ACLU files lawsuit against Trump Admin over asylum

[Snafu412]

Originally Posted by HDGristle

Server hang double. Disregard. Edits in 13

Sory, I stand corrected, I wasn't thinking of them becoming president.

[HDGristle]

Originally Posted by Snafu412

Sory, I stand corrected, I wasn't thinking of them becoming president.

It's all good. I knew where you were going. No shade.

[Unique_Carpenter]

Any non-citizen, even if legally in the US, is subject to getting tossed if they break the rules (leo gets upset with them).
Read the rules.
I have had so many Asian perimeter work visa folks working at my groups hotels that yes I know the rules.
And btw, I have always told these folks to always carry their papers on them along with my business card.
I have torched local leo and ICS when they mess with my people, unless mine have done something stupid that is.

[HDGristle]

Does the process of getting tossed involve due process?

Does that apply to U.S. non-citizen nationals?

I know where you're trying to go. You're right about the general concept... in some cases.

This is important because it speaks to the ridiculous nuance required to parse the constitutional issues as it pertains to the varying facts and circumstances.

Fancy way to say... a migrant who crosses illegally and spends 360 days in the U.S. over 100 miles from the border might be treated differently than someone who shows up at a POE to apply.

Both are considered people. This shit isn't simple. It's not easy to follow, either.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Snafu412

The only constitutional right that a green card holder dose not have is the right to vote. Otherwise the same rights as you if you are a citizen.

a green card holder didn't enter illegally.

[HDGristle]

U sure? That permanent resident might have been an asylee years ago who had a waived illegal entry misdemeanor

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by HDGristle

U sure? That permanent resident might have been an asylee years ago who had a waived illegal entry misdemeanor

yes i'm sure because to get that waiver they had to enter illegally then appeal it

after usually getting kicked out for some years before they can appeal it


Individuals who have accrued more than 180 days of unlawful presence while in the United States must obtain a waiver of inadmissibility to overcome the unlawful presence bars under section 212(a)(9)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act before they can return Apr 1, 2024


anything else you need to know?

[HDGristle]

Dig further. What exceptions exist? Are there varying dates for the unlawful presence test?

Does Nuefeld mention adjudicator discretion to waive anything?

While you're looking at all that, are we discussing due process for a non-citizen?

[HDGristle]

Berry would be proud. We've got a FAIR link that doesn't involve ZeroHedge

https://www.fairus.org/legislation/m...border-entries

Interesting take

[Devo]

Originally Posted by HDGristle

Dig further. What exceptions exist? Are there varying dates for the unlawful presence test?

Does Nuefeld mention adjudicator discretion to waive anything?

While you're looking at all that, are we discussing due process for a non-citizen?

Produce ID, or a birth certificate.

It's not complicated.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by HDGristle

Berry would be proud. We've got a FAIR link that doesn't involve ZeroHedge

https://www.fairus.org/legislation/m...border-entries

Interesting take

the ACLU should sue itself for being woke racist assholes

Originally Posted by Devo

Produce ID, or a birth certificate.

It's not complicated.

exactly

[HDGristle]

Devo, they often do. That's not the issue and has nothing to do with the lawsuit. It also has nothing to do with whether a non-citizen has constitutional rights.

[Unique_Carpenter]

Originally Posted by Snafu412

The only constitutional right that a green card holder dose not have is the right to vote. Otherwise the same rights as you if you are a citizen.

Green card holders can not be tossed, unless their green card is first revoked. That takes quite a bit of effort and there are posted required conditions. Fraud on application or Felonies are both valid reasons, but not the only reasons, to revoke.


The issue in this thread is that the ACLU wants full court hearing for every single person.
That's simply not required. The asylum requirements are in federal code, and a lot more stringent than what folks think.
Biden's executive order that "loosened" those requirements has been revoked. So back to actual Federal code.
And btw, anyone sneaking across the border without first "applying" is an auto fail to start, and out they go.

[HDGristle]

You're closer on this one, but still not quite solid.

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/r...-asylum/asylum

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/r...-united-states

In addition to the relevant acts and federal codes, there are also some baked in items within the federal register retaining Biden policies which require the relevant notice period, public comments, etc before those can be removed.

There's also plenty of relevant case law to consider.

You're still shit out of luck on the not having constitutional rights claim.

[Unique_Carpenter]

Only takes 90 days to revise federal register, and every one of Trumps executive orders is in process for that.

And, if no "decision" is made on anyone's "case" till afterwards, the revisions apply.

Do you guys really think the white house does not have a team of lawyers working on all of this?