Yes. Nobody claimed a dismissal gives you legal status.
3 Likes
Youâre wrong.
3 Likes
So you know that this personâs case was an asylum case? Or youâre just pulling âfactsâ out of your ass?
Dismissal can mean many things, including removal proceedings being dismissed for any number of reasons.
Doesnât make you legal, but it makes your removal proceedings go away until theyâre refiled.
2 Likes
No. Youâre making an assumption that weâre taking about an asylum case like thatâs all immigration courts do.
2 Likes
Read my posts again.
3 Likes
Iâm not on meds, but itâs starting to sound like you should be.
2 Likes
The one that repeatedly says âimmigration case was dismissedâ and doesnât mention asylum once?
2 Likes
Lol.
I have no masters. Keep telling yourself whatever makes you feel better though.
3 Likes
Greg - you said:
âYouâre making an assumption that weâre taking about an asylum case like thatâs all immigration courts do.â
What I posted:
ââŠThis post has information for asylum seekers whose cases were dismissed before March 2025.
However, if your case in immigration court is dismissed now, you will likely be detained, and put in a faster deportation process called âexpedited removal.â You will likely not have a chance to apply for asylum with USCIS.âŠâ
Please tell me where I made any statement with an assumption that all immigration cases are an asylum case.
4 Likes
Your post about asylum cases that have been dismissed is irrelevant to the question of what type of case was dismissed when the comptroller got arrested. That has been my point. For all we know, it was a removal proceeding that got dismissed, making
Irrelevant.
That asylum cases get dismissed has never been in question.
I said that youâre acting as if immigration courts only handle asylum cases because thatâs what youâre doing here. Youâre assuming it was an asylum case and the person should have been put on an expedited removal process, but nothing that has been shared here actually says this specific case was an asylum case.
But thank you for actually engaging in discussion like an adult.
3 Likes
I included a portion of the information regarding asylum pre-2025 to show that the following text did not include such cases.
A dismissal of an immigration case is a non-decision, no verdict, and leaves the defendant subject to detention and further removal proceedings. That is the exact opposite of your claim:
5 Likes
I said no longer subject to removal proceedings, not immune from further removal proceedings, so thereâs actually nothing inconsistent there. I do see where the confusion is coming from though. My statement admittedly could have been more clear.
I now understand why Enzo was thinking I was saying that a dismissal somehow makes someone legal.
4 Likes
Yes. Things often seem very clear when you assume.
3 Likes
A couple things that these comments arenât addressingâŠ
- If ICE had a valid reason to arrest the immigrant and the New York City Comptroller intervened physically, thatâs obstruction and he can be arrested. Thatâs easy (assuming ICE was within their rights to arrest the immigrant). It appears the Comptroller believed that ICE required an arrest warrant for the immigrant, I donât know if that is true â ICE could have the right to arrest the immigrant based on the court proceeding or if they had direct knowledge that this specific person was illegal.
- What most precipitated the LA demonstrations was a result of Stephen Millerâs tirade over ICE not hitting their quota. At Millerâs direction, ICE then went Home Depots and other places and simply rounded up all the brown people they saw. Many were US citizens and permanent residents. ICE was not working from a list of illegal immigrant names, just going after any brown person in sight. That is clearly illegal. You canât arrest a US citizen or permanent resident without an arrest warrant or a crime being committed.
- Doing this in California was intentional because Trump wants a public fight with blue cities and blue governors. ICE was not going to Home Depots in Red states because Trump knows it harms the local economy, and Trump doesnât care about the economy of Blue states that didnât vote for him. (If you look at the dismantling of FEMA, I donât think Trump cares about the Red states either, but I digress).
- Business leaders have complained that if there was a large round up of illegal immigrants there would be no one left to pick the crops, build the houses, process meats, etc. Most Americans acknowledge that the jobs being done by the law-abiding immigrants â legal or illegal â are necessary and they are jobs that Americans donât want and there are not enough Americans to do them anyway. Deporting a large portion of the law-abiding illegal immigrants would be very harmful to our economy.
- Trumpâs latest directive is to focus ICE operations in sanctuary cities, and to target illegal immigrants with a criminal background â which is where Trump has broad support. And to leave the farms and factories alone.
2 Likes
but, they can be detained long enough to verify
4 Likes
Your original statement is unambiguous and definitive based on the statement itself, without assumptions. However, debating what you meant or intended to say is futile and not worth any of our time.
page/post response to Greg break
For those following along, especially those who are arguing against detention by I.C.E. while simultaneously arguing that you want âdue processâ for the illegal immigrants, you need to understand that locating and detaining the illegal immigrants is part of the process that you claim you want.
When you attempt to prevent I.C.E. (or any other agency), or protest, riot, etc. the detentions, you are taking an active role in preventing, delaying and obstructing the âdue processâ. In so doing, you are fighting against the same objective you claim you demand. If you are preventing a law enforcement agency, agent or officer from enforcing the law, you are committing the crime of obstruction of justice, among other likely crimes (aiding and abetting, possible assault on peace officer, etc and depending on your actions).
You are literally protesting against the law(s) that establish the base/foundation that allow you to be a citizen, thus every right, freedom and protection that accompanies it.
Further, the claim that theyâre (I.C.E.) apprehending people who are not criminals is absolutely and entirely false.
It is an illegal act to enter this country outside a point of entry.
It is an illegal act to be âundocumentedâ or unauthorized.
It is an illegal act to remain in this country after an âundocumentedâ or unauthorized entry.
Commission of an illegal act is committing a crime.
One who commits a crime is a criminal.
That is the definition of a criminal.
100% of the illegal immigrants are, by definition, criminals.
Next, our President, Donald Trump, neither wrote nor changed the current law outlining legal and illegal entry to this country. 8 USC 1325 has been law since 1929. Prior to 1929, there were several laws in place that effectively did the same thing. This law, among others, is now enforced by I.C.E., established in 2003. Prior to I.C.E., other agencies carried out the enforcement of immigration law. INS, for example, directly preceded I.C.E.
Donald Trump did not create these laws or the agencies who enforce them.
It is the role of the President, the executive branch, to implement and to enforce the laws passed by Congress. Again, 8 USC 1325 has been law since 1929. It is not a new law. The President is fulfilling the oath of office.
If your position is that we should not have a law(s) with regard to immigration to this country, you must know that your position then is that we are not a sovereign country. It is your position that we are nothing more than a landmass, no border or line of demarcation, not recognized by any other country or nation, without a government and thus no Constitution, no laws, no rights or protections, no social services. You are no longer a citizen and thus not eligible for any benefit or right currently afforded to you.
Is this really what you want? Is this the battle you want to continue to fight?
If so, good luck.
9 Likes
In YOUR opinion. In my opinion my statement means what it says, not what I believed it said after reading it.
Have you tried not doing that then?
1 Like
It does not matter if I.C.E. had a warrant, which they donât need by the way. They are under no obligation to show anyone other than the subject, or their representative(s), the warrant if they have one.
Apprehension and detention of illegal immigrants is the responsibility of I.C.E. The location of the illegal immigrants, Home Depot for example, does not grant the illegal immigrant citizenship or otherwise change their illegal status. One does not become immune because theyâre at Home Depot, or anywhere else.
You have no idea what âTrump wantsâ unless youâre some sort of clairvoyant. It is a fact that so-called sanctuary jurisdictions attract those breaking immigration law. A pretty obvious statement. Focusing on areas where there is a high likelihood of the law-breakers they seek is efficient and effective. This does not mean he wants a battle with any city or state, it means heâs asking the relevant agencies to go where the criminals are.
Business leaders shouldnât be hiring illegal immigrants to begin with, itâs against the law. Further, there is no such thing as a âlaw abidingâ illegal immigrant. Illegal is illegal, meaning against the law. Itâs not complicated.
5 Likes
âLol. No.â
4 Likes
Great argument ZoldFrog!
6 Likes