Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, then I guess there are “exceptions” or whatever that means when enforcing asylum law as well
Nope. Follow the law.
As example, a denial through the affirmative process, applicant can apply through the defensive process. You know that. In addition, if a decision is appealed, the process is not complete. So, yes, it depends.
As example, a denial through the affirmative process, applicant can apply through the defensive process. You know that. In addition, if a decision is appealed, the process is not complete. So, yes, it depends.
Protip: the process is complete and done when the judge issues out a removal order. That is the final step
So which is it? Do you want me to enforce immigration law or no?
The process is complete once all appeals are used.
And once all the appeals are used without any success, then comes the removal order. So you expect me to carry out my duty to deport migrants on removal order, correct? No exception, no excuses, and no sanctuary
Also, in immigration law we don’t call it an “appeal”, but it’s a “relief”. Immigration law isn’t criminal law
And once all the appeals are used without any success, then comes the removal order. So you expect me to carry out my duty to deport migrants on removal order, correct? No exception, no excuses, and no sanctuary
Also, in immigration law we don’t call it an “appeal”, but it’s a “relief”. Immigration law isn’t criminal law
For the greater unwashed, "appeal" is understood. You implied a removal was required after the first denial of their "refugee status". I'm glad I could provide clarity and that you agree with me.
And once all the appeals are used without any success, then comes the removal order. So you expect me to carry out my duty to deport migrants on removal order, correct? No exception, no excuses, and no sanctuary
Also, in immigration law we don’t call it an “appeal”, but it’s a “relief”. Immigration law isn’t criminal law
Civil matters have appeals as well. I'm working on responding to one right now.
For the greater unwashed, "appeal" is understood. You implied a removal was required after the first denial of their "refugee status". I'm glad I could provide clarity and that you agree with me.
I'm glad you are also agree with me that there is no compromise/no exception/no excuses/no sanctuary once the removal order is issued.
$1400 a ride to DC. Texas, and Florida taxpayers must love paying for illegals to get bus rides for 10 times the cost of Greyhound.
I’m sure folks don’t mind these poor entitled illegals to be shipped to where folks are for open borders and want them in the country. Nothing but the best for them…but it’s interesting how folks are so concerned with how money is spent by Abbott and DeSantis, when Sleepy Joe has passed it out in hUUUge numbers since he took over.
I’m sure folks don’t mind these poor entitled illegals to be shipped to where folks are for open borders and want them in the country. Nothing but the best for them.
Why not buy them a ticket on Greyhound cost $250 seat. Someone is getting rich likely some GOP operative who figure out how to line their pockets with taxpayer dollars.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
