doubt your assertion that a vast majority of them dont enjoy the larger protection of a burden of proof by the government. But your blanket statements of *all* simply are not borne out by 8 CFR, nor the structure of the burden of proof designations in there.

Not trying to be smarky, trying to have a level headed discussion.

You've changed your tune. Good. You're starting to get it and that most illegal entrants are not privvy to due process. CBP and/or ICE determining an individual entered illegally and is subject to expedited removal isn't a judge making a determination. Highlighting your bolded part, there is no hearing in expedited removal unless asylum is claimed. In almost all instances, that is the only way to seek a form of relief if you've entered illegally.

In the Perieda case, it's exactly as I listed in option b of the two options listed. He entered illegally. His only recourse was asylum. Burden of proof was on him. He met it. And had the relief of removal. A mistake was made but he's still removed because of the mistake. That's where we are. But what you've tried to do is imply all illegal aliens should be granted due process. I think I have effectively refuted that premise.

(04-17-2025 09:28 AM)tanqtonic 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.

You are stating the issues in 1240 (b). Cases where the alien has not contested the initial removal and it goes to a cancellation proceeding. The stance in Pereida.

Your bolded is simply incorrect for initial removal actions under 1240.8 (a). And you are correct that a vast amount are processed under expedited proceedings, and proceedings under 1240.8 (b) (upon arrival cases) and those proceedings are done with the burden of proof on the alien.

Cases under 1240.8 © have a dual burden. *First* the government must prove the alienage. After that burden is met, the burden shifts to the alien.

If you want to change your bolded to 'a large majority of alien removals are performed where the burden of proof is on the alien' -- that is correct. Your bolded statement is very incorrect. It is not 'end of story'.

As to the expedited proceedings, they are only available when the alien is within 100 miles of a point of entry *and* hasnt been in the country more than two years. In those cases where the predicate for expedited removal isnt met, the burden can very well shift to the government.

And, with all respect to your background and service, I would hope that a person with your experience would understand the difference between your bolded blanket statements and the italicized above.

Quote:when 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).

That is the issue in your case on Pereida. And falls under 1240.8 (d). Respectfully, the SCOTUS Pereida case was not on point for removal actions, but however states the correct posture for what it was -- an action to *cancel* a previous removal.

But even in the worst cases -- some measure of due process is afforded. An expedited hearing still has notice, has the right to to counsel (except in the 9th Cir.), has the right to the hearing (even as limited as the hearing is defined), has the right to challenge evidence, has the right to present evidence, and the detainees have the right to outside communication. All basics in the concept of due process. The burden on the government is more of an elevated due process. And that burden isnt absent as a blanket statement, which seems to be your position stated in bold.

Quote: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.

Ive never contended that. The structure of 8 CFR pointedly makes that crystal clear. When you have a section in the CFR that outlines fundamental different presumptions of lawful admission distinguishing upon land entry, Virgin Islands, Japanese aliens, indigenous to the Asiatic zone defined in section 3 of the Act of February 5, 1917, Citizens of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands who entered Guam prior to December 24, 1952, aliens entering through Guam -- I fully subscribe to the issue that the practice is absolutely highly nuanced.

And to be clear -- I am fully on board with your comment that 'most proceedings occur with the burden of proof on the alien' -- the sheer reported numbers of expedited hearings tell that story.

But to be as nuanced as the immigration practice is, I fully disagree with your blanket statements bolded above, that is "Only if the alien entered legally is the burden on the govt" -- An alien that hadnt presented themselves to a point of entry and falling under 1240.8 ©, where there are dual burdens defined. Or, when the
alien isnt eligible for expedited removal such as one who has and can show that he or she has been continuously present in the United States for two or more years.

I dont doubt your comment that a huge number, and dont doubt your assertion that a vast majority of them dont enjoy the larger protection of a burden of proof by the government. But your blanket statements of *all* simply are not borne out by 8 CFR, nor the structure of the burden of proof designations in there.

Not trying to be smarky, trying to have a level headed discussion.

This diatribe shows the level of disrespect and disregard for American citizens.

That anyone would waste our time and resources on those who it is an irrefutable fact to have broken the law and have no business being here is beyond me.

But, I digress because there will always be those with a hidden agenda to scheme and find a way to muster monetary gain out of another’s misery


IE Exhibit A-Z by the above author

(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.

Only for lunatics

Only for the crazy left. Everything Trump related is a Constitutional crisis. You know Teump is doing good things because the deep state and left are desperate.

So a dangerous illegal is deported back to his homeland and it's a Constitutional crisis, but when a man who has lost his faculties is in charge of the country, but there appears someone else is running the show, pardons to his son and people who have not even had charges brought against them is a-okay and not a constitutional crisis?

(04-17-2025 10:51 AM)gdunn Wrote:  So a dangerous illegal is deported back to his homeland and it's a Constitutional crisis, but when a man who has lost his faculties is in charge of the country, but there appears someone else is running the show, pardons to his son and people who have not even had charges brought against them is a-okay and not a constitutional crisis?

Perfectly sums up the stupidity of the leftists

(04-17-2025 10:51 AM)gdunn Wrote:  So a dangerous illegal is deported back to his homeland and it's a Constitutional crisis, but when a man who has lost his faculties is in charge of the country, but there appears someone else is running the show, pardons to his son and people who have not even had charges brought against them is a-okay and not a constitutional crisis?

Keep constructing those straw men!

(04-17-2025 10:17 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 09:28 AM)tanqtonic 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.

You are stating the issues in 1240 (b). Cases where the alien has not contested the initial removal and it goes to a cancellation proceeding. The stance in Pereida.

Your bolded is simply incorrect for initial removal actions under 1240.8 (a). And you are correct that a vast amount are processed under expedited proceedings, and proceedings under 1240.8 (b) (upon arrival cases) and those proceedings are done with the burden of proof on the alien.

Cases under 1240.8 © have a dual burden. *First* the government must prove the alienage. After that burden is met, the burden shifts to the alien.

If you want to change your bolded to 'a large majority of alien removals are performed where the burden of proof is on the alien' -- that is correct. Your bolded statement is very incorrect. It is not 'end of story'.

As to the expedited proceedings, they are only available when the alien is within 100 miles of a point of entry *and* hasnt been in the country more than two years. In those cases where the predicate for expedited removal isnt met, the burden can very well shift to the government.

And, with all respect to your background and service, I would hope that a person with your experience would understand the difference between your bolded blanket statements and the italicized above.

Quote:when 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).

That is the issue in your case on Pereida. And falls under 1240.8 (d). Respectfully, the SCOTUS Pereida case was not on point for removal actions, but however states the correct posture for what it was -- an action to *cancel* a previous removal.

But even in the worst cases -- some measure of due process is afforded. An expedited hearing still has notice, has the right to to counsel (except in the 9th Cir.), has the right to the hearing (even as limited as the hearing is defined), has the right to challenge evidence, has the right to present evidence, and the detainees have the right to outside communication. All basics in the concept of due process. The burden on the government is more of an elevated due process. And that burden isnt absent as a blanket statement, which seems to be your position stated in bold.

Quote: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.

Ive never contended that. The structure of 8 CFR pointedly makes that crystal clear. When you have a section in the CFR that outlines fundamental different presumptions of lawful admission distinguishing upon land entry, Virgin Islands, Japanese aliens, indigenous to the Asiatic zone defined in section 3 of the Act of February 5, 1917, Citizens of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands who entered Guam prior to December 24, 1952, aliens entering through Guam -- I fully subscribe to the issue that the practice is absolutely highly nuanced.

And to be clear -- I am fully on board with your comment that 'most proceedings occur with the burden of proof on the alien' -- the sheer reported numbers of expedited hearings tell that story.

But to be as nuanced as the immigration practice is, I fully disagree with your blanket statements bolded above, that is "Only if the alien entered legally is the burden on the govt" -- An alien that hadnt presented themselves to a point of entry and falling under 1240.8 ©, where there are dual burdens defined. Or, when the
alien isnt eligible for expedited removal such as one who has and can show that he or she has been continuously present in the United States for two or more years.

I dont doubt your comment that a huge number, and dont doubt your assertion that a vast majority of them dont enjoy the larger protection of a burden of proof by the government. But your blanket statements of *all* simply are not borne out by 8 CFR, nor the structure of the burden of proof designations in there.

Not trying to be smarky, trying to have a level headed discussion.

You've changed your tune. Good. You're starting to get it and that most illegal entrants are not privvy to due process. CBP and/or ICE determining an individual entered illegally and is subject to expedited removal isn't a judge making a determination. Highlighting your bolded part, there is no hearing in expedited removal unless asylum is claimed. In almost all instances, that is the only way to seek a form of relief if you've entered illegally.

In the Perieda case, it's exactly as I listed in option b of the two options listed. He entered illegally. His only recourse was asylum. Burden of proof was on him. He met it. And had the relief of removal. A mistake was made but he's still removed because of the mistake. That's where we are. But what you've tried to do is imply all illegal aliens should be granted due process. I think I have effectively refuted that premise.

Thank you. The rest of us don't have the subject knowledge to beat him down, and without legit pushback, he just assumes he is right, and can say any general thing he wants.

To me, the idea that Biden can drop our drawers for 20M unvetted illegals, yet we are then forced to give a due process hearing to all 20M in all circumstances, is just looney tunes.

They aren't supposed to be here, particularly unvetted, which they all are, so they start out as almost all being deportable from the beginning.

(04-17-2025 11:00 AM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 10:51 AM)gdunn Wrote:  So a dangerous illegal is deported back to his homeland and it's a Constitutional crisis, but when a man who has lost his faculties is in charge of the country, but there appears someone else is running the show, pardons to his son and people who have not even had charges brought against them is a-okay and not a constitutional crisis?

Perfectly sums up the stupidity of the leftists

I'm sure continued posts in this thread by Lefties will do that better. Maybe the phucker will get shanked in the slammer and they can move on to something else.

(04-17-2025 11:11 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 11:00 AM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 10:51 AM)gdunn Wrote:  So a dangerous illegal is deported back to his homeland and it's a Constitutional crisis, but when a man who has lost his faculties is in charge of the country, but there appears someone else is running the show, pardons to his son and people who have not even had charges brought against them is a-okay and not a constitutional crisis?

Perfectly sums up the stupidity of the leftists

I'm sure continued posts in this thread by Lefties will do that better. Maybe the phucker will get shanked in the slammer and they can move on to something else.

Oh great, then they will make him a dead martyr, lol. Just what they want.

(04-17-2025 09:30 AM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  Biden FBI Ordered Release of ‘Maryland Father’ After Officers Suspected Him of Human Trafficking: Report

Quote:The FBI ordered the Tennessee Highway Patrol in 2022 to release Kilmar Abrego Garcia after a traffic stop yielded proof that he was operating a vehicle without a valid license, and despite concerns from officers that he was engaged in human trafficking.

Abrego Garcia is the man portrayed in the media as little more than a 'Maryland father' who was recently deported to El Salvador under President Donald Trump. Democrats have latched onto his case after it was discovered his removal was the result of a clerical error.

But a new report by The Tennessee Star shows there are layers of complexity to the man's case.

According to the outlet, Tennessee Highway Patrol (THP) stopped Abrego Garcia in December 2022, and an officer who filed the report on the incident confirmed that he was transporting seven other individuals in the vehicle from Texas to Maryland.

Abrego Garcia was discovered to be operating the vehicle without a valid driver’s license, prompting a more thorough background check. The lack of a valid license alone is a misdemeanor offense that could have lead to jail time.

More ominously, the officer at the scene indicated he had suspicions that Abrego Garcia was "engaged in human trafficking."

Conflicting sources cited by The Tennessee Star state that either Abrego Garcia or somebody inside the vehicle had been determined to be on a terrorist watch list. Law enforcement officials, however, were unable to locate a deportation order.

THP's concerns prompted them to contact the FBI, which former Director Christopher Wray then led under the Biden administration.

"The FBI instructed the THP officers at the scene to capture photographs of all eight people in the vehicle and document its contents," the Star notes, but the bureau ultimately directed the eight individuals in the vehicle to be released without incident.

It is unclear if Abrego Garcia was allowed to continue driving without a proper license or if someone else in the vehicle may have been capable of operating it thereafter.

The Tennessee Star goes on to report that they have identified the officer involved in the 2022 traffic stop and that he is "well-respected within the Tennessee Highway Patrol."

Abrego Garcia, the man Democrats and the media have latched onto to portray President Trump's deportation operation as heartless, according to an immigration judge in 2019, had evidence of an association with the violent MS-13 gang.

In fact, two judges have determined he is likely to be a member of MS-13.

RedState Managing Editor Jennifer Van Laar reported Wednesday evening that Abrego Garcia was detained by Prince George's County, Maryland officials in 2019. During that altercation with law enforcement, he was determined to be loitering outside a Home Depot with several other men with either known or suspected MS-13 ties.

Details of the incident indicate extensive ties between the 'Maryland father' and his gang affiliates, including one man with a comprehensive and violent criminal history, and a revelation that Abrego-Garcia and others at the scene were "detained in connection to a murder investigation."

All of this information and reporting comes as Democrat lawmakers remain intent on defending Abrego Garcia as a victim. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) went so far as to try to visit him in prison in El Salvador.

Vice President JD Vance tore into Democrat lawmakers and the media for trying to paint this man as an innocent father caught up in the mass deportation efforts of the administration.

"This is not exactly Father of the Year here. This is a person that we don't think should be in our country," said Vance.

"This was unquestionably an illegal alien. This was unquestionably a person who broke the laws to get into our country. This is unquestionably a person an immigration judge found had zero right to be in the United States of America," Vance continued.

“We do not ask permission from far-left Democrats before we deport illegal immigrants. We do the American people’s business.”

U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis and the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration must “facilitate” his release from prison in El Salvador. The administration has resisted, citing executive authority over foreign affairs.

President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador has dismissed any such notion that Abrego Garcia would be released and returned to the United States, noting that he is currently deemed a "terrorist" under the Trump administration.

“I don’t have the power to return him to the United States. How could I smuggle a terrorist into the United States? Of course, I’m not going to do it," Bukele said at a recent Oval Office meeting with President Trump.

If there were a way to smuggle this terrorist into America, Democrats, including Van Hollen, would have found it by now.

Although all feasible efforts should be undertaken to facilitate his return because the integrity of the process is more important than an individual case, there is no doubt he belongs where he is now.