lionward2014
| Favorite team: | Southeastern LA  |
| Location: | New Orleans |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 12649 |
| Registered on: | 7/30/2015 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: If you own a few business, I don’t suggest claiming you’re unemployed to collect Medicaid.
Posted by lionward2014 on 5/8/25 at 11:22 pm
New Orleans Reddit posters always hated on her, looks like the broken clock was right this time. Alma is outstanding, the horchata was some of the best I’ve had.
0
re: Around the Horn down to four episodes - today’s winner spoke out for trans kids
Posted by lionward2014 on 5/8/25 at 11:12 pm
If biological sex doesn’t matter why aren’t there biological girls trying to compete with biological boys and it’s always biological boys competing (dominating) biological girls.
I don’t get how this is the hill liberals want to die on.
I don’t get how this is the hill liberals want to die on.
re: We have a New Pope - USA - Robert Francis Prevost, now Pope Leo XIV
Posted by lionward2014 on 5/8/25 at 12:54 pm
quote:
Now teams can complain that the refs AND the pope are conspiring against them when they play the Bears
If we stop getting the accidental #Saints with the fleur-di-lis that Francis used to do I'll riot.
re: We have a New Pope - USA - Robert Francis Prevost, now Pope Leo XIV
Posted by lionward2014 on 5/8/25 at 12:43 pm
quote:
Catholic groups under his leadership helped lead an invasion of our country.
Yeah man Catholic Charities started under Biden, and before them NO ONE entered the country illegally. :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
re: Official Warzone Thread: Verdansk is back and it's... actually pretty fun again.
Posted by lionward2014 on 5/8/25 at 9:22 am
quote:
one thing i'm beginning to notice, and maybe it's just me, but it appears that the bots are getting "smarter".
100% they don't just throw a grenade and drop down anymore. They will slide and jump. Their aim is better too.
re: We have a New Pope - USA - Robert Francis Prevost, now Pope Leo XIV
Posted by lionward2014 on 5/8/25 at 8:56 am
quote:
Well people attend services with ole hayseed Billy Bob more than twice a year so perhaps he’s getting something right
Just a little more tithing so Pastor Billy Bob can get his new G6 and prosperity is right there for me!
I say this completely in jest as I have some very good Protestant friends, and they do a way better job in keeping people in my age group (under 35) attending services than us Catholics do. I have noticed a rebirth amongst my age range though in Catholics returning to church.
re: Official Warzone Thread: Verdansk is back and it's... actually pretty fun again.
Posted by lionward2014 on 5/7/25 at 11:28 pm
BR Casuals has absolutely revitalized my love of this game. Played some duos recently too and it wasn’t nearly as sweaty as I thought it would be.
re: 'Due process' was stripped from illegals by President Clinton & Congress in the 1990s
Posted by lionward2014 on 5/7/25 at 11:37 am
quote:
For persons present in the U.S. that did not enter legally all the government must show is that the person is foreign born, then the burden shifts to the person
Fair enough rebuttable. The government still technically has first burden, proving alienage, but it typically is an extremely simple burden to meet.
re: 'Due process' was stripped from illegals by President Clinton & Congress in the 1990s
Posted by lionward2014 on 5/7/25 at 10:39 am
quote:
The burden has never been on the government to prove you aren’t legal.
No it very much initially is. The burden is on the government to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the person is subject to removal under a section of the INA. Once they meet that burden it then shifts to the person to prove to varying levels depending on type of relief that they have a basis to stay in the US.
re: Breaking the immigration laws and then demanding due process?
Posted by lionward2014 on 5/7/25 at 9:47 am
quote:
Does due process require a judge, jury, prosecutor, defense attorney to decide the issue.
No
quote:
Is the verdict then subject to the appeal process etc.
If by verdict you mean removal order, yes there is an appeal process.
quote:
Or should this be handled as a simple immigration matter?
They are but lol that you think it is always "simple."
quote:
How do you provide for tens of millions of trials, how do you pay for the billions of dollars it will cost, how do you apprehend and detain the millions of people charged. It is unrealistic to think that this is even possible. How this issue is resolved will have a profound impact on the country.
Same way that has been happening since the passage of the INA.
re: 'Due process' was stripped from illegals by President Clinton & Congress in the 1990s
Posted by lionward2014 on 5/6/25 at 10:44 am
quote:
Why the sudden cries of due process? Everyone knows why.
As someone who has a career in this field, and vehemently disagree politically with 97% of the others in this field this is my biggest rub.
The termination of CHNV? Started under Biden, no news until Trump terminated.
Random pick ups of people? Biden re-started in early 2024, no federal judge blocked it.
Circumventing Lawful Pathway bar to asylum? No news articles, and it is way more restrictive than the Third Country Transit bar Trump had blocked in term 1.
Selective outrage from "advocates" suddenly stop when the right person is in the White House.
re: 'Due process' was stripped from illegals by President Clinton & Congress in the 1990s
Posted by lionward2014 on 5/6/25 at 10:18 am
quote:
Individuals placed in expedited removal generally have no right to challenge their deportation in federal court
Correct. The large majority of people aren't given expedited orders though, and even then they can still request, and are required to be given, Credible Fear Interviews if they claim a fear of return. If they pass the CFI then they are put into 240 removal proceedings. During those proceedings they are subject to mandatory detention, which I have seen to be a major deterrent to requesting CFI's.
This is why Stephen Miller is so smart, but also so disingenuous. He speaks in half truths that the base eats up, and then gets the Left to start arguing a position that makes them look like lunatics.
re: If you could live anywhere in the US, where would it be?
Posted by lionward2014 on 5/5/25 at 11:55 am
If money was no issue, and logistics of kids weren't an issue probably Jackson Hole, NYC, or San Fran.
re: Highlights of Saints UDFA WR/Returner Chris Tyree
Posted by lionward2014 on 5/5/25 at 8:41 am
Didn't realize we signed him. Was a tweener between RB/WR at ND, no idea about his time at UVA. Seemed to always be capable of making a big play a game, but never a workhorse. Not sure what his physical measurables were, but remember him seeming a bit small.
re: A Judge Has Ruled That Deporting Illegals is Unconstitutional. Lawyers, Explain the Logic
Posted by lionward2014 on 5/3/25 at 3:39 pm
quote:
Need congress to act and pass a bill that defines due process for deporting illegals as only requiring an administrative finding of fact that the person is in the country illegally.
Genuinely curious what you think the process is now because that is the process.
re: Why isn't there law in place saying if you avoid due process becoming a illegal immigrant.
Posted by lionward2014 on 5/1/25 at 11:52 am
Have Congress update our 60 year old laws and they can put that in there if they think it could get the votes to pass. There might be some treaties and conventions we are party to that would limit some stuff, but the GOP controls Congress, so they can make the push needed to withdraw from them.
re: U.S. Federal District Judge: Bans ICE from arresting illegals.
Posted by lionward2014 on 4/30/25 at 3:44 pm
quote:
It needs to be proven they're here illegally in a court of law.
Point of clarification, alienage is very, very, very rarely at issue since it is a factual issue. Even a contested charge, which is a legal issue, is rarely an issue since the most common are 212(a)(6)(A)(i) (people who are present after not having been admitted or paroled) and 237(a)(i) (visa overstay) are pretty clearly met or not. Some issues with charging following certain convictions of LPR's that lead to complications, but pretty rare.
The due process afforded is the due process to seek relief of removal from the US.
re: U.S. Federal District Judge: Bans ICE from arresting illegals.
Posted by lionward2014 on 4/30/25 at 1:42 pm
quote:
This is what I'm talking about. The other was introduced by someone else as a remedy to my question - which didn't make sense to me.
Do we trust the federal government with just "reasonable suspicion"? "Well, he looked like a Mexican..."
I'm on your side here for numerous reasons, but I wanted to answer your question with facts and not opinion.
re: U.S. Federal District Judge: Bans ICE from arresting illegals.
Posted by lionward2014 on 4/30/25 at 1:15 pm
quote:
How is this determined, and under what circumstances? Is hanging out in a Home Deport parking lot sufficient cause for the federal government to harass me and demand to see proof of legality? How about just being on the street having brown hair and brown eyes? There must be some guidelines.
You are asking two distinct questions.
How it is ultimately determined is through the initiation of removal proceedings and DHS proving by clear and convincing evidence that you don't have legal status or no longer qualify for your current legal status. Even if they prove that you don't, you have the opportunity to present relief from removal to stay in the US.
How ICE/CBP picks someone up to put them in proceedings is totally different. It can be a detainer with a local jail, stops based on "reasonable suspicion," or targeted enforcement based on a "tip" to name a few. Like any law enforcement encounter they can decide to detain based on the facts of the situation.
re: U.S. Federal District Judge: Bans ICE from arresting illegals.
Posted by lionward2014 on 4/30/25 at 12:55 pm
quote:
It isn’t difficult to determine someone’s immigration status.
How is it done?
Assuming you are asking earnestly, it is very rarely an issue at play because the person is either a citizen, resident, or on an active visa. Where it becomes tricky is determining if a person violated the terms of their residency or visa. The burden is on DHS to show by clear and convincing evidence at that point that the person in proceedings violated some section of the INA.
Popular
25
