Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if you fly like 20k migrants into a state and you tell the residents they can't leave due to the constitution, expect the people who live in the state to care less about the constitution.

They can leave, they get due process first.

But sure, just like when school children are slaughtered in mass shootings, expect the people to care less about 2a.

Oh wait.....

SCOTUS has said presidents can murder us citizens without judicial intervention with drone strikes, but can't deport invaders

Again I ask did they hold hearings for operation wetback in the 1950s?

That's going to lead to the right clamoring for a dictator, which Trump is not. There is no political solution.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am sorry I don't quite understand how can an illegal immigrant can be turned about away at the border with zero due process but somehow if they make it into the country there has to be due process in order to deport them? Outside of validating their status what else should we need to do?

Validating their status and pesky things like whether they are deportable IS due process.

Did they do this on the 50s with the million plus Mexicans who were sent home?

I can't find any info on that.

You're thinking of Operation Wetback, which was carried out in 1954. This was a U.S. government initiative aimed at reducing illegal immigration from Mexico. The operation involved the mass deportation of Mexican nationals and Mexican-Americans, especially those believed to be in the U.S. without proper documentation.

The operation, led by INS and Border Patrol, was controversial for its aggressive tactics, including rounding up individuals without clear documentation and deporting them, regardless of their legal status. Estimates suggest that around 1 million individuals were deported during this time.

The operation was notable for the violation of civil rights and the lack of legal safeguards for those being deported. Among deportees, were US citizens and legal residents who were not given due process or access to legal representation and there was often lack of evidence of illegal status. In addition, individuals were detained in harsh conditions.

Anonymous wrote:So if you fly like 20k migrants into a state and you tell the residents they can't leave due to the constitution, expect the people who live in the state to care less about the constitution.

They can leave, they get due process first.

But sure, just like when school children are slaughtered in mass shootings, expect the people to care less about 2a.

Oh wait.....

So if you fly like 20k migrants into a state and you tell the residents they can't leave due to the constitution, expect the people who live in the state to care less about the constitution.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am sorry I don't quite understand how can an illegal immigrant can be turned about away at the border with zero due process but somehow if they make it into the country there has to be due process in order to deport them? Outside of validating their status what else should we need to do?

Validating their status and pesky things like whether they are deportable IS due process.

Did they do this on the 50s with the million plus Mexicans who were sent home?

I can't find any info on that.

Anonymous wrote:Well. The SC has said otherwise. So we will have a genuine Constitutional crisis and Trump will not win. Grounds for impeachment and there just might be enough Republicans who want to keep our democracy as d who will vote with Dems.

I thought our democracy said they wanted the immigration situation fixed.

Anonymous wrote:Looks like judge Elisa Brasil in San Francisco is granting 98.1 % of asylum cases she is assigned.

That seems off.

Some of the judges just stretch to approve everything. Like with Garcia. The judge said being part of a family made him a member of a particular social group despite contrary case law.
Even without that, the story told did not make him eligible, but the judge wanted to let him stay.

Looks like judge Elisa Brasil in San Francisco is granting 98.1 % of asylum cases she is assigned.

That seems off.

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?

See for yourself

https://tracreports.org/immigration/reports/judgereports/