At what point during a presidents administration should the cut off point be for appointing judges?
1 Like
It depends on the situation and whether there is the ability to stop the appointments.
First, none of this is rocket science, doesn’t take any unique knowledge. Second it is very subjective and varies greatly on who the immigration judge is.
So basically you want to stop Biden to appoint any further judges but if there is a Republican president in 2024 you will support them making appointments right up until they leave office.
that is of course your opinion.
the immigration courts think differently than a biased layman.
Allan
Everyone of which votes dem.
Immigration “judges” are appointed by the AG, not the POTUS.
They are not actually judges. They are lawyers.
2 Likes
You are not going to get any common sense out of Allan, he’s an open borders lib just as long as they don’t show up in his backyard.
The reality is the majority of these “asylum” claims are not legitimate, our system is and our national charity are being abused by people making Mexican drug dealers rich coming to America….we the people do not owe these folks a half a trillion a year of our tax money…there was a story out of Denver this week about a hospital on the verge of bankruptcy because it’s been overwhelmed by people who shouldn’t be here. This hospital services a huge portion of the community. Migrant crisis plunges Denver's main public hospital deep into the red after patients received $130 MILLION of treatments they were unable to pay for | Daily Mail Online
No one in America and to be honest the illegals sleeping in the streets after giving whatever money they had and going in debt for life is being served by the Biden border fiasco.
The biggestal’s of the world are in an increasing minority of American citizens…
“ President Biden’s approval rating on handling immigration has reached an all-time low, a new poll found.
Just 32 percent of Americans said in the new CBS News poll released Sunday that they approved of Biden’s handling of the border — a number that CBS notes is the all-time low for the president on this question. Overall, 68 percent in the new poll disapprove of how Biden is handling the border.”. Biden approval rating on handling immigration reaches all-time low: Poll | The Hill
This whole nightmare is needless, stupid, and serves no one other that a corrupt lying president and a Democrat party thinking it might be flooding Texas with some future voters who might turn the state purple.
2 Likes
Are you under the impression these decisions are being made by the judiciary? Because they’re not.
This is all the executive branch.
5 Likes
Kook fringe lefties refuse to admit that the current border crisis started on Inauguration Day, January 2021.
Joe Biden, Alejandro Mayorkas, Kamala (the border czar) harris and the Democrat party own it.
And they have done irreparable damage to this country. That damn border needs to be sealed, nothing less at this point will come close to reversing the mess those fools have made.
2 Likes
Not what I said. Since you care what I think, I think it would be a mistake to greatly increase the number of immigration judges until we have a determination of what direction the American people want to go on this in November. I fear if you did this, the current administration would accept too much as worthy of asylum and we would be stuck with those immigration court judges.
1 Like
Here’s another reality with asylum and immigration “judges”, which people like @biggestal99 don’t seem to comprehend. First off, the process is woefully subjective, from the OP:
The US Supreme Court also wrestled with the definition of well-founded fear after Congress adopted the language of the Refugee Convention into law with the 1980 Refugee Act. During the oral arguments for a 1987 case, Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca, in which a Nicaraguan woman who overstayed her visa appealed to the United States for asylum, attorney Dana Leigh Marks suggested defining such fear according to the “reasonable person” standard: Would a reasonable person in this same factual situation fear persecution upon return to their country? But the justices sought a more quantifiable criterion than reasonableness—they tried to pin down the quivering subjectivity of fear. In his majority opinion Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, “One can certainly have a well-founded fear of an event happening when there is less than a 50 percent chance of the occurrence taking place.”
Justice Harry Blackmun argued in a concurring opinion that “the very language of the term ‘well-founded fear’ demands a particular type of analysis—an examination of the subjective feelings of an applicant for asylum coupled with an inquiry into the objective nature of the articulated reasons for the fear.”
Second, being granted asylum is VERY dependent upon WHO is one’s asylum judge:
The outcome for asylum seekers continued to depend on the identity of the immigration judge assigned to hear the case. The New York Immigration Court led the country in having the widest disparity among judges serving on the same court. Depending upon the judge, denial rates ranged from 95 percent down to 3 percent.
https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/630/
One judge is approving only 5% while another judge is approving 97%! In other words @biggestal99 these people are humans just like us and are just as biased. I would argue that if ALL theses asylum judges went by the strict letter of the law you would see consistent rejection rates at around 95%. After over 50 posts NO ONE has been able to detail what are the asylum conditions that are forcing millions and millions of people from their countries.
I’ll ask again to anyone, please detail exactly WHO all these countries is targeting all these people and WHY are they being targeted for persecution.
4 Likes
and i would say the actual % grants of asylum (29%) are much more accurate than a biased layman.
71% denial rate.
Allan
Wow 71%
I wonder what happens to them.
Are we shipping them back out of the country?
(just curious)
1 Like
removal proceedings start as soon as the application is denied.
you can appeal, but thats mostly a losing way to go, and costs money.
Allan
1 Like
No that’s a fact:
Any type of system based on the statements of desperate people is ripe for fraud. It’s not exactly rocket science Al.
I still say whatever country (Mexico, Venezuela, wherever) is creating all these asylum-seekers is by definition a ghoulish inhumane regime and should be subject to harsh sanctions immediately.
If they oppress their people so much:
- no IMF,
- no World Bank,
- no trade with the US,
- no banking with the US,
- no flights into or from the US and
- every American factory or business in their country should be immediately shut down
- their assets should immediately be seized and distributed to the victims
We must stop these ghoulish tyrannical human rights practices.
End the injustice now!
The origin and history of asylum laws sprang out of the atrocities of WW2, particularly the German’s actions of the genocide of the Jewish people. Asylum by it’s very definition as defined in asylum law is only supposed to apply to unique situations to specific narrow groups of people. Asylum was NEVER intended for what is happening at our southern border. Are the people crossing the border the object of genocide? Has anyone so far been able to detail the asylum conditions happening all over the world that’s causing this mass migration to our southern border?
In NJ “false alarm” is punishable by 3-5 years in prison (plus restitution.)
In NJ "false police report gets ya up to 6 mos in jail, (plus restitution.)
False asylum claim should be treated the same.
Meanwhile if a gov’t (Mexico?? VZ??) is creating this many asylum-seekers it should be cut-off from trade and subject to sanctions.
1 Like
If he’s a Democrat day one.
