0
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Posted on 10/23/26 at 3:38 pm to BoomerandSooner
Excellent
Posted on 10/23/26 at 3:39 pm to SDVTiger
quote:
SFP bros in shambles
Due process
-SFP
Posted on 10/23/26 at 3:40 pm to TBoy
quote:
I guess it comes down to the actual provisions of American law. I haven't read the law on this issue so I can't speculate what the Supremes may do.
Oh please don't keep us waiting too long.
Posted on 10/23/26 at 3:44 pm to BoomerandSooner
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I VOTED FOR THE LAST 8 ELECTION CYCLES!!
Posted on 10/23/26 at 4:06 pm to TBoy
quote:
I guess it comes down to the actual provisions of American law. I haven't read the law on this issue so I can't speculate what the Supremes may do.
The interpretation of the law that Bondi stated, and the administration has proffered in court, is fundamentally flawed. There has been 1000's of district court judges (many appointed by Trump 1.0 and 2.0) and 9 out of 11 circuit courts that have disagreed with it. On top of that there have been 5 presidents (including Trump 1.0), 15 Congresses, and numerous SCOTUS cases dealing with detention that have never interpreted the statute that way until Bondi said it did.
The statute they are relying on says that applicants for admission are subject to mandatory detention, and that anyone encountered in the US is an applicant for admission instead of just those that surrender at a port of entry. This makes no sense in the statutory scheme since there are specific subsections of 8 CFR 1225 that deal with who is explicitly subject to mandatory detention, including the recent additions under the Laken Riley Act. It would all be superfluous if everyone was subject to mandatory detention.
Gorsuch is going to have a field day with whoever argues this for the administration IMO.
This post was edited on 10/23/26 at 4:09 pm
Posted on 10/23/26 at 4:20 pm to lionward2014
quote:
9 out of 11 circuit courts
Do you know who is the other that agreed with the 5th?
Posted on 10/23/26 at 4:20 pm to lionward2014
quote:
It would all be superfluous if everyone was subject to mandatory detention.
It should be. And if you are here illegally you should be sent home. Immigration court was never intended for 20 million illegals to flood the country and then demand "their day in court".
And if they do get a court case and argue some nonsense about fear of going home with no evidence.........they are banned for life, it would cut out all this waste of time treating criminals, who by the fact they are in the country proves they are guilty, wasting court time.
Posted on 10/23/26 at 4:25 pm to TigerintheNO
quote:
Do you know who is the other that agreed with the 5th?
P
8th
Posted on 10/23/26 at 4:35 pm to trinidadtiger
quote:
Immigration court was never intended for 20 million illegals to flood the country and then demand "their day in court".
I agree, which is why we have expedited removal that doesn't require any court hearing. It's why locking the border down and limiting the use of 212(d)(5) parole is needed, both things that Trump has done.
quote:
And if they do get a court case and argue some nonsense about fear of going home with no evidence.........they are banned for life,
If you file a frivolous application you are, and if you are deported you are barred for 10 years from return legally.
quote:
it would cut out all this waste of time treating criminals, who by the fact they are in the country proves they are guilty, wasting court time.
Here's the thing, even if you are found removable you can still qualify for relief before the court. The biggest thing that have led to the fight over mandatory detention is because many of the people have been here 10+ years and can/do/will apply for Cancellation of Removal.
I know, I know, "get the frick out" or whatever, but that doesn't change the statutes that allow for relief to be sought before the court.
Posted on 10/23/26 at 5:03 pm to BoomerandSooner
We need to overhaul the fifth circuit to 247 judges. This is outrageous!
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News