(04-24-2025 08:58 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote: (04-24-2025 07:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (04-24-2025 02:39 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote: (04-24-2025 02:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (04-24-2025 01:22 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote: The fact you didn't see it happening much more frequently and significantly more damaging ways in the previous four years is not only disturbing, it's quite damning and hypocritical.
The difference is everything they did was covered up by the media, swept under the rug, etc whereas any veer across the dotted line now - the world is coming to an end. But if you didn't notice it, the majority of the American people did.
Looking back in the Immigration CLEs from years back, it looks like much of the parole issue is discretionary by the DHS itself.
Look, I think there is a good case to be made if it wasnt the acceptable, right, or proper move.
Much of it seems to be be legal, afaict.
Can you expand on the precise reasons why you say the broad groups are 'illegal'?
With all respect, your comments overlook that the paroles may very have been legal, albeit not necessarily the right thing to do policy-wise.
The paroles being discretionary, kind of fly in the face of your assertion above that 'one illegal act can be met with another one', let alone whether the position has any solid basis in the law (that is, one illegal act is not generally a reason to commit another illegal act in response.)
--------
The solution put forward now is pretty much illegal, that is beyond the scope of what the law allows, with respect to denying due process in full. Even with the thin scope provided by the AEA and the 'proclamation' by DJT earlier.
Two different district courts have shot that down in two aspects -- 1) that the invocation of the AEA is a legal and proper basis itself; and 2) even if it is, the lack of due process in the program is a fatal flaw.
ICE, DHS, DOJ and the Trump administration are not doing themselves any favors there with the actions undertaken -- a) lying directly to courts; b) ignoring court orders; c) stonewalling mandated discovery; d) refusing to supply answers to questions posed by Federal judges; e) specifically, and repeatedly, misquoting and mischaracterizing specific legal rulings; f) claiming privileges, and refusing to produce privilege logs.
In the 'field' aspect, they didnt do themselves any favors by: a) handing notice with less than 20 hours timeframe; b) notice being *only* a waiver of hearing; c) notice *only* in English; and d) playing a 'shell game' (direct quote from a judge) in moving detainees from one facility to another ostensibly to only avoid a local district court order barring any deportations under the act until further notice.
Every one of the above actions has the hallmarks of people trying to cover up actions that they know are wrong or are illegal.
Not a great look.
Because the INA very clearly states that parole is to be used on a case-by-case basis to provide for temporary admission (for “urgent humanitarian reasons” or “significant public benefit,” provided the aliens present neither a security risk nor a risk of absconding). Not a mass blanket ticket like the country is Disney World.
Appreciate the clarification. With that, I may not agree that the 'parole' is illegal, but in the context of mass parole would not be proper.
The proper response is to revoke the parole granted. And place each person granted parole back in to the same situation they were in pre-parole. Not instant removal per se.
Quote:Even the programs for Cubans, Venezuelan, etc who were granted parole and flown into the U.S. directly - IMO - isn't individualized case-by-case. But that's not the point anyway. It's the broad application of it that was used. You mentioned all those examples you call a shell game which were far more legal than what was used to get people in.
Only one was a shell game -- moving the deportees from one district where an order barred their removal to another that didnt.
The other instances I note above are flatly wrong. Some may very well carry a contempt risk from the court.
Again, thanks for the instruction on parole issues.
For most (not all but most) placing them back in the status would have been expedited removal. But by Biden doing it that way expedited removal may now be an unavailable option because of time. See how that works?
Instead of a 2-hour 'hearing' with an officer, who then leads you away -- the people who have been here > 2 yrs now go into the normal removal process.
Based on our discussions, I reached out to a good friend and former classmate, who is actually an Immigration Administrative judge.
There is a fairly easy solution. Nothing prohibits Congress from numerous tacks to address this, and especially the highly problematic ones (i.e. gang banger types).
1. Nothing prevents Congress and DHS from doing a combination (either, or, or both) of statutorily addressing the 'normal' removal process and removing a massive amount of appellate review w/ rule changing to CFR. Nothing prevents the actual removal hearing, with the trappings of an Immigration judge, to be made almost into a summary event. Nothing prevents radically shortening the time from final decsion to actual removal in the CFR.
2. For the gangbanger types -- even easier. Ive noted this before -- dedicate specific ICE teams to 'cleaning up the bad ones'. Nothing prevents massing the bad ones all in one detention center, and having that district's Immigration judges doing nothing but the removal processes for criminals (from what I gather are even more streamlined than that for 'normie removal'). And this concentrates any fallout Federal Court action literally on one spot.
3. For those that are alleged to members of FTOs -- same thing, same place. All that removal process has to be is 'is it more likely than not the person is a member of Terrorist Gang Group.' get that decision, and they can be out the door to a place outside of the US even faster in time than group 2 above.
Quote:By allowing the chaos in the first place it made it even harder to undo the previous illegal activity.
Yes, yes it did. But again, when a terribad DA uses discretion to not charge certain crimes, and they flourish -- the answer isnt downgrading due process to address that wave.
In terms of the immigration removal setting -- that due process is really more a function of Congress than of the courts. That is why you have varying levels of legal protection in that setting for the most part.
Further, as long as DHS rolls through changes to the CFR properly, and those rules comport with Federal statutory law -- there is another big way you can address the issue.
Quote:And yes I do think it’s illegal because it violates the statute.
Quote:You can’t have a what they called a “policy” which is to use parole to basically exercise catch and release - at least not legally. Federal court agreed and the Biden admin appealed. It has yet to make its way through the system as well. But again it was all by design. Mayorkas should have been impeached at a minimum because he lied to Congress repeatedly and failed to do the job he swore an oath to do.
I might disagree. The statute clearly leaves the issue to the "discretion' of various persons.
I cant label such discretion as 'illegal' as an automatic. But again, we are getting into really fine vagaries of the INA that honestly I dont know much of anything about.
Is this the case in question?
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/...=1&title=1
/
[NEWS] Womp Womp - MS13 member shipped to El Salvador can remain there
