- 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
re: US authorities arrest Palestinian student protester at Columbia University
Posted on 3/10/25 at 12:15 pm to BBONDS25
Posted on 3/10/25 at 12:15 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
You ever been in immigration court?
Literally 1000's of times, in fact got an asylum granted this morning.
quote:
The rules of evidence are VERY relaxed.
Correct.
quote:
This guy is gone. Legally.
Will depend what IJ he gets in Oakdale/Jena. Most of them are no non-sense and will slap the ICE attorneys down if they can't articulate the factual basis of whatever they charge him with. A conviction under a statute that has precedential CIMT/AgFel consequences would make ICE's job substantially easier.
2
Posted on 3/10/25 at 12:17 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
It has been a while, but I think the standard is "clear and convincing evidence" in this "deportation" context, right?
To submit evidence? Nope. Clearly you have never been in immigration court. It’s fine you haven’t. However…trying to pass it off as you had? Just sad Hank. Stick to bodunct country divorces.
Posted on 3/10/25 at 12:19 pm to lionward2014
quote:
Will depend what IJ he gets in Oakdale
Oh my. We almost certainly know each other. You see Luke today?
Posted on 3/10/25 at 12:21 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Oh my. We almost certainly know each other. You see Luke today?
Interesting. Wasn’t in court up there today, had an IH in Salt Lake City.
I’ll be in those two every other day this week though.
This post was edited on 3/10/25 at 12:46 pm
Posted on 3/10/25 at 12:24 pm to lionward2014
Intrigued. You’re not Todd you’re not Luke. No biggie. Just funny to know someone running in the same circles.
Meanwhile. Let’s let Hank educate us on immigration law.
Meanwhile. Let’s let Hank educate us on immigration law.
This post was edited on 3/10/25 at 12:26 pm
Posted on 3/10/25 at 12:28 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Intrigued
Same, didn’t think I would find another immigration attorney on the Poli Board, although I’ve seen a few ICE guys on here before.
Posted on 3/10/25 at 12:31 pm to lionward2014
quote:
Same, didn’t think I would find another immigration attorney on the Poli Board, although I’ve seen a few ICE guys on here before.
I’m a tax attorney (not in Louisiana) that pretends to be an immigration attorney. If it’s judge Duck.
This post was edited on 3/10/25 at 12:32 pm
Posted on 3/10/25 at 12:31 pm to BBONDS25
quote:No, to support a revocation and deportation ruling.quote:To submit evidence?
It has been a while, but I think the standard is "clear and convincing evidence" in this "deportation" context, right?
Posted on 3/10/25 at 12:32 pm to AggieHank86
Being a jackass Dem.............................good enough for me.
Posted on 3/10/25 at 12:33 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
No, to support a revocation and deportation ruling.
Just bow out of this one. You can’t BS your way in this thread. Back to your other trolling.
Posted on 3/10/25 at 12:34 pm to BBONDS25
quote:Barry, I asked a series of questions, AND I clearly acknowledged that I am not an immigration specialist.
Let’s let Hank educate us on immigration law.
LionWard could probably "educate me." Maybe YOU can do so, but so far all you've done is ignore my questions and hurl insults.
But the villagers ARE giving you upvotes.
This post was edited on 3/10/25 at 12:36 pm
Posted on 3/10/25 at 12:37 pm to BBONDS25
quote:Why?quote:Just bow out of this one.
No, to support a revocation and deportation ruling.
It is my understanding that the government cannot get a ruling for revocation/deportation without having made its case by clear and convincing evidence.
If I am wrong, just tell me and perhaps cite some authority. Stop trying to be cute.
This post was edited on 3/10/25 at 12:42 pm
Posted on 3/10/25 at 12:43 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
It is my understanding that the government cannot get a ruling for revocation/deportation without having made its case by clear and convincing evidence.
Clear and convincing evidence of what, Hank?
While you are googling..make sure to distinguish between an illegal and someone previously. Admissible.
This post was edited on 3/10/25 at 12:45 pm
Posted on 3/10/25 at 12:44 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
I’m a tax attorney (not in Louisiana) that pretends to be an immigration attorney.
Got it.
quote:
judge Duck.
Despised that guy, and Reese (5th Circuit agreed there too).
Posted on 3/10/25 at 12:46 pm to BBONDS25
More obfuscation. For whatever reason, you have chosen not to have a serious or good faith discussion today. Fair enough. Have a nice day, Barry.
This post was edited on 3/10/25 at 12:47 pm
Posted on 3/10/25 at 12:50 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
More obfuscation. For whatever reason, you have chosen not to have a serious or good faith discussion today. Fair enough. Have a nice day, Barry.
an admission you were talking out your arse. I specifically asked which case had which standard. You respond with this? Busted Hank. You’re a fraud. This is what you objected to. A clear question of law:
quote:
Clear and convincing evidence of what, Hank? While you are googling..make sure to distinguish between an illegal and someone previously. Admissible.
Back to ripping off poor families going through a divorce. You aren’t and have never set foot in an immigration court. You dumb frick.
This post was edited on 3/10/25 at 12:53 pm
Posted on 3/10/25 at 12:54 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
It is my understanding that the government cannot get a ruling for revocation/deportation without having made its case by clear and convincing evidence.
Correct, they have to prove the charge in the Notice to Appear by clear and convincing evidence. What evidence they can submit is virtually limitless. The odds are EXTREMELY stacked in ICE's favor.
They could, in theory, question him under oath, and if he admits to the essential elements of a CIMT argue they have met their burden. Now, his lawyer should protect his 5th Amendment rights in that scenario, but I've had an IJ in one of the courts he is potentially in use outside evidence to suppot ICE's argument that the essential elements were met even when ICE didn't argue for that evidence to be considered.
Even if ICE meets their burden he may have waivers available to him, but not nearly enough information available.
Regardless of the outcome, it's good PR for Trump to the base that this story got so much traction. It'll be out of the news cycle quickly, and no one will ever know if they actually drop the ball on removing this guy.
Posted on 3/10/25 at 12:54 pm to LSUbest
It’s cute the lil commies are upset this terrorist is being arrested and deported. If Trump supporting visa holders acted THE EXACT same way these pro-Palestinians have been acting, they’d be be goin apoplectic. Surely wouldn’t be asking, “what are they doing that’s illegal? What’s the charges?” No one is buying that crap.
Posted on 3/10/25 at 12:59 pm to lionward2014
quote:Thank you for the clear and concise answer to what I thought was a straightforward and apposite question.quote:Correct, they have to prove the charge in the Notice to Appear by clear and convincing evidence.
It is my understanding that the government cannot get a ruling for revocation/deportation without having made its case by clear and convincing evidence. ... If I am wrong, just tell me and perhaps cite some authority.
quote:I said much the same thing yesterday. This seems to be much more about the short-term headlines than about the long-term outcome.
it's good PR for Trump to the base that this story got so much traction. It'll be out of the news cycle quickly, and no one will ever know if they actually drop the ball on removing this guy.
Again, I am NOT an immigration specialist. Is it normal for the government to have moved this guy from the Jersey facility (where he had access to family, etcetera) and to a facility more than a thousand miles away in Louisiana? Just seems a bit punitive to me.
This post was edited on 3/10/25 at 1:21 pm
Posted on 3/10/25 at 1:01 pm to HoopsAurora
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. 8 USC 1182 and 8 USC 1227
Note that no “material” support of terrorism needs to be alleged and no formal crime must be committed. Mere speech suffices.
This is the problem that people miss. As someone on a visa you still have less rights than a citizen.
The issue at hand isn't whether he violated 8 USC 1182 and 8 USC 1227 but why was he singled out for doing so? The current administration will say "you got to start somewhere"...
Page 13 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News