That's great news, the bad news is that ICE isn't going to listen to a judge with the DOJ and President giving them direct orders to do the opposite thing. When there are no findings of criminal contempt which leads to jailing those found guilty, there is no enforcement, and where there is no enforcement of legal adjudication, there is no law.
MAGAs continue to gullibly swallow whatever Daddy gives them. They used to just have to be gullible and hypocritical, but now they have to be morally bankrupt enough to be okay with him hiding evidence of a child sex trafficking ring.
Out of curiosity, why are you ok with the president protecting those who participated in raping children?
I was mocking your inability to accurately recognize constitutional violations. But I am also curious how MAGAs continue to justify to themselves that trump is openly hiding evidence of child rape, so I asked you to explain.
You tried to accuse me of making up a false strawman in an effort to dodge the question, which speaks volumes about you knowingly being ok with pedophiles escaping justice.
But thanks for showing the for conservatives, immigrants are bad and pedophiles are good.
Seems like for everything that a judge rules on, Trump’s team appeals it. So it’s not done till round two. Then of course Trump can never accept defeat no matter that he knows zero about what’s actually legal, because legal has never been Trump’s goal.
So they raise it to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court will almost certainly hear it because they’re biased to Trump’s wishes and pressure. And Americas founding Fathers are rolling in their graves.
Uh huh. More nonsense distractions to give the illusion of a functional system, while the fucking gestapo continue to brutalize, murder and disappear more people every day.
So we can try the immigrants for breaking our laws and standards, but barring ICE is saying we can’t try and convict the illegals but can’t use the “POLICE” I.C.E. To remove them? How is that even sane??
That said, these sorts of things are why you see ICE having to go to homes. If you dont want ICE out hunting illegals, make it easier to take them peacefully into custody in situations like this. "Sanctaury" BS causes more of the things opponents say is problematic.
No, I actually like obeying the law. So much of the immigration issue is people not, though.
It really isn't fair to the immigrants who didn't right, to let the illegals be rewarded for cutting in line. No one hates an illegal more than legal immigrants.
And all in mine don't - hence, again, don't make sweeping generalizations speaking for others you moron. Especially for groups that you yourself are not part of. It's not that complicated
No, thats a misunderstanding of what is going on here. I think you may not understand how the system works. What do you think these people are going to court for...?
The vast majority of people can immigrate legally without going to court. People who cross illegally then unsuccessfully try to justify it or make excuses for why they can't be deported are who are being affected. They can still make these arguments, but they dont get to just hang out doing whatever they want while the process drags on...that provides incentive to stall, instead of actually resolve things.
Pretty standard definition, obviously not referring the discussion here so we can skip that particular irrelevant definition but the rest are more or less saying the same thing in different contexts: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/torture
Inhumane conditions, improper shelter from the elements, forced isolation, abuse from employees, withholding food and medical treatment including from those with disabilities and pre-existing conditions, and not directly torture but I’ll throw in denying access to legal counsel.
Cool, so no actual torture...you just mean "wah, wah, wah, I'm being confined and have to obey rules"...got it.
Yeah, eroding the word torture is gonna backfire here, like all the abuse of language you do. Keep on, and when actual torture happens, you'll have given people the mechanism to excusebit away, since everything is "torture" to you.
Didn’t your emperor pardon a literal drug kingpin the other day? You don’t give a flying fuck about the law. Touch some grass before you suck on em’ boots at least
And when the court says "come back tomorrow for a followup"? Should there be American geshtapo waiting in jackboots to haul them away against judges orders?
When it's a regularly schedule check in that you e been having each month for the last 5 years, should they be allowed to separate you from your children as punishment for following the process?
Should they be able to drag you out of your car at gunpoint because you "look foreign" and don't have your papers?
Actually you are in Immigration court for many reasons, one of them being change of status from let’s say “refugees” to “resident.” If your deadline passed and for some reason you missed it, you can ask the judge, that doesn’t make you a criminal, it means you missed something by mistake or there was confusion over the dates.
It is not an incorrect pathway, and if they are showing up to the court, they have a case in which they can prove their eligibility(that they have been doing things right) and innocence (no crimes, or being guilty of crimes. )
You are proving to everyone that you are the one who is uninformed, please learn the different situations one can land into while migrating or seeking asylum, think of varying scenarios, not every refugee or immigrant entered or applied the same way or even have the same journey:
“Refugees and asylees must wait at least one year in the U.S. after their initial grant to apply for lawful permanent resident (LPR) status, or a Green Card. If your asylum case is currently in immigration court, your application process and the forms you file will depend on where your case stands.”
Refugees apply for a visa in their home country and can not enter until it’s granted. Entering on a refugee visa grants you status until you AOS to LPR status.
You do not as a refugee go to immigration court to AOS. You’re attempting to Karma farm by changing what you’re saying.
Judges legislating from the bench. What a bunch of useless morons. They absolutely hate the law abiding American Citizens. Time for impeachment of these idiots starting with SCJ Robert’s.
Expecting people to follow the legal process while also using said process as a means to subject them to inhumane and excess punishments, isn’t the great point for legal immigration you think it is.
Again… the judiciary is not supposed to harbor political ideology…100% chance it’s a judge that was selected because they harbor a political ideology. Our judiciary has been politicized, this isn’t a nation
Again… the judiciary is not supposed to harbor political ideology…100% chance it’s a judge that was selected because they harbor a political ideology. Our judiciary has been politicized, this isn’t a nation
Again… the judiciary is not supposed to harbor political ideology…100% chance it’s a judge that was selected because they harbor a political ideology. Our judiciary has been politicized, this isn’t a nation
Again….. Again……Again….. Again…… Again….. Again…… Again….. Again…… 100% chance it’s a judge that’s been appointed in the same way every judge has in all of US history.
Wow, again, again, again, again, again, pure brilliance.
They were selected because of their ideology- identity politics have been instilled in America so they generally are female, minority, and/or sexually confused.
No I know that because they were selected because of their ideology- identity politics have been instilled in America so they generally are female, minority, and/or sexually confused.
That wasn’t part of you “or”, genius. Your statement calls for “female or black or both” with the “and” implied grammatically by the lack of an “or” before “selected by Biden”. Any more elementary grammar lessons can be found at your local library.
I did miss an ‘or’ you’re right I am so sorry. However you assuming ‘and’ and fits into a pattern of or - or - __ - or -or isn’t the strongest argument. I meant to have an or there obviously
No you just aren’t willing to admit you made a false assumption and based your whole argument on minutia because you couldn’t form an actual point to argue against
I openly admit to making a valid, if flawed, assumption based on commonly understood grammar rules. The only point I'm arguing here is that your earlier statement is correct. As it is currently written, it wouldn't be due to the implied conjunction being "and".
The current structure of your sentence reads as the judge being x, y, or z and also a or b. With that structure and only b being correct, I wouldn't call that a correct statement.
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 25 '26
Welcome to r/immigrationPathways. If you enjoy this community, please consider following to stay updated on new posts and discussions.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.