this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2025
376 points (99.5% liked)

News

33272 readers
2746 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The Trump administration is effectively declaring that the nation’s roughly 700 immigration judges can no longer count on civil service rules that safeguard their independence by protecting them from arbitrary removal, according to a Department of Justice memo that was sent to the judges. The memo from DOJ—which oversees the immigration courts—was flagged for me by the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, or IFPTE, the judges’ union, which believes this will make it far easier to fire judges without cause.

The judges and their representatives fear that this is designed to pave the way for the removal of judges who don’t consistently rule against migrants in deportation and asylum cases—and thus frustrate Trump and his hard-line immigration advisers. Replacing them with judges who will more reliably rule against migrants could theoretically speed up the pace of deportations.

“What they want to do is fire immigration judges that don’t issue rulings to their liking,” said Matthew Biggs, the president of IFPTE, “and replace them with judges that will simply rubber-stamp what President Trump wants.”

This represents a serious escalation of Trump’s assault on the immigration system. Last month, DOJ fired 20 immigration judges with no public rationale; those were largely probationary officials. Then, last week, DOJ let it be known that it will no longer observe restrictions that constrain the removal of administrative law judges, a category that decides federal government agency cases and doesn’t include most immigration judges.

But now, DOJ is signaling that it will disregard restrictions on removal for the broad category of immigration judges as well, according to the DOJ memo, which was addressed to all employees of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, or EOIR, the agency within the DOJ that oversees the immigration courts. The memo acknowledges that under current law, these judges benefit from “multiple layers of for-cause removal restrictions,” meaning they can’t be fired at will. But it adds that EOIR “may decline to recognize those restrictions if they are determined to be unconstitutional.”

Translated into plain English, this means that if restrictions on removing immigration judges are “determined” by the DOJ to be unconstitutional, they will no longer apply, immigration lawyers say. It’s only a matter of time until this “determination” is made.

Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20250306122530/https://newrepublic.com/article/192318/trump-immigrant-deportations-low-rage-unnerving

all 44 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dhork@lemmy.world 70 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Remember that these immigration courts are in a separate system than the other US courts. Immigration courts are wholly within the Department of Justice, an agency overseen by the President, and not part of the separate Judicial branch of the government.

While Presidents normally operate the Executive Branch in service of the people, Trump operates it on his own whims. He views it as a corporation, with himself as the only important decision-maker. So he doesn't understand why these people, who technically report to him through the organization chart, don't just do everything he tells them to.

[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 16 points 8 months ago (1 children)

While Presidents normally operate the Executive Branch in service of the people

Not in my lifetime they really haven't, but that is the way it should be

[–] Kichae@lemmy.ca 14 points 8 months ago (1 children)

No, it has been. There hss just been disagreement on who is considered "the people".

[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 0 points 8 months ago

No, it has been. There hss just been disagreement on who is considered “~~the~~ people”.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 34 points 8 months ago (4 children)

If people are still confused why Dem turnout is so low....

It's because Republicans fight and do shit like this, but for four years Biden kept saying a president has zero control over the government.

When one side continuously refuses to take any action, their voters either stop believing they'll help, or even worse, they fall for it and then don't think the president matters. Both of which drastically hurt turnout.

The presidency is important and powerful.

We need to elect Dems that want to do something with that power once elected if we want Dem voters to turnout and vote.

[–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 23 points 8 months ago (2 children)

You're missing important factors like Trump getting help from SCOTUS and agency heads bowing down to him. Biden would never have been allowed to do a fraction of this because none of it would've reached the enforcement stage

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

like Trump getting help from SCOTUS

And he can do that because when McTurtle stole Obama's last SC seat, the DNC and dem establishment let it happen so that could be used as a reason for people to vote for Hillary...

This is entirely the point I was making.

Republicans fight, no matter what.

Dem establishment sees that and goes:

Oooooih boy, everyone better vote for me now so that doesn't happen...

But they don't seem to care if it actually happens or not, and if they win they'll take no action to solve the problem, because in four years they'll get to use it as another stick to convince people neoliberals are worth voting for.

If we ran someone who fought for the people, we'd stop having to worry about what Republicans did when they were in control, because Dems would stop losing easy elections.

Does that make sense?

They've been creating chaos because the only time a neoliberal seems like a good idea is if the only other option is chaos. It's in their best (selfish) interest to never actually fix anything, especially since that's why they get a lot of their campaign cash.

[–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

How were they supposed to override the "turtle" though? Sure they should've fought harder, but what legal options were there?

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

How were they supposed to override the “turtle” though?

By saying the truth...

That the Senate has an opportunity to vote on SC picks, but that nowhere does it say it needs to happen.

So refusal to hold a vote means implicit approval of the selection.

This was widely talked about at the time, but I understand not everyone was politically active back then, and I'd like to take the opportunity to thank you for paying attention now and asking questions

[–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I did pay attention, and I saw noone serious think that would be legal to do

The biggest errors was not pushing harder against his first campaign, not pushing harder during the impeachments, letting Jan 6 go without another impeachment, and not calling out the billionaires helping his campaign with the intent to dismantle agencies that protect people, etc.

The SCOTUS appointments were big issues but due to the timing meaning they happened when dems lacked majorities there wasn't much to do about them. Getting Trump out of the office is the only fix.

Only exception would've been SCOTUS reform immediately after Biden's election when he had a majority, but the problem there is he couldn't get enough votes for it

[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Ultimately the police and military lean heavily Republican, especially at the leadership level. That means they can push things farther than the Dems.

[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 11 points 8 months ago

It's because Republicans fight and do shit like this, but for four years Biden kept saying a president has zero control over the government.

This really can't be repeated often enough, the last four years was such a wasted opportunity for everyone outside of the wealthy companies that got climate money and CHIPS act money and other pork barrel crap. If doing that corrupt bullshit is the only way we get infrastructure and semiconductors then whatever, I'll live with it, but pursuing that crap while ignoring the Republican threat was like baking a cake while the kitchen's on fire.

[–] henfredemars 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I like to say they enjoy playing golf with the leopards.

[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 months ago

It's all fun and games until they eat your constituents' faces. Then it's back to fun and games.

[–] PearOfDees69@lemmy.world 24 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Can a judge or someone in power order the arrest of Donald for being a traitor, this is 100% treason and the law demands for him to be convicted.

[–] SARGE@startrek.website 10 points 8 months ago (1 children)

or someone in power

The people hold far more power than a judge or single government can.

There's no "adultier adult" to come save us this time.

[–] OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca 6 points 8 months ago

This.

Everyone seems to be waiting for someone else to come in and fix things. That isn't going to happen. The American public has to get up and take to the streets to fix this. It's time for patriots to stand up and do the right thing.

[–] earphone843@sh.itjust.works 10 points 8 months ago (2 children)

No, because the president is immune.

[–] samus12345@lemm.ee 10 points 8 months ago

Immune to prosecution, but not to Italian plumbers.

[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

"I am eating this baby on live television as an official act as president. It's going to make for great TV." - Trump, next week, probably

[–] earphone843@sh.itjust.works 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

His approval ratings would go up too

[–] OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca 4 points 8 months ago

They'd say it must be an immigrant baby because it can't speak English. And they'd cheer.

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 21 points 8 months ago

Whoops, all fascism.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Geez I hope some kind of Lee Harvey doesn't show up.

[–] MrNesser@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

Can't wait till they just go fuck this and go straight to the disappearing

[–] bradorsomething@ttrpg.network 5 points 8 months ago

Today on ‘Murica, we ask why authoritarian countries are such shitholes, and we try an experiment to find out…

[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I am sure it is very smart and not at all inviting trouble to piss off 700 people with deep knowledge of the law. You will surely not regret pissing off 700 people with deep knowledge of the law.

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

There is no more rule of law. Why would that matter?

[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

This might be one of the few cases where the Supreme Court might rule against Trump because it means they keep their power.

[–] meowmeowbeanz@sopuli.xyz 4 points 8 months ago

Judicial independence is essential; stripping protections makes courts a tool for authoritarian policies.

🐱