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.
As to insufficient vetting—why are these immigrants only brown or black (Haiti, Somalia)? What about all those from Eastern Europe (especially ex-Soviets)?
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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?
Explains all the detention camps they want in every state.
Bingo.
As to insufficient vetting—why are these immigrants only brown or black (Haiti, Somalia)? What about all those from Eastern Europe (especially ex-Soviets)?
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.
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.
“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 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.
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! 🤣🤣🤣
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.
It does not presume in person inspection and never has presumed in person inspection.
Why the need to detain—i.e. imprison—even for 48 hrs?
Okay….what was the “gap”??
Hey, boys will be boys, eh?
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?