Trump Says Trials for Migrants "Not Possible"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People need to get gang tattoos. They won't be able to identify the gang members for deportation if everyone has them.

You do realize that authorities use MUCH MORE than tattoos to identify gang members, don't you?
Many gangs are not getting tattoos anymore so they can try to get into the US undetected. There are other ways they identify gang members.

Some of you are really uninformed.

Given people who are natural born Americans with no tattoos are being apprehended and detained, it seems there are no metrics being used to identify gang members. If there we so many "illelags" in the country, it should be shooting fish in a barrel to identify them and deport them. Why is Trump wasting time on people here legally and people who are natural born citizens?

A citizen was detained? Where?

Here’s one.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/a-u-s-citizen-was-held-for-pickup-by-ice-despite-proof-he-was-born-in-the-country

(Google isn’t hard)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:POTUS is correct on this one.

He does this to an “illegal alien” (but does have to show he’s illegal, because no due process)
So, he does it to someone here legally (who can’t prove they are here legally)
So, he does it to you and says you are here illegally (and you have not opportunity to prove you are a citizen)


We can take Trumps word for the fact everyone is here illegally and deportable. Despite the fact he and his appointees can’t keep reporters off chats that include war plans or keep track of a purse with $3000, a PIV card and a passport. But, let’s go out on a limb here and say he occasionally makes mistakes. Some of those mistakes are legal permanent residents. Some are US citizens. None of them get the chance to challenge anything before they are put on a plane and dumped in CECOT. And when the inevitable mistake happens, as it already has, he says “opppsss. Still leaving them there”.

That’s why you need due process. To prevent US citizens from being dumped into El Salvadoran he11holes with no recourse.

Due process I’d your recourse.

Trump is not right. And if he can’t process the immigrants he wants to deport, he should stop firing immigration judges.

A short review of documents is all that is needed. Not a trial and endless appeals.

They aren't even decent enough for that!!

The problem where do we detain everyone until we can do the "short review of documents." They are still coming in at an untenable rate - even if Trump hadn't fired any judges, how do we process (and mostly deport) all of these people without setting them loose into the country and asking them to pinky swear they will appear?

By putting a monitor on them, detaining them or hiring more judges. Again, the Constitution— not option when it inconveniences you.

Also— border crossings? Right now down to 100-300 people a day. (And fewer if you consider family units). If we stop firing immigration judges, that’s very manageable. Do you have any idea how many claim SSA ALJs process (with 10-20 page opinions)?

We have to fire the immigration judges, because they were hired by Biden with the same agenda. Have to get new judges in like Jeff Sessions did.

Flat out lie. Stop lying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People need to get gang tattoos. They won't be able to identify the gang members for deportation if everyone has them.

You do realize that authorities use MUCH MORE than tattoos to identify gang members, don't you?
Many gangs are not getting tattoos anymore so they can try to get into the US undetected. There are other ways they identify gang members.

Some of you are really uninformed.

Given people who are natural born Americans with no tattoos are being apprehended and detained, it seems there are no metrics being used to identify gang members. If there we so many "illelags" in the country, it should be shooting fish in a barrel to identify them and deport them. Why is Trump wasting time on people here legally and people who are natural born citizens?

A citizen was detained? Where?

Check real news sources and not the ones you are consuming. Been headlines for weeks - multiple US citizens being detained in different parts of the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:POTUS is correct on this one.

Yes, although his math is off by a decimal place.

NPR confirms Trump is right, through the data in this NPR article:

https://www.npr.org/2025/04/22/nx-s1-5372681/trump-immigration-judges-fired

- 700 current immigration judges (IJs)

- judges review on average 500 to 600 cases per year (let’s say it’s 600)

- 700 x 600 = 420,000 cases reviewed per year.

- backlog of deportation (removal) cases = 4,000,000 (4 million)

- 4 million divided by 420,000 cases per year =

9.5 years to review all 4 million of the current removal cases in the backlog.



However: that 9.5 years would only work if the backlog were STATIC, meaning we hermetically sealed off our border, and the 4 million case backlog did not grow at all. We are still allowing hundreds of thousands of visa holders and visitors into the USA every month, and some will become “illegal aliens.” Others still sneak over the border.

It will take far in excess of 9.5 years to even come close to reducing the 4 million case backlog which Biden/Harris largely created.

His math may be fine. His logic/ understanding of how these hearing work IRL is not. A family with two adults and three kids is five immigrants, but generally one hearing. You should probably divide your number by 3. But regardless, I take issue with him firing the judges we have, rather than hiring more if it’s such a priority.

It is necessary to have judges that follow the law, rather than the ones Biden hired who let everyone in.

I posted a long thing up thread about how ALJs are selected. Having actually been through the process. In which I was specifically told that I’d I discussed my political beliefs in any interview, application point or essay, I would be disqualified. These are not partisan, political appointments. They are chosen based solely on a score, that comes from a series of tests that look at knowledge, management, logic and writing. The job opens every few years, qualified people are listed in order of score and offered positions as they open in that order.

NOTE: it is VERY LIKELY/ ALMOST CERTAIN that for at least the first year or two of the Biden Admin, they were pulling from a List based on the test administered when Trump was POTUS. And that any ALJs hired now were tested under Biden. But it doesn’t matter. Because these aren’t ideological jobs.

The problem remains that in certain courtrooms judges are very liberal with granting asylum and in others they rarely grant asylum.

"Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse reports individual asylum decisions for over 800 immigration judges that finds some have denied asylum in 100% of their cases, while another judge has denied just 1% of cases."

There is no way these are coincidences and the kids are completely impartial.

We really need to make validity of asylum claims contingent upon sanctions/war against the country of origin. There is no ethical situation where we can be on good terms with a country of origin while granting citizens asylum because the country is persecuting them like Nazis persecuted the Jews.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:POTUS is correct on this one.

Yes, although his math is off by a decimal place.

NPR confirms Trump is right, through the data in this NPR article:

https://www.npr.org/2025/04/22/nx-s1-5372681/trump-immigration-judges-fired

- 700 current immigration judges (IJs)

- judges review on average 500 to 600 cases per year (let’s say it’s 600)

- 700 x 600 = 420,000 cases reviewed per year.

- backlog of deportation (removal) cases = 4,000,000 (4 million)

- 4 million divided by 420,000 cases per year =

9.5 years to review all 4 million of the current removal cases in the backlog.



However: that 9.5 years would only work if the backlog were STATIC, meaning we hermetically sealed off our border, and the 4 million case backlog did not grow at all. We are still allowing hundreds of thousands of visa holders and visitors into the USA every month, and some will become “illegal aliens.” Others still sneak over the border.

It will take far in excess of 9.5 years to even come close to reducing the 4 million case backlog which Biden/Harris largely created.

His math may be fine. His logic/ understanding of how these hearing work IRL is not. A family with two adults and three kids is five immigrants, but generally one hearing. You should probably divide your number by 3. But regardless, I take issue with him firing the judges we have, rather than hiring more if it’s such a priority.

It is necessary to have judges that follow the law, rather than the ones Biden hired who let everyone in.

I posted a long thing up thread about how ALJs are selected. Having actually been through the process. In which I was specifically told that I’d I discussed my political beliefs in any interview, application point or essay, I would be disqualified. These are not partisan, political appointments. They are chosen based solely on a score, that comes from a series of tests that look at knowledge, management, logic and writing. The job opens every few years, qualified people are listed in order of score and offered positions as they open in that order.

NOTE: it is VERY LIKELY/ ALMOST CERTAIN that for at least the first year or two of the Biden Admin, they were pulling from a List based on the test administered when Trump was POTUS. And that any ALJs hired now were tested under Biden. But it doesn’t matter. Because these aren’t ideological jobs.

The problem remains that in certain courtrooms judges are very liberal with granting asylum and in others they rarely grant asylum.

"Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse reports individual asylum decisions for over 800 immigration judges that finds some have denied asylum in 100% of their cases, while another judge has denied just 1% of cases."

There is no way these are coincidences and the kids are completely impartial.

We really need to make validity of asylum claims contingent upon sanctions/war against the country of origin. There is no ethical situation where we can be on good terms with a country of origin while granting citizens asylum because the country is persecuting them like Nazis persecuted the Jews.

Er .... what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:POTUS is correct on this one.

Yes, although his math is off by a decimal place.

NPR confirms Trump is right, through the data in this NPR article:

https://www.npr.org/2025/04/22/nx-s1-5372681/trump-immigration-judges-fired

- 700 current immigration judges (IJs)

- judges review on average 500 to 600 cases per year (let’s say it’s 600)

- 700 x 600 = 420,000 cases reviewed per year.

- backlog of deportation (removal) cases = 4,000,000 (4 million)

- 4 million divided by 420,000 cases per year =

9.5 years to review all 4 million of the current removal cases in the backlog.



However: that 9.5 years would only work if the backlog were STATIC, meaning we hermetically sealed off our border, and the 4 million case backlog did not grow at all. We are still allowing hundreds of thousands of visa holders and visitors into the USA every month, and some will become “illegal aliens.” Others still sneak over the border.

It will take far in excess of 9.5 years to even come close to reducing the 4 million case backlog which Biden/Harris largely created.

His math may be fine. His logic/ understanding of how these hearing work IRL is not. A family with two adults and three kids is five immigrants, but generally one hearing. You should probably divide your number by 3. But regardless, I take issue with him firing the judges we have, rather than hiring more if it’s such a priority.

It is necessary to have judges that follow the law, rather than the ones Biden hired who let everyone in.

I posted a long thing up thread about how ALJs are selected. Having actually been through the process. In which I was specifically told that I’d I discussed my political beliefs in any interview, application point or essay, I would be disqualified. These are not partisan, political appointments. They are chosen based solely on a score, that comes from a series of tests that look at knowledge, management, logic and writing. The job opens every few years, qualified people are listed in order of score and offered positions as they open in that order.

NOTE: it is VERY LIKELY/ ALMOST CERTAIN that for at least the first year or two of the Biden Admin, they were pulling from a List based on the test administered when Trump was POTUS. And that any ALJs hired now were tested under Biden. But it doesn’t matter. Because these aren’t ideological jobs.

The problem remains that in certain courtrooms judges are very liberal with granting asylum and in others they rarely grant asylum.

"Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse reports individual asylum decisions for over 800 immigration judges that finds some have denied asylum in 100% of their cases, while another judge has denied just 1% of cases."

There is no way these are coincidences and the kids are completely impartial.

You need more information about what caseloads each Judge hears. If one Judge is in a place with a concentration of people entitled to TPS and another serves an area where people just crossing illegally are apprehended, you would expect very different outcomes because the caseloads are so different. You’d need a breakdown by case type and immigrant classification to know this.

TPS status has nothing to do with whether a person is eligible for asylum.
TPS doesn't cover every country.
The judges are partisan. There is no way case load is impacting the rulings to that extent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:POTUS is correct on this one.

Yes, although his math is off by a decimal place.

NPR confirms Trump is right, through the data in this NPR article:

https://www.npr.org/2025/04/22/nx-s1-5372681/trump-immigration-judges-fired

- 700 current immigration judges (IJs)

- judges review on average 500 to 600 cases per year (let’s say it’s 600)

- 700 x 600 = 420,000 cases reviewed per year.

- backlog of deportation (removal) cases = 4,000,000 (4 million)

- 4 million divided by 420,000 cases per year =

9.5 years to review all 4 million of the current removal cases in the backlog.



However: that 9.5 years would only work if the backlog were STATIC, meaning we hermetically sealed off our border, and the 4 million case backlog did not grow at all. We are still allowing hundreds of thousands of visa holders and visitors into the USA every month, and some will become “illegal aliens.” Others still sneak over the border.

It will take far in excess of 9.5 years to even come close to reducing the 4 million case backlog which Biden/Harris largely created.

His math may be fine. His logic/ understanding of how these hearing work IRL is not. A family with two adults and three kids is five immigrants, but generally one hearing. You should probably divide your number by 3. But regardless, I take issue with him firing the judges we have, rather than hiring more if it’s such a priority.

It is necessary to have judges that follow the law, rather than the ones Biden hired who let everyone in.

I posted a long thing up thread about how ALJs are selected. Having actually been through the process. In which I was specifically told that I’d I discussed my political beliefs in any interview, application point or essay, I would be disqualified. These are not partisan, political appointments. They are chosen based solely on a score, that comes from a series of tests that look at knowledge, management, logic and writing. The job opens every few years, qualified people are listed in order of score and offered positions as they open in that order.

NOTE: it is VERY LIKELY/ ALMOST CERTAIN that for at least the first year or two of the Biden Admin, they were pulling from a List based on the test administered when Trump was POTUS. And that any ALJs hired now were tested under Biden. But it doesn’t matter. Because these aren’t ideological jobs.

The problem remains that in certain courtrooms judges are very liberal with granting asylum and in others they rarely grant asylum.

"Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse reports individual asylum decisions for over 800 immigration judges that finds some have denied asylum in 100% of their cases, while another judge has denied just 1% of cases."

There is no way these are coincidences and the kids are completely impartial.

We really need to make validity of asylum claims contingent upon sanctions/war against the country of origin. There is no ethical situation where we can be on good terms with a country of origin while granting citizens asylum because the country is persecuting them like Nazis persecuted the Jews.

No way is that going to happen. Our country values money over everything and will not jeopardize relationships over this. Most would even acknowledge our immigration system is a form of soft power and negotiation chip in diplomacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:POTUS is correct on this one.

Yes, although his math is off by a decimal place.

NPR confirms Trump is right, through the data in this NPR article:

https://www.npr.org/2025/04/22/nx-s1-5372681/trump-immigration-judges-fired

- 700 current immigration judges (IJs)

- judges review on average 500 to 600 cases per year (let’s say it’s 600)

- 700 x 600 = 420,000 cases reviewed per year.

- backlog of deportation (removal) cases = 4,000,000 (4 million)

- 4 million divided by 420,000 cases per year =

9.5 years to review all 4 million of the current removal cases in the backlog.



However: that 9.5 years would only work if the backlog were STATIC, meaning we hermetically sealed off our border, and the 4 million case backlog did not grow at all. We are still allowing hundreds of thousands of visa holders and visitors into the USA every month, and some will become “illegal aliens.” Others still sneak over the border.

It will take far in excess of 9.5 years to even come close to reducing the 4 million case backlog which Biden/Harris largely created.

His math may be fine. His logic/ understanding of how these hearing work IRL is not. A family with two adults and three kids is five immigrants, but generally one hearing. You should probably divide your number by 3. But regardless, I take issue with him firing the judges we have, rather than hiring more if it’s such a priority.

It is necessary to have judges that follow the law, rather than the ones Biden hired who let everyone in.

I posted a long thing up thread about how ALJs are selected. Having actually been through the process. In which I was specifically told that I’d I discussed my political beliefs in any interview, application point or essay, I would be disqualified. These are not partisan, political appointments. They are chosen based solely on a score, that comes from a series of tests that look at knowledge, management, logic and writing. The job opens every few years, qualified people are listed in order of score and offered positions as they open in that order.

NOTE: it is VERY LIKELY/ ALMOST CERTAIN that for at least the first year or two of the Biden Admin, they were pulling from a List based on the test administered when Trump was POTUS. And that any ALJs hired now were tested under Biden. But it doesn’t matter. Because these aren’t ideological jobs.

The problem remains that in certain courtrooms judges are very liberal with granting asylum and in others they rarely grant asylum.

"Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse reports individual asylum decisions for over 800 immigration judges that finds some have denied asylum in 100% of their cases, while another judge has denied just 1% of cases."

There is no way these are coincidences and the kids are completely impartial.

We really need to make validity of asylum claims contingent upon sanctions/war against the country of origin. There is no ethical situation where we can be on good terms with a country of origin while granting citizens asylum because the country is persecuting them like Nazis persecuted the Jews.

No way is that going to happen. Our country values money over everything and will not jeopardize relationships over this. Most would even acknowledge our immigration system is a form of soft power and negotiation chip in diplomacy.

That is sort of the point. The corporations doing business there ruining those economies are the ones demanding that we give people asylum here, "because it's good for business". We need to make displacing people bad for business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:POTUS is correct on this one.

Yes, although his math is off by a decimal place.

NPR confirms Trump is right, through the data in this NPR article:

https://www.npr.org/2025/04/22/nx-s1-5372681/trump-immigration-judges-fired

- 700 current immigration judges (IJs)

- judges review on average 500 to 600 cases per year (let’s say it’s 600)

- 700 x 600 = 420,000 cases reviewed per year.

- backlog of deportation (removal) cases = 4,000,000 (4 million)

- 4 million divided by 420,000 cases per year =

9.5 years to review all 4 million of the current removal cases in the backlog.



However: that 9.5 years would only work if the backlog were STATIC, meaning we hermetically sealed off our border, and the 4 million case backlog did not grow at all. We are still allowing hundreds of thousands of visa holders and visitors into the USA every month, and some will become “illegal aliens.” Others still sneak over the border.

It will take far in excess of 9.5 years to even come close to reducing the 4 million case backlog which Biden/Harris largely created.

His math may be fine. His logic/ understanding of how these hearing work IRL is not. A family with two adults and three kids is five immigrants, but generally one hearing. You should probably divide your number by 3. But regardless, I take issue with him firing the judges we have, rather than hiring more if it’s such a priority.

It is necessary to have judges that follow the law, rather than the ones Biden hired who let everyone in.

I posted a long thing up thread about how ALJs are selected. Having actually been through the process. In which I was specifically told that I’d I discussed my political beliefs in any interview, application point or essay, I would be disqualified. These are not partisan, political appointments. They are chosen based solely on a score, that comes from a series of tests that look at knowledge, management, logic and writing. The job opens every few years, qualified people are listed in order of score and offered positions as they open in that order.

NOTE: it is VERY LIKELY/ ALMOST CERTAIN that for at least the first year or two of the Biden Admin, they were pulling from a List based on the test administered when Trump was POTUS. And that any ALJs hired now were tested under Biden. But it doesn’t matter. Because these aren’t ideological jobs.

The problem remains that in certain courtrooms judges are very liberal with granting asylum and in others they rarely grant asylum.

"Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse reports individual asylum decisions for over 800 immigration judges that finds some have denied asylum in 100% of their cases, while another judge has denied just 1% of cases."

There is no way these are coincidences and the kids are completely impartial.

You need more information about what caseloads each Judge hears. If one Judge is in a place with a concentration of people entitled to TPS and another serves an area where people just crossing illegally are apprehended, you would expect very different outcomes because the caseloads are so different. You’d need a breakdown by case type and immigrant classification to know this.

TPS status has nothing to do with whether a person is eligible for asylum.
TPS doesn't cover every country.
The judges are partisan. There is no way case load is impacting the rulings to that extent.

You are mixing up a lot of things and getting them all wrong. But yes, the caseload of a Judge assigned to an area with a large ethnic community of people with TPS or from a country where there are valid asylum claim and the caseload of a judge at the southern border getting mostly economic migrants will be apples and oranges different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:POTUS is correct on this one.

Yes, although his math is off by a decimal place.

NPR confirms Trump is right, through the data in this NPR article:

https://www.npr.org/2025/04/22/nx-s1-5372681/trump-immigration-judges-fired

- 700 current immigration judges (IJs)

- judges review on average 500 to 600 cases per year (let’s say it’s 600)

- 700 x 600 = 420,000 cases reviewed per year.

- backlog of deportation (removal) cases = 4,000,000 (4 million)

- 4 million divided by 420,000 cases per year =

9.5 years to review all 4 million of the current removal cases in the backlog.



However: that 9.5 years would only work if the backlog were STATIC, meaning we hermetically sealed off our border, and the 4 million case backlog did not grow at all. We are still allowing hundreds of thousands of visa holders and visitors into the USA every month, and some will become “illegal aliens.” Others still sneak over the border.

It will take far in excess of 9.5 years to even come close to reducing the 4 million case backlog which Biden/Harris largely created.

His math may be fine. His logic/ understanding of how these hearing work IRL is not. A family with two adults and three kids is five immigrants, but generally one hearing. You should probably divide your number by 3. But regardless, I take issue with him firing the judges we have, rather than hiring more if it’s such a priority.

It is necessary to have judges that follow the law, rather than the ones Biden hired who let everyone in.

I posted a long thing up thread about how ALJs are selected. Having actually been through the process. In which I was specifically told that I’d I discussed my political beliefs in any interview, application point or essay, I would be disqualified. These are not partisan, political appointments. They are chosen based solely on a score, that comes from a series of tests that look at knowledge, management, logic and writing. The job opens every few years, qualified people are listed in order of score and offered positions as they open in that order.

NOTE: it is VERY LIKELY/ ALMOST CERTAIN that for at least the first year or two of the Biden Admin, they were pulling from a List based on the test administered when Trump was POTUS. And that any ALJs hired now were tested under Biden. But it doesn’t matter. Because these aren’t ideological jobs.

The problem remains that in certain courtrooms judges are very liberal with granting asylum and in others they rarely grant asylum.

"Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse reports individual asylum decisions for over 800 immigration judges that finds some have denied asylum in 100% of their cases, while another judge has denied just 1% of cases."

There is no way these are coincidences and the kids are completely impartial.

We really need to make validity of asylum claims contingent upon sanctions/war against the country of origin. There is no ethical situation where we can be on good terms with a country of origin while granting citizens asylum because the country is persecuting them like Nazis persecuted the Jews.

Invade the world, invite the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:POTUS is correct on this one.

Yes, although his math is off by a decimal place.

NPR confirms Trump is right, through the data in this NPR article:

https://www.npr.org/2025/04/22/nx-s1-5372681/trump-immigration-judges-fired

- 700 current immigration judges (IJs)

- judges review on average 500 to 600 cases per year (let’s say it’s 600)

- 700 x 600 = 420,000 cases reviewed per year.

- backlog of deportation (removal) cases = 4,000,000 (4 million)

- 4 million divided by 420,000 cases per year =

9.5 years to review all 4 million of the current removal cases in the backlog.



However: that 9.5 years would only work if the backlog were STATIC, meaning we hermetically sealed off our border, and the 4 million case backlog did not grow at all. We are still allowing hundreds of thousands of visa holders and visitors into the USA every month, and some will become “illegal aliens.” Others still sneak over the border.

It will take far in excess of 9.5 years to even come close to reducing the 4 million case backlog which Biden/Harris largely created.

His math may be fine. His logic/ understanding of how these hearing work IRL is not. A family with two adults and three kids is five immigrants, but generally one hearing. You should probably divide your number by 3. But regardless, I take issue with him firing the judges we have, rather than hiring more if it’s such a priority.

It is necessary to have judges that follow the law, rather than the ones Biden hired who let everyone in.

I posted a long thing up thread about how ALJs are selected. Having actually been through the process. In which I was specifically told that I’d I discussed my political beliefs in any interview, application point or essay, I would be disqualified. These are not partisan, political appointments. They are chosen based solely on a score, that comes from a series of tests that look at knowledge, management, logic and writing. The job opens every few years, qualified people are listed in order of score and offered positions as they open in that order.

NOTE: it is VERY LIKELY/ ALMOST CERTAIN that for at least the first year or two of the Biden Admin, they were pulling from a List based on the test administered when Trump was POTUS. And that any ALJs hired now were tested under Biden. But it doesn’t matter. Because these aren’t ideological jobs.

The problem remains that in certain courtrooms judges are very liberal with granting asylum and in others they rarely grant asylum.

"Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse reports individual asylum decisions for over 800 immigration judges that finds some have denied asylum in 100% of their cases, while another judge has denied just 1% of cases."

There is no way these are coincidences and the kids are completely impartial.

You need more information about what caseloads each Judge hears. If one Judge is in a place with a concentration of people entitled to TPS and another serves an area where people just crossing illegally are apprehended, you would expect very different outcomes because the caseloads are so different. You’d need a breakdown by case type and immigrant classification to know this.

I saw one in San Francisco only rejecting 1.4%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:POTUS is correct on this one.

Yes, although his math is off by a decimal place.

NPR confirms Trump is right, through the data in this NPR article:

https://www.npr.org/2025/04/22/nx-s1-5372681/trump-immigration-judges-fired

- 700 current immigration judges (IJs)

- judges review on average 500 to 600 cases per year (let’s say it’s 600)

- 700 x 600 = 420,000 cases reviewed per year.

- backlog of deportation (removal) cases = 4,000,000 (4 million)

- 4 million divided by 420,000 cases per year =

9.5 years to review all 4 million of the current removal cases in the backlog.



However: that 9.5 years would only work if the backlog were STATIC, meaning we hermetically sealed off our border, and the 4 million case backlog did not grow at all. We are still allowing hundreds of thousands of visa holders and visitors into the USA every month, and some will become “illegal aliens.” Others still sneak over the border.

It will take far in excess of 9.5 years to even come close to reducing the 4 million case backlog which Biden/Harris largely created.

His math may be fine. His logic/ understanding of how these hearing work IRL is not. A family with two adults and three kids is five immigrants, but generally one hearing. You should probably divide your number by 3. But regardless, I take issue with him firing the judges we have, rather than hiring more if it’s such a priority.

It is necessary to have judges that follow the law, rather than the ones Biden hired who let everyone in.

I posted a long thing up thread about how ALJs are selected. Having actually been through the process. In which I was specifically told that I’d I discussed my political beliefs in any interview, application point or essay, I would be disqualified. These are not partisan, political appointments. They are chosen based solely on a score, that comes from a series of tests that look at knowledge, management, logic and writing. The job opens every few years, qualified people are listed in order of score and offered positions as they open in that order.

NOTE: it is VERY LIKELY/ ALMOST CERTAIN that for at least the first year or two of the Biden Admin, they were pulling from a List based on the test administered when Trump was POTUS. And that any ALJs hired now were tested under Biden. But it doesn’t matter. Because these aren’t ideological jobs.

The problem remains that in certain courtrooms judges are very liberal with granting asylum and in others they rarely grant asylum.

"Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse reports individual asylum decisions for over 800 immigration judges that finds some have denied asylum in 100% of their cases, while another judge has denied just 1% of cases."

There is no way these are coincidences and the kids are completely impartial.

You need more information about what caseloads each Judge hears. If one Judge is in a place with a concentration of people entitled to TPS and another serves an area where people just crossing illegally are apprehended, you would expect very different outcomes because the caseloads are so different. You’d need a breakdown by case type and immigrant classification to know this.

I saw one in San Francisco only rejecting 1.4%

Okay. Let’s have the details. What Judge, what caseload?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:POTUS is correct on this one.

Yes, although his math is off by a decimal place.

NPR confirms Trump is right, through the data in this NPR article:

https://www.npr.org/2025/04/22/nx-s1-5372681/trump-immigration-judges-fired

- 700 current immigration judges (IJs)

- judges review on average 500 to 600 cases per year (let’s say it’s 600)

- 700 x 600 = 420,000 cases reviewed per year.

- backlog of deportation (removal) cases = 4,000,000 (4 million)

- 4 million divided by 420,000 cases per year =

9.5 years to review all 4 million of the current removal cases in the backlog.



However: that 9.5 years would only work if the backlog were STATIC, meaning we hermetically sealed off our border, and the 4 million case backlog did not grow at all. We are still allowing hundreds of thousands of visa holders and visitors into the USA every month, and some will become “illegal aliens.” Others still sneak over the border.

It will take far in excess of 9.5 years to even come close to reducing the 4 million case backlog which Biden/Harris largely created.

His math may be fine. His logic/ understanding of how these hearing work IRL is not. A family with two adults and three kids is five immigrants, but generally one hearing. You should probably divide your number by 3. But regardless, I take issue with him firing the judges we have, rather than hiring more if it’s such a priority.

It is necessary to have judges that follow the law, rather than the ones Biden hired who let everyone in.

I posted a long thing up thread about how ALJs are selected. Having actually been through the process. In which I was specifically told that I’d I discussed my political beliefs in any interview, application point or essay, I would be disqualified. These are not partisan, political appointments. They are chosen based solely on a score, that comes from a series of tests that look at knowledge, management, logic and writing. The job opens every few years, qualified people are listed in order of score and offered positions as they open in that order.

NOTE: it is VERY LIKELY/ ALMOST CERTAIN that for at least the first year or two of the Biden Admin, they were pulling from a List based on the test administered when Trump was POTUS. And that any ALJs hired now were tested under Biden. But it doesn’t matter. Because these aren’t ideological jobs.

The problem remains that in certain courtrooms judges are very liberal with granting asylum and in others they rarely grant asylum.

"Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse reports individual asylum decisions for over 800 immigration judges that finds some have denied asylum in 100% of their cases, while another judge has denied just 1% of cases."

There is no way these are coincidences and the kids are completely impartial.

You need more information about what caseloads each Judge hears. If one Judge is in a place with a concentration of people entitled to TPS and another serves an area where people just crossing illegally are apprehended, you would expect very different outcomes because the caseloads are so different. You’d need a breakdown by case type and immigrant classification to know this.

I saw one in San Francisco only rejecting 1.4%

Okay. Let’s have the details. What Judge, what caseload?

Caseload was only 160.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:POTUS is correct on this one.

Yes, although his math is off by a decimal place.

NPR confirms Trump is right, through the data in this NPR article:

https://www.npr.org/2025/04/22/nx-s1-5372681/trump-immigration-judges-fired

- 700 current immigration judges (IJs)

- judges review on average 500 to 600 cases per year (let’s say it’s 600)

- 700 x 600 = 420,000 cases reviewed per year.

- backlog of deportation (removal) cases = 4,000,000 (4 million)

- 4 million divided by 420,000 cases per year =

9.5 years to review all 4 million of the current removal cases in the backlog.



However: that 9.5 years would only work if the backlog were STATIC, meaning we hermetically sealed off our border, and the 4 million case backlog did not grow at all. We are still allowing hundreds of thousands of visa holders and visitors into the USA every month, and some will become “illegal aliens.” Others still sneak over the border.

It will take far in excess of 9.5 years to even come close to reducing the 4 million case backlog which Biden/Harris largely created.

His math may be fine. His logic/ understanding of how these hearing work IRL is not. A family with two adults and three kids is five immigrants, but generally one hearing. You should probably divide your number by 3. But regardless, I take issue with him firing the judges we have, rather than hiring more if it’s such a priority.

It is necessary to have judges that follow the law, rather than the ones Biden hired who let everyone in.

I posted a long thing up thread about how ALJs are selected. Having actually been through the process. In which I was specifically told that I’d I discussed my political beliefs in any interview, application point or essay, I would be disqualified. These are not partisan, political appointments. They are chosen based solely on a score, that comes from a series of tests that look at knowledge, management, logic and writing. The job opens every few years, qualified people are listed in order of score and offered positions as they open in that order.

NOTE: it is VERY LIKELY/ ALMOST CERTAIN that for at least the first year or two of the Biden Admin, they were pulling from a List based on the test administered when Trump was POTUS. And that any ALJs hired now were tested under Biden. But it doesn’t matter. Because these aren’t ideological jobs.

The problem remains that in certain courtrooms judges are very liberal with granting asylum and in others they rarely grant asylum.

"Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse reports individual asylum decisions for over 800 immigration judges that finds some have denied asylum in 100% of their cases, while another judge has denied just 1% of cases."

There is no way these are coincidences and the kids are completely impartial.

You need more information about what caseloads each Judge hears. If one Judge is in a place with a concentration of people entitled to TPS and another serves an area where people just crossing illegally are apprehended, you would expect very different outcomes because the caseloads are so different. You’d need a breakdown by case type and immigrant classification to know this.

I saw one in San Francisco only rejecting 1.4%

Okay. Let’s have the details. What Judge, what caseload?

Caseload was only 160.

Types of cases and nationality of plaintiffs? (You can just link to your “data”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:POTUS is correct on this one.

Yes, although his math is off by a decimal place.

NPR confirms Trump is right, through the data in this NPR article:

https://www.npr.org/2025/04/22/nx-s1-5372681/trump-immigration-judges-fired

- 700 current immigration judges (IJs)

- judges review on average 500 to 600 cases per year (let’s say it’s 600)

- 700 x 600 = 420,000 cases reviewed per year.

- backlog of deportation (removal) cases = 4,000,000 (4 million)

- 4 million divided by 420,000 cases per year =

9.5 years to review all 4 million of the current removal cases in the backlog.



However: that 9.5 years would only work if the backlog were STATIC, meaning we hermetically sealed off our border, and the 4 million case backlog did not grow at all. We are still allowing hundreds of thousands of visa holders and visitors into the USA every month, and some will become “illegal aliens.” Others still sneak over the border.

It will take far in excess of 9.5 years to even come close to reducing the 4 million case backlog which Biden/Harris largely created.

His math may be fine. His logic/ understanding of how these hearing work IRL is not. A family with two adults and three kids is five immigrants, but generally one hearing. You should probably divide your number by 3. But regardless, I take issue with him firing the judges we have, rather than hiring more if it’s such a priority.

It is necessary to have judges that follow the law, rather than the ones Biden hired who let everyone in.

I posted a long thing up thread about how ALJs are selected. Having actually been through the process. In which I was specifically told that I’d I discussed my political beliefs in any interview, application point or essay, I would be disqualified. These are not partisan, political appointments. They are chosen based solely on a score, that comes from a series of tests that look at knowledge, management, logic and writing. The job opens every few years, qualified people are listed in order of score and offered positions as they open in that order.

NOTE: it is VERY LIKELY/ ALMOST CERTAIN that for at least the first year or two of the Biden Admin, they were pulling from a List based on the test administered when Trump was POTUS. And that any ALJs hired now were tested under Biden. But it doesn’t matter. Because these aren’t ideological jobs.

The problem remains that in certain courtrooms judges are very liberal with granting asylum and in others they rarely grant asylum.

"Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse reports individual asylum decisions for over 800 immigration judges that finds some have denied asylum in 100% of their cases, while another judge has denied just 1% of cases."

There is no way these are coincidences and the kids are completely impartial.

You need more information about what caseloads each Judge hears. If one Judge is in a place with a concentration of people entitled to TPS and another serves an area where people just crossing illegally are apprehended, you would expect very different outcomes because the caseloads are so different. You’d need a breakdown by case type and immigrant classification to know this.

I saw one in San Francisco only rejecting 1.4%

And?

Maybe they were valid claims? Unless you have the specifics of each case that you can compare to international and US Law, it is hard to make a rational judgement.