Lol. You should.
2 Likes
Amusing skit on that point exactly. 6.8K reactions · 305 shares | What do you need to have with you if ICE asks you? Depends on your status, but more so, depends if you look like me. But then again, what even are laws? 🤷🏼♂️ | Generic Art Dad
2 Likes
There you go trying to reason with feelers, not thinkers again. I’ve decided that route is futile, my energies better spent talking to my neighbors dog instead.
8 Likes
“Subject to”
- Conditional or dependent on something. 2. Being under domination as of an authority or government subject to the whims of the boss.3. Exposed or open to undesirable or unfortunate criticism. 4. The necessity of undergoing something. 5. Liable or prone to suffer something.
Can you work out what “no longer subject to” means or do you need me to explain it to you?
4 Likes
Here. I’ll explain it like I’m taking to a 4 year old.
He was SUBJECT TO removal proceedings. His case being dismissed means he is no longer SUBJECT TO removal proceedings.
Seems to fit just fine under 2, 4, or 5.
Let me know if you need additional clarification.
3 Likes
You’re incorrect.
Have a good day.
3 Likes
Lol.
You’re incorrect.
Have a good day.
2 Likes
I’m feeling generous, so I’ll explain it to you.
When an illegal immigrant has a case dismissed, it means that no verdict was rendered. Their attempt at seeking “relief” was neither granted nor denied, they remain in the same status that they entered the current proceeding as, an illegal immigrant.
Illegal immigrants ARE SUBJECT TO removal proceedings, including but not limited to further proceedings. They remain in the illegal status, you said so yourself here:
And here:
As their case was dismissed, they are absolutely subject to “further removal proceedings”
You are literally arguing against what you said.
I repeat it again. A dismissed immigration case means no verdict rendered, thus no change to the defendant’s status. As there was no change to their status, the are subject to detention and further removal proceedings.
6 Likes
“lol. No.”
The issue you’re having is either not understand what “subject to removal proceedings” means in a legal context or intentionally ignoring the “proceedings” part of that statement.
If you work for an employer, you are subject to their employment policies. If you quit, you are no longer subject to their employment policies.
If you have a criminal case pending, you are subject to the jurisdiction of a criminal court. If the charges are dismissed, you are no longer subject to the jurisdiction of a criminal court.
If removal proceedings are pending, you are subject to removal proceedings. If the proceedings are dismissed, you are no longer subject to removal proceedings. That the case could be refilled, making you ONCE AGAIN subject to removal proceedings is irrelevant.
Illegal immigrants are subject to US law while in the US. By virtue of their status as illegal immigrants, they may become subject to removal proceedings. They are not subject to removal proceedings until there are proceedings to be subject to.
People don’t just become involved with immigration court because they asked the court for something. Removal proceedings are part of the due process involved with deportation.
Thanks for “explaining” though.
3 Likes
Does your single digit IQ allow you to understand that I never claimed criminal charges were not a valid reason to detain someone?
3 Likes
You remain wrong.
A dismissal, or non-verdict, does not change their status. They remain subject to detention and removal proceedings, which never ceased.
There is no magic space or period of time between the judge, his/her ruling and the courtroom door where they stopped being subject to the laws and their consequences. They never stopped being subject to removal proceedings.
They would only be “no longer subject to” removal proceedings when they stopped being illegal, either by granted relief or facilitated removal, deportation (by the Gov or themselves)
3 Likes
I think the point here is we don’t know what proceedings were dismissed.
Was it his asylum application that was dismissed? Which would mean that he’s just an illegal immigrant and no longer an asylum seeker? (Aka subject to deportation)
Was it a deportation order that was dismissed? Meaning he’s got at least some legal standing to remain in the USA…
Maybe figure that part out first? Because this fecal cinema is all over the place! 
4 Likes
You remain wrong.
Nobody said it did.
No. You’re not subject to proceedings when the underlying case has been dismissed. The dismissal terminates the proceedings.
They did. By virtue of the dismissal.
I literally said above that they are subject to the law, which makes them potentially subject to removal. Notice potentially subject to removal, without the “proceedings” part.
Yes, they did, the second the proceedings were dismissed.
Factually false. They remain subject to potential removal, but you can’t be subject to proceedings that have been terminated by dismissal.
You continue to ignore that I’m talking about the proceedings themselves. I have not once claimed that dismissal of an immigration case does not leave the immigrant subject to the laws of the US or that it changes their legal status. “Removal proceedings” and “removal” are distinct terms in this context.
You can be subject to removal while being detained awaiting the commencement of your removal proceedings.
3 Likes
This is the correct way of stating what zoidfrog has been trying to communicate.
3 Likes
“Removal proceedings, also known as deportation proceedings, are an extremely serious matter. The U.S. government is starting a legal process that could result in the person being deported from the United States. In reality, the U.S. government can potentially place any non-citizen into removal proceedings.”
“ §1229a. Removal proceedings
(a) Proceeding
(1) In general
An immigration judge shall conduct proceedings for deciding the inadmissibility or deportability of an alien.
(2) Charges
An alien placed in proceedings under this section may be charged with any applicable ground of inadmissibility under section 1182(a) of this titleor any applicable ground of deportability under section 1227(a) of this title.”
…
(5) Notice
If the immigration judge decides that the alien is removable and orders the alien to be removed, the judge shall inform the alien of the right to appeal that decision and of the consequences for failure to depart under the order of removal, including civil and criminal penalties.
By being here illegally and without a status change, an illegal immigrant does not stop being subject to removal proceedings.
4 Likes
And where the government fails to meet it’s burden, the judge dismisses said proceedings.
An immigrant is not subject to removal proceedings until the proceedings start. They remain subject to removal, not subject to proceedings that are no longer happening.
2 Likes
Dismissal of an asylum case does not automatically make removal proceedings commence. It would make someone with a previously protected status subject to deportation via the commencement of removal proceedings.
2 Likes
ok I am going to say it, in a round about way you both are right.
even though the one of the charges were dismissed, they still have the federal charges of entering the country illegally
my brain hurts now 
4 Likes
This entire conversation happened because people are not understanding that there is a legal distinction between removal or deportation and removal proceedings.
Removal or deportation= government’s end goal
Removal proceedings = the legal process the government uses to achieve it’s goal.
Proceedings against you can be dismissed without changing any of the underlying facts that make you subject to removal.
In the case of a dismissal, proceedings terminate, and in a removal case that means the government does not get the removal order they wanted. That does not stop the government from getting it’s crap together and restarting the removal proceedings process. A dismissal does not make an illegal exempt from enforcement for violation of law. It just means new proceedings are required.
3 Likes
You’re still wrong.
A person remains subject to (fill in consequence) for as long as there is no judgement or conclusion to the (fill in consequence) that they subjected themselves to.
You don’t stop being illegal when your status hasn’t changed. Being here illegally carries with it the consequence of being “subject to” removal proceedings. It remains a “necessity of undergoing something” (removal proceedings) until such time your illegal status is changed or otherwise brought to conclusion (removal ordered, removal facilitated).
If what you actually meant, but did not say, was “no longer subject to THOSE removal proceedings, then you would be technically correct. The statement that you did not make still would not make any of my statements incorrect.
Further, the original post of mine, to which you attempted a smartass reply to, specifically stated “due process”. Due process does include apprehension and detention by law enforcement, I.C.E. in this case, which is an early step in the process. Lander, attempting to prevent I.C.E., was in fact an attempt to obstruct “due process”.
4 Likes