Immigration and administrative law = fun times

USA
Joined February 2021
Replying to @DouglasKBlair
@DouglasKBlair on @Heritage elections podcast you opened with the statement that “stories about noncitizen voting and voter fraud [have] become disturbingly common.” Common is defined as occurring or appearing frequently. How has illegal voting or voter fraud become common
1
1
74
Occurring rarely or in frequently ain’t common
7
Replying to @ReichlinMelnick
@ReichlinMelnick @Arosaflores 1. The transformation of USCIS from a benefits granting agency into an entity putting out fires the Biden administration was lighting around the world is what started this. The Afghan parole program….
1
1,001
2…Parole programs created out of thin air that enticed greater and greater numbers to flock to our borders. Give us all a break from your one-sided, half assed perspective.
1
422
But as usual @Arosaflores turns off the comments so she doesn’t have to experience any concepts that she disagrees with
1
244
Replying to @immreview
@immreview you must be kidding in the latest episode about a future democrat administration abusing an agency’s power. Unlike much of its other actions, this administration is properly using the BIA and its precedential authority. Just because Merrick Garland refused to wield…/1
1
751
…that power doesn’t make the current use an abuse. The last administration abused USCIS authority by creating parole programs out of whole cloth, so the idea that a future democrat administration cannot do something similar and that you don’t want to hear about it is silly 2/2
668
Replying to @whignewtons
@whignewtons for the govt being irreparably harmed when it can’t implement its policies, Abbott v Perez doesn’t bode well for Trumps tariff case. Abbot cited MD v King and both were about a state being unable to effectuate statutes enacted by representatives of the state. /1
1
522
It does not appear that Abbot is well applied to the federal government being unable to implement willy-nilly policies that are not based in the statute
404
Replying to @NeilScottSiegel
@NeilScottSiegel It’s generally inappropriate for a moderator to extensively provide their opinions on the subject. The role of a moderator is to guide the discussion, keep the conversation balanced and on track, and ensure that panelists not the moderator are the contributors /1
1
318
You had liberal panelists that could have adequately expressed your views without your personal input. 2/2
258
Yes @Arosaflores they arrest people who are obstructing justice by interfering with law enforcement making a separate arrest. That’s how things work except for all the immigration advocates who dawn partisan blinders any time something happens they don’t like
unavailable
389
Replying to @Arosaflores
@Arosaflores or perhaps the Trump administration’s bold actions are simply a reaction to the Biden administration unlawfully creating new programs that circumvented congress and the statute. Will we ever hear any acknowledgment of that from you?
unavailable
1
357
Actually we won’t get any contested commentary from you because you are bold enough to put out statements on here but not so bold to accept responses as no one can comment directly to inform you that you could be wrong
183
Replying to @lukerosiak
@lukerosiak What you reported on @morningwire today was only half of the story & it’s the half that makes Elon Musk look good as if they didn’t flub their whole fraud payment message at the @socialsecurity. If you’re going to be a journalist, BE ONE and report the whole story /1
1
1
543
Replying to @mkhammer
@mkhammer a good portion of the federal workforce has civil service protections to keep presidents from creating the spoils system that we had from Andrew Jackson to Garfield, where your politics where is what decided if you got a federal job or not. /1
1
255
Imagine the radical swing left to right if every president removed a significant portion of the federal workforce every time the political party in the White House changed. It would be worse than the regulatory swing that we now experience. /2
1
202
And where do you get the idea that federal workers think they are the most important thing to democracy? I’ve never heard them say that. But you create that idea out of thin air and willingly push it on national TV. Do some research then back up your statements. 3/3
166
Nice that you limit who can reply so you don’t have to see a response. They get to receive them after the individuals depart the plane. We get to decide how the get to that departure point. And find evidence that all of them were nonviolent?
You cannot send a military aircraft to another country without having a discussion with that country’s thoughts on such a matter.
344
Replying to @POTUS
@POTUS Forcing federal workers to return to the office is counterintuitive if the goal is to attract & retain top talent. Telework has become an expectation among similar fields, offering flexibility, improved work-life balance, and that translates into higher productivity. /1
1
350
Removing this option risks losing qualified & trained personnel & sends a message the gov’t is out of step w/the modern workplace making it harder to recruit needed talent b/c what competent & motivated private sector workers want to work for an entity that doesn’t value them 2/2
224
Replying to @JoshMeyerDC
@JoshMeyerDC heard you incorrect statements on The Excerpt this morning. Investigations revealed that the GEC provided a $100,000 grant to the Global Disinformation Index an organization that compiled lists of media outlets deemed high-risk for disinformation. /1
1
461
And finally, internal documents suggest that the State Department attempted to discredit journalists and politicians who exposed or criticized these practices, further intensifying concerns about targeting conservative viewpoints. But will we see a correction, not likely 4/4
1
412
A victim of uninformed politics, indeed. Your statement that one republican’s support equates to bipartisan support is laughable
252
Replying to @immreview
@immreview you asked for evidence of USCIS declining to exercise the discretionary authority to revoke an approve petition based on 204(c) but that won’t exist unless you find officer notes in the millions of A files out interview ask current out former adjudicators. /1
1
253
Every officer has to come to their own determination after reviewing the record (Matter of Tawfik) so they don’t memorialize that determination in a decision they issue to the petitioner
156
Replying to @DavidAFrench
@DavidAFrench listening to the latest episode of @AdvOpinions and I like how you just assume that the allegations against Pete Hegseth are true and conclude that based on those, Ron DeSantis would be a significant upgrade for Secretary of Defense. /1
1
210
Just one more thing. When you exhibit that type of behavior I guess you are working for the right media outlet if you want people to lose trust in your work
1
176
Just finishing up the podcast from today and normal and fair people will likely all agree that you owe Pete Hegseth an apology after characterizing him in the nefarious light you did simply because you have a lifelong grudge against anything Trump. Here are your unwarranted words
143