Hours after DOJ filed the new memo in court in Minnesota, a magistrate judge denied Law Dork's request for greater public access in the case — including remote electronic docket access.
Unless I misremember, some 92% of immigrants admitted into the country kept all their appointments. It's interesting, too, that it's only those who are admitted under Biden fall under this new rule - part of the effort to de-legitimize every action taken by that administration.
Not a great way to get your point across, but a very good way to show what sort of person you are, and are not... That word is so loaded and unnecessary. I am loathe to make a judgement call as to you and your small-mindedness, but using words like that are uncalled for and extremely petty... One may think you are uneducated, a bully, or worse.
As to insufficient vetting—why are these immigrants only brown or black (Haiti, Somalia)? What about all those from Eastern Europe (especially ex-Soviets)?
This administration is using our tax dollars to grossly enrich their private prison buddies and whoever is leasing the “warehouses,” at the expense of human rights and civil rights. Capitalism in the USA.
It's easy to see why DHS wants to hide this memo from legal or political analysis. Somebody might notice that for all the performative fretting about "public safety" and "national security," it doesn't include any statistics (or even examples) to demonstrate that immigrants pose a particular threat to citizens or the state.
I mean, "Less than 47% have been conclusively found to not (sic) represent a public safety concern"? What does that even mean?
Fascinated by some of their language. I would love to know how many refugees were adjusted prior to one year. I would also love to know how cis reviewed 31k admissions by last March. Calling bs on that. They certainly don't need people in person to rerun biometrics.
The memo is Kafkaesque. It says that by submitting an application for TPS or by showing up and attending a hearing, an immigrant is consenting to indefinite detention. We have walked through the looking glass into a dark Alice in Wonderland Word in which words say what DHS says they mean, nothing more and nothing less
Arrest prior to a hearing violates Constitutional Due Process, 'No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property; without due process of Law.'
Judges should thus have the power to annul these arrests, set aside their legal consequences, order appropriate Redress for victims, and sanction violations severely enough to deter recurrence.
Thank you for pursuing this, and trying to get all of us access to the docket. I don't know what the hell is wrong with the judge other than, like the magistrate in Georgia who gave the FBI permission to take ballots, they're not particularly good at their jobs.
And thank you for attending the court remotely so we the public can actually be informed, which is something this magistrate would prefer not happen.
Lastly, thank you for persevering and obtaining and publishing this memo. They really don't want light shown in the corners, do they?
The Trump administration is right to reassert control over a refugee system that drifted toward speed and volume over scrutiny. The Refugee Act of 1980 does not prohibit inspection before granting lawful permanent resident status—it presumes it. If DHS identifies gaps in prior vetting, especially involving tens of thousands of recent entrants, it has both the authority and the obligation to act. Temporary custody during inspection is not persecution; it is sovereign border enforcement. National security is not optional, and neither is integrity in the immigration system. Courts should ensure due process, yes—but they should not micromanage the Executive’s constitutional responsibility to protect the homeland.
Really sad to see such a racist and pitiful guy in the comments, I don't understand people who support indefinite detentions of our neighbors.
He must not realize that if they can come for them, they can come for us all. Not to mention the duty we have to our neighbors, no matter where they may come from or what color their skin may be.
Realistically he's probably just lonely and looking for attention.
How very Anti-Enlightenment. Only Marxists and Islamists require the status of the speaker before entertaining the idea. I’d wager you’re a little of both.
Anti-Enlightenment? Perish the thought?! Do you need a feinting couch before your dumbass vapors give you palpitations?
I’ve got immigration clients who are going to get screwed over because you ethnonationalist freaks are too stupid to learn basic human compassion. Go piss your pants about white replacement somewhere else, you embarrassing loser.
The whole point is that they aren’t “illegal.” They are here legally, after going through the exact same vetting process that Trump had during his last administration.
It's called "consider the source" and I notice you don't contest the statement, you just concoct a bizarre attempt at an insult - which only serves to justify considering the demonstrated bias of the speaker in judging their words.
The original 48-hour provision was a maximum of 48 hours to decide if someone, once detained for a reason beyond failure to adjust, was going to be placed into removal proceedings (i.e., deportation). In a sense, it’s not comparable at all to what’s being contemplated here.
I noticed in your comment to someone earlier that you suggested that they learn the law. I am not sensing that this is an area in which you have experience, and that lack of experience, combined with unnecessary attitude, is a solid reason for the rest of us to ignore these comments going forward.
Your comment comes off as probably AI-written. I’d request that you ask your AI to explain the specific provisions of the Refugee Act that support your claims about authority and obligation. For all I know, you could be right about some or all of those claims, but your conclusory statements give the reader nowhere to go to verify or reject them.
I agree that that language of the statute is unclear and if we native English speakers don’t understand it, why should anyone expect newly arrived refugees to? What I understand is that refugees are required to apply for an adjustment in status after they have been in the US for one year but those whose status has not been adjusted after one year can be detained and even deported. So if you have applied and are waiting to hear you can be detained? And if you haven’t yet applied you can be detained. Also those who check in as part of their adjustment in status process can be detained for a period not limited to 48 hours. What kind of guidance is this?
Ok, a whole lot depends on a comma, or lack of one, here. The statute reads "return or be returned to the custody of" DHS. Is it to be read "return, or be returned to the custody" or does "custody" also attach to simple and voluntary return to START the green card evaluation? It sound as if the memo says "OK if you go and voluntarily show up but if we have to grab you we have to detain you." If THAT is the rationale, what happens if someone voluntarily shows up at say 14 months to start the process? Are those folks also to be detained even if they showed up 2 months late?
I'm curious how, if you have to wait a year to APPLY for LPR status, you can be someone OTHER than someone (C)who has not acquired permanent resident status.
This is a really screwed up statute. Apparently the typical time from application to granting of LPR status is 2-3 years. THAT long in one of those private prison hell holes when all you did was miss a deadline by not all that much. Does the statute mean that you have to apply on the VERY DAY a year after you got here to be safe? So if you make the application the day BEFORE it doesn't count because you have to wait a year and not doing that make your application void? What happens if the VERY DAY is a national holiday or some other time DHS offices are closed? There must be case law on this, mustn't there?
I've read the vetting process (which all takes place before you even enter the US); if DHS is claiming that this was sometimes lacking under Biden, shouldn't they have to show for each refugee how it was lacking, to allow custody, or do we just take DHS's word that they ALL were lacking, kind of like we have to take trump's word that ALL undocumented citizens cast fraudulent votes?
Glad you can listen to the hearing and eagerly await the outcome.
Unless I misremember, some 92% of immigrants admitted into the country kept all their appointments. It's interesting, too, that it's only those who are admitted under Biden fall under this new rule - part of the effort to de-legitimize every action taken by that administration.
Explains all the detention camps they want in every state.
Bingo.
Not a great way to get your point across, but a very good way to show what sort of person you are, and are not... That word is so loaded and unnecessary. I am loathe to make a judgement call as to you and your small-mindedness, but using words like that are uncalled for and extremely petty... One may think you are uneducated, a bully, or worse.
That word is a slur against people with intellectual disabilities. Could you please edit your post to state your thoughts without using a slur?
As to insufficient vetting—why are these immigrants only brown or black (Haiti, Somalia)? What about all those from Eastern Europe (especially ex-Soviets)?
Or from South Africa...
Yes!
This administration is using our tax dollars to grossly enrich their private prison buddies and whoever is leasing the “warehouses,” at the expense of human rights and civil rights. Capitalism in the USA.
How is that relevant to this discussion?
It's easy to see why DHS wants to hide this memo from legal or political analysis. Somebody might notice that for all the performative fretting about "public safety" and "national security," it doesn't include any statistics (or even examples) to demonstrate that immigrants pose a particular threat to citizens or the state.
I mean, "Less than 47% have been conclusively found to not (sic) represent a public safety concern"? What does that even mean?
“Law” and injustice - what we can expect from DHS
Fascinated by some of their language. I would love to know how many refugees were adjusted prior to one year. I would also love to know how cis reviewed 31k admissions by last March. Calling bs on that. They certainly don't need people in person to rerun biometrics.
Homan in Minneapolis blinked … but only with one eye: shooting white people, bad; mistreating people of color, feh!
The memo is Kafkaesque. It says that by submitting an application for TPS or by showing up and attending a hearing, an immigrant is consenting to indefinite detention. We have walked through the looking glass into a dark Alice in Wonderland Word in which words say what DHS says they mean, nothing more and nothing less
Arrest prior to a hearing violates Constitutional Due Process, 'No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property; without due process of Law.'
Judges should thus have the power to annul these arrests, set aside their legal consequences, order appropriate Redress for victims, and sanction violations severely enough to deter recurrence.
Thank you for pursuing this, and trying to get all of us access to the docket. I don't know what the hell is wrong with the judge other than, like the magistrate in Georgia who gave the FBI permission to take ballots, they're not particularly good at their jobs.
And thank you for attending the court remotely so we the public can actually be informed, which is something this magistrate would prefer not happen.
Lastly, thank you for persevering and obtaining and publishing this memo. They really don't want light shown in the corners, do they?
The Trump administration is right to reassert control over a refugee system that drifted toward speed and volume over scrutiny. The Refugee Act of 1980 does not prohibit inspection before granting lawful permanent resident status—it presumes it. If DHS identifies gaps in prior vetting, especially involving tens of thousands of recent entrants, it has both the authority and the obligation to act. Temporary custody during inspection is not persecution; it is sovereign border enforcement. National security is not optional, and neither is integrity in the immigration system. Courts should ensure due process, yes—but they should not micromanage the Executive’s constitutional responsibility to protect the homeland.
Not gonna take a lesson in civics from someone who agrees with labeling protesters “Performative Retards.” GTFO.
Chris, don't feed the trolls. Someone who writes about 'protecting the homeland' is a neo-nazi white supremacist, and not worthy of attention.
Really sad to see such a racist and pitiful guy in the comments, I don't understand people who support indefinite detentions of our neighbors.
He must not realize that if they can come for them, they can come for us all. Not to mention the duty we have to our neighbors, no matter where they may come from or what color their skin may be.
Realistically he's probably just lonely and looking for attention.
How very Anti-Enlightenment. Only Marxists and Islamists require the status of the speaker before entertaining the idea. I’d wager you’re a little of both.
Anti-Enlightenment? Perish the thought?! Do you need a feinting couch before your dumbass vapors give you palpitations?
I’ve got immigration clients who are going to get screwed over because you ethnonationalist freaks are too stupid to learn basic human compassion. Go piss your pants about white replacement somewhere else, you embarrassing loser.
You're whining that representing illegals is getting too hard, and I'm the embarrassing loser. MAGA is WINNING! 🤣🤣🤣
The whole point is that they aren’t “illegal.” They are here legally, after going through the exact same vetting process that Trump had during his last administration.
It's called "consider the source" and I notice you don't contest the statement, you just concoct a bizarre attempt at an insult - which only serves to justify considering the demonstrated bias of the speaker in judging their words.
Why the need to detain—i.e. imprison—even for 48 hrs?
The original 48-hour provision was a maximum of 48 hours to decide if someone, once detained for a reason beyond failure to adjust, was going to be placed into removal proceedings (i.e., deportation). In a sense, it’s not comparable at all to what’s being contemplated here.
Refugees have legal status.
Refugees have legal status and have already been vetted, and these are law-abiding people people who are suing. Don’t be ignorant.
I noticed in your comment to someone earlier that you suggested that they learn the law. I am not sensing that this is an area in which you have experience, and that lack of experience, combined with unnecessary attitude, is a solid reason for the rest of us to ignore these comments going forward.
It does not presume in person inspection and never has presumed in person inspection.
Your comment comes off as probably AI-written. I’d request that you ask your AI to explain the specific provisions of the Refugee Act that support your claims about authority and obligation. For all I know, you could be right about some or all of those claims, but your conclusory statements give the reader nowhere to go to verify or reject them.
Where was the "scrutiny" and "vetting" for Elon, Melania, and the Africkkkaners?
Okay….what was the “gap”??
Hey, boys will be boys, eh?
I agree that that language of the statute is unclear and if we native English speakers don’t understand it, why should anyone expect newly arrived refugees to? What I understand is that refugees are required to apply for an adjustment in status after they have been in the US for one year but those whose status has not been adjusted after one year can be detained and even deported. So if you have applied and are waiting to hear you can be detained? And if you haven’t yet applied you can be detained. Also those who check in as part of their adjustment in status process can be detained for a period not limited to 48 hours. What kind of guidance is this?
Ok, a whole lot depends on a comma, or lack of one, here. The statute reads "return or be returned to the custody of" DHS. Is it to be read "return, or be returned to the custody" or does "custody" also attach to simple and voluntary return to START the green card evaluation? It sound as if the memo says "OK if you go and voluntarily show up but if we have to grab you we have to detain you." If THAT is the rationale, what happens if someone voluntarily shows up at say 14 months to start the process? Are those folks also to be detained even if they showed up 2 months late?
I'm curious how, if you have to wait a year to APPLY for LPR status, you can be someone OTHER than someone (C)who has not acquired permanent resident status.
This is a really screwed up statute. Apparently the typical time from application to granting of LPR status is 2-3 years. THAT long in one of those private prison hell holes when all you did was miss a deadline by not all that much. Does the statute mean that you have to apply on the VERY DAY a year after you got here to be safe? So if you make the application the day BEFORE it doesn't count because you have to wait a year and not doing that make your application void? What happens if the VERY DAY is a national holiday or some other time DHS offices are closed? There must be case law on this, mustn't there?
I've read the vetting process (which all takes place before you even enter the US); if DHS is claiming that this was sometimes lacking under Biden, shouldn't they have to show for each refugee how it was lacking, to allow custody, or do we just take DHS's word that they ALL were lacking, kind of like we have to take trump's word that ALL undocumented citizens cast fraudulent votes?
Glad you can listen to the hearing and eagerly await the outcome.
LawDork needs to appeal to District Court Judge re: access.
detention is a profitable business therefore... FOLLOW THE MONEY (and "homegrown are next)
Thank you Chris.