Rep. Glenn Ivey @RepGlennIvey
·
Today, I was denied access to seeing my constituent, Mr. Kilmar Abrego Garcia. If there is nothing to hide, cut the crap. Let his lawyer and I check on him.
@CASAforall

Last edited
3:37 PM · May 26, 2025 //

First, let's note that Abrego Garcia is not a constituent. Last time I checked, El Salvador is not a part of Maryland. Abrego Garcia is not a voter or a citizen in Ivey's district in Maryland.

Second, what a strange thing it is to advocate not only on behalf of someone who was an illegal alien and an alleged MS-13 member, but on behalf of a foreign national. Why should El Salvador listen to you about how they deal with their citizen? You're trying to dictate to them and throwing a fit? They might have to grant access to the lawyer, but why should they care about a member of a foreign Congress?

Third, Ivey is supposed to represent his actual constituents, the citizens of his district.

Margot Cleveland
@ProfMJCleveland
·
Follow
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Obama appointee Allison Dale Burroughs enters TRO against Trump Administration in Harvard case WITHOUT a Trump attorney even appearing in case. Yes, TROs can be ex parte BUT THIS IS NUTS because . . .
Margot Cleveland
@ProfMJCleveland
Harvard's lawsuit against Trump Administration was predictable, as was its request for a TRO. Will a court blindly issue a TRO, given there is no immediate harm per the letter? Probably. 1/
12:24 PM · May 23, 2025 //

Josh Blackman, constitutional law professor at the South Texas College of Law Houston and President of the Harlan Institute, wrote Friday:

[We do] …not have time stamps, but the case could not have been on her docket for more than a few hours.

I have a serious question: did Judge Burroughs even read the 72-page complaint and 59-page motion for a TRO? What about all of the pages of exhibits? Did she have any time to reflect upon it or consider countervailing arguments? //

RSB
4 hours ago edited
This is one the administration should openly defy. Not only is there zero legal basis for the TRO and the judge violated multiple TRO rules but SEVP is explicitly not covered under APA (it is just an internal program of INS) and the executive has sole, nonjudiciable authority on issuing and withdrawing visas. They CANNOT be compelled to do so.

Stealing from the taxpayers is one thing, but stealing the franchise is worse. Why? Well, here's why, and I'm going to tell you: The franchise, more than anything else, belongs to the citizens and only to the citizens. The ballot box is one of three boxes in which our right to hold the government to account depends, in addition to the soap box - and you all know the third. The vote is us exercising our self-determination as a people, as a nation, as a country, at every level of government.

And only citizens should have that determination, that privilege, and responsibility to have a say in our government. From the very beginning, this American experiment, this constitutional republic, has been established by the people and for the people - the people being Americans.

Lina Maria Orovio-Hernandez is not an American. She's in the country illegally. She came here illegally, she defrauded the American people for thousands and thousands of dollars in benefits, she stole someone's identity to do so, and worst of all, she stole a portion of the self-determination of the American people by voting illegally.

This is a person that shouldn't be repatriated - not until she has had a trial and, if convicted, a long and comprehensive acquaintance with the American penal system.

"This administration is holding Harvard accountable for fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus," said Secretary Kristi Noem. "It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enroll foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments to help pad their multibillion-dollar endowments. Harvard had plenty of opportunity to do the right thing. It refused. They have lost their Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification as a result of their failure to adhere to the law. Let this serve as a warning to all universities and academic institutions across the country.". //

Noem has been requesting records regarding visa-holding students so they can see if any of them are troublemakers and inciting hate and violence. Harvard has mostly been stonewalling her efforts.

Unless this conflict gets resolved quickly, Harvard can no longer enroll foreign students for the 2025-2026 school year. Existing foreign students, meanwhile, must transfer or they’ll have their legal status to reside in the U.S. revoked. //

bk
9 hours ago
she gave them 72 hours to respond if they don’t want this punishment to go forward.
It'll only take them a couple hours to find a federal judge in Boston to put a hold on it.

thinkingoutloud bk
7 hours ago
DEC 10, 2024 in a 9-0 SCOTUS decision:
"The nation’s highest court unanimously ruled that the head of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) possesses expansive discretionary powers to rescind previously approved visa applications, without being subjected to judicial oversight. This decision in the Bourfa v. Mayorkas case reaffirmed the Secretary’s authority to revoke immigration petitions “for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause” as stipulated in 8 United States Code (USC) §1155."
https://congressionalpost.com/supreme-court-government-can-cancel-immigration-visas-anytime/

Shortly after the US government illegally and unconstitutionally transported about 240 Venezuelans to be imprisoned in El Salvador’s horrific “terrorism” prison on March 15, CBS News published their names. A subsequent CBS News investigation found that 75 percent of the men on that list had no criminal record in the United States or abroad. Less attention has been paid to the fact that dozens of these men never violated immigration laws either.

RUBIO: She was a guest in the United States on a student visa. No one is entitled to a student visa. We deny visas every day, and we will revoke and consider revoking visas.

JAYAPAL: You revoked her student visa based on an op-ed, which trumps the supreme law of the land, which is the Constitution.

RUBIO: If someone is coming here to stir up problems on our campuses, we're going to revoke their visa.

JAYAPAL: She didn't do any of that. She wrote an op-ed. She wrote an op-ed, and I'm talking to you about her particular case.

RUBIO: That's her lawyer's claims and your claims. Those are not the facts.

JAYAPAL: Reclaiming my time. You revoked her student visa because she wrote an op-ed.

RUBIO: Yes, proudly. //

The woman Jayapal keeps bringing up is Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish citizen who has already graduated from the University of Massachusetts (yeah, that checks out). She wrote an op-ed claiming Israel was committing "genocide" in Gaza and demanded divestment from the American ally, providing support for Hamas.

Once Essayli and Co. have determined that someone has committed a felony by re-entering the country, the whole game changes:

"As soon as the task force ID's an alien booked into a local jail who has a previous deportation, they seek a federal criminal warrant on them for felony re-entry, signed off on by a federal judge.

"Unlike an administrative ICE warrant or ICE detainer request, these criminal judicial warrants for 8 USC 1326 CANNOT be ignored by sanctuary jurisdictions, and California's sanctuary state law cannot shield aliens from these criminal warrants. Instead of releasing the alien inmates and ignoring ICE detainers, jails must hand the aliens over to the Feds, regardless of sanctuary policy." //

Bill Melugin @BillMelugin_
·
UPDATE: US Attorney in LA Bill Essayli tells me since our report aired yesterday, he's been contacted by several other US Attorneys in sanctuary jurisdictions around the country, including CA, who are interested in taking part in this operation to "neutralize" sanctuary policies. He has calls & meetings set up to explain how to do it for other jurisdictions.
11:34 AM · May 20, 2025 //

Expect a snowball effect here - for a long time, sanctuary jurisdictions and activists have demanded of ICE "where is your warrant?!". Now, the federal plan is to "flood the system" with criminal judicial warrants which can't be ignored by local jails, and instead of just being deported, the targeted illegal aliens will now go to federal prison first - all due to lack of cooperation from sanctuary jurisdictions.

Largo Patriot
17 hours ago
If Democrats fought as hard for working class Americans as they fight for illegal aliens, criminals and terrorists, they wouldn't have to cheat in order to win elections.

Once Essayli and Co. have determined that someone has committed a felony by re-entering the country, the whole game changes:

As soon as the task force ID's an alien booked into a local jail who has a previous deportation, they seek a federal criminal warrant on them for felony re-entry, signed off on by a federal judge.

Unlike an administrative ICE warrant or ICE detainer request, these criminal judicial warrants for 8 USC 1326 CANNOT be ignored by sanctuary jurisdictions, and California's sanctuary state law cannot shield aliens from these criminal warrants. Instead of releasing the alien inmates and ignoring ICE detainers, jails must hand the aliens over to the Feds, regardless of sanctuary policy.

“These are people that, on the basis of their race, are having their properties taken away from them and their lives are being threatened and in some cases k*lled."

"We've often been lectured by people all over the place about how the United States needs to continue to be a beacon for those who are oppressed abroad. Well, here's an example where we're doing that.". //

RedPanda
4 hours ago
Here's a better question, South Africa claims that there is a genocide happening in Gaza, but has made no effort to take in South Levant Arab refugees, why is that? //

Dieter Schultz
2 hours ago

Rubio: “These are people that, on the basis of their race, are having their properties taken away from them and their lives are being threatened and in some cases k*lled."

Why can't we just quote the text of our own law on asylum? That is:

8 U.S. Code § 1158 - Asylum
(B) Burden of proof
(i) In general

The burden of proof is on the applicant to establish that the applicant is a refugee, within the meaning of section 1101(a)(42)(A) of this title. To establish that the applicant is a refugee within the meaning of such section, the applicant must establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.

There are few people admitted to this country in the last 40 years that satisfy the letter of the US' asylum law, the S. African people are surely qualified to make that claim. Whilst, people that are fleeing poverty, crime, or just a bad marriage or their mother-in-laws don't qualify for asylum.

Robby Starbuck @robbystarbuck
·
Wow. Hillary Clinton just called Republican women "Handmaidens for the patriarchy."

Black people aren’t black if they don’t vote Democrat. Latinos are stupid. Whites are racist. Women are handmaidens. It never ends. 🙄

This is what Democrats think of us.

11:21 AM · May 18, 2025. //

So this is another performance about concerns they allegedly have for family life, but if you had read the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, despite Trump saying he knew nothing about it, if you had read it, it's all in there. It's all in there. Return to the family, the nuclear family, return to being a Christian nation, return to producing a lot of children -- which is sort of odd because the people who produce the most children in our country are immigrants, and they want to deport them. //

So none of this adds up, but, you know, one of the reasons why our economy did so much better than comparable advanced economies across the world is because we actually had a replenishment, because we had a lot of immigrants, legally and undocumented, who had a, you know, larger than normal by American standards, families. So this is just another one of their, you know, make America great again by returning to the lifestyles and the economic arrangements of not just the 1950s. I mean, let's keep going back as far as we can. And, you know, see what happens. //

Hillary proves once again that it’s this kind of elitist snobbery that makes her so unlikeable and unpopular, and why she lost two presidential elections.

Why won't she just go away?

Nevertheless, they believe our order applies to tens of thousands of individuals.

So, you get the sense that the appellate court was a tad exasperated with the plaintiffs' more expansive reading as to who was entitled to exemption from the EO. Nevertheless, Whitehead's subsequent order read as indignant and snippy, particularly toward the administration (but even a bit toward the appellate court). He characterized their interpretation of the 9th Circuit's prior order as "'interpretive jiggerypokery' of the highest order." He concluded that [emphasis added]: //

As anticipated, the administration quickly sought further clarification from the 9th Circuit (and, "in light of the increasingly contentious collateral proceedings over compliance in the district court," a complete stay of the district court's injunction).

On Friday, the 9th Circuit obliged and, in a very succinct order, again clarified that plaintiffs (and by inference, Whitehead) were again reading the scope of the exemption too broadly [emphasis added]:

Our order should be interpreted narrowly, on a case-by-case basis, to apply to individuals with a strong reliance interest arising prior to January 20, 2025, comparable to Plaintiff Pacito. //

Cynical Optimist
7 hours ago
“Jiggerpokery?” A judge actually used that word in an official document?

Susie Moore Cynical Optimist
7 hours ago
Yup. Now - he was actually quoting Antonin Scalia (from his dissent in King v. Burwell). 😂

The order by U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich came amid a lawsuit by Centro de Trabajadores Unidos, an immigrant-rights aid group, against Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.

"At its core, this case presents a narrow legal issue: Does the Memorandum of Understanding between the IRS and DHS violate the Internal Revenue Code? It does not," Friedrich wrote in his order.

(Note: Friedrich, a Trump appointee, is a woman, so that would be her order.) //

Under the tax code, those records are kept confidential and may not be shared outside the IRS, unless a particular statutory exception applies. 26 U.S.C. § 6103(a). As relevant here, one such exception, § 6103(i)(2), allows the head of any federal agency to request tax return information to aid in investigating or preparing for a judicial or administrative proceeding to enforce designated criminal statutes. Id. § 6103(i)(2). //

Also on Monday, Friedrich denied the motion of American Oversight (a group involved in several suits against the Trump administration) to intervene in the case. In doing so, she noted that she was unsealing most of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the IRS and DHS, along with the parties' briefs, thus obviating American Oversight's contention that intervention was warranted to access the documents at issue:

The MOU is a central focus of this litigation, and the information contained in the redacted MOU has been widely discussed, including on the record in open court at the April 16, 2025 preliminary injunction motion hearing. Although the government objects to its full disclosure, it has not asserted a compelling interest or high risk of prejudice with disclosure of the MOU and briefs. The public need for access is high given that the MOU's content is essential to the claims raised by the plaintiffs and the Court's reasoning in its forthcoming opinion on the 28 Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. The Court will not order, however, that the IRS "points of contact" on page 13 of the MOU be unsealed. With respect to those lower level government employees, the Court concludes that their personal privacy interests outweigh any public need to access their names and contact information.

Trump may be getting closer to Obama's recent policy.

ByABC News
August 29, 2016, 2:05 PM //

President Barack Obama has often been referred to by immigration groups as the "Deporter in Chief."

Between 2009 and 2015 his administration has removed more than 2.5 million people through immigration orders, which doesn’t include the number of people who "self-deported" or were turned away and/or returned to their home country at the border by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

How does he compare to other presidents?
According to governmental data, the Obama administration has deported more people than any other president's administration in history.

In fact, they have deported more than the sum of all the presidents of the 20th century.

So we have a person who has been flouting American immigration laws for two decades, apparently never even attempting to rectify the situation. She then flouted motor vehicle laws by operating a car without a license, putting others in danger. That, too, had likely been taking place for decades with no attempt to rectify the situation. For context, California lets illegal immigrants obtain driver's licenses, and what do you think the chances are that she bothered to have insurance?

This "undocumented grandmother" then drove onto a military base, one of the few places in the country where federal authorities have the legal right to demand identification at any time. When she couldn't provide any, because again, she had been flouting the law for two decades, she was detained and turned over to ICE.

Now, that sounds just a little bit different than "undocumented grandma facing deportation for wrong turn," doesn't it?

Look, I understand the argument that illegal immigrants without expanded criminal records (past crossing the border illegally) probably shouldn't be prioritized for deportation. In this case, this grandmother appears to have had a job as a dishwasher, so as illegal immigrants go, she was at least productive, which is more than I can say for a lot of those who were released during the Biden administration. But, we also have to consider that flouting the law in such an in-your-face way, specifically regarding driving without any identification, needs to carry consequences.

Ask yourself, what aspects of the law are citizens made immune to if they continue to break various parts of it for decades on end? //

sb2
26 minutes ago
No, the media did not make any mistakes about the "Maryland dad", just as they didn't make any mistakes here. They are "reporting" precisely as they want to report - misleading (lying both blatantly and by omission) to sway public opinion before the facts are known by the general public so they already have the idea in their head. Make no mistake, if the media has this much of the story to tell in the first place, they know the details. //

BJW,lagos
17 minutes ago
Wrong turn? Remember several years ago the Military (?) guy heading toward Mexico who made a wrong turn to NOT GO INTO MEXICO? HOW much time was he held in a Mexico jail until he was finally freed? Asking for a friend.

In 1949, Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, who had served as co-counsel at Nuremberg, wrote the following as it pertained to a free speech case he was involved in.

“[t]his Court has gone far toward accepting the doctrine that civil liberty means . . . that all local attempts to maintain order are impairments of the liberty of the citizen. The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrine logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.”

I could expand on what this means, but I think Thomas Jefferson does a better job than I ever could when he wrote to John Colvin in 1810:

Whether circumstances do not sometimes occur which make it a duty in officers of high trust to assume authorities beyond the law, is easy of solution in principle, but sometimes embarrassing in practice. A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen: but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property & all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.

This is basically the "don't cut your nose off to spite your face" argument. If following the letter of the law is going to send the country over the cliff, apply some common sense and don't follow the letter. Lincoln said as much in 1861 when he suspended habeas corpus by executive order, telling Supreme Court Justice Roger Taney that he had empowered Gen. Winfield Scott to arrest, and detain, without resort to ordinary processes and forms of law, such individuals as he might deem dangerous to public safety because it served the public interest.

And later during a special session of Congress, he said, "In nearly one-third of the States had subverted the whole of the laws ... Are all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?" It's kind of a unique and odd argument that the left puts out there today. It wants strict adherence to constitutional law, and at the same time, it wants to violate current immigration law (which was, by the way, legally and constitutionally affirmed). And the fact that we have to grapple with this at all is due to the Democratic Party's practice of busting the law as they soar high above it like a drone. It might make them look like children stealing out of the cookie jar when one of their judges gets caught sneaking illegal aliens out the back door, and it's enjoyable to watch them beclown themselves, but all of this is really quite dangerous. //

One final thing I ran across while studying this matter was a couple of obscure passages in the SCOTUS ruling for the Shaughnessy v. United States case noted above.

a) The alien's right to enter the United States depends on the congressional will, and the courts cannot substitute their judgment for the legislative mandate....In the exercise of these powers, Congress expressly authorized the President to impose additional restrictions on aliens entering or leaving the United States during periods of international tension and strife. That authorization, originally enacted in the Passport Act of 1918, continues in effect during the present emergency. Under it, the Attorney General, acting for the President, may shut out aliens whose "entry would be prejudicial to the interest of the United States."

b) Courts have long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government's political departments largely immune from judicial control.

This latest revelation revolves around something that happened in Tennessee, though. As Redstate reported, Abrego-Garcia was pulled over in the state on suspicion of human trafficking in 2022. Highway patrol officers found eight other people in the car, which was registered to a convicted human smuggler. They also found $1400 in cash, which was suspected to be payment for the run. The then-Biden-led ICE never showed up to detain Abrego-Garcia on what would have presumably been federal charges, and he was released.

Now, the convicted human smuggler has not only been revealed, but he's cooperating with the Trump administration's Department of Justice. As part of a "limited immunity" deal, Jose Ramon Hernandez Reyes has confirmed that he did hire Abrego-Garcia to traffic illegal immigrants.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement @ICEgov
·
If you’re in the United States illegally, self-deport now so you can:
• Leave on your own terms.
• Choose your destination.
• Say goodbye to your friends and family.
• Possibly return later — legally, as an immigrant or visitor.
💻Learn more: http://ICE.gov/self-deportation
10:10 AM · May 5, 2025. //

Bill Melugin @BillMelugin_
·
FOX EXCLUSIVE: DHS will announce today that they will begin paying for the commercial flights of illegal aliens who self-deport from the U.S., & they will pay these aliens an additional $1,000 once they are confirmed to have left the country. DHS tells @FoxNews this will save American taxpayers 70%, as it currently costs DHS, on average, over $17,000 to arrest, detain, and deport someone from the U.S., while paying for self-removal flights & the stipend is projected to cost just $4,500, and will be safer for ICE and preserve their resources. Illegal aliens must register on the CBP Home app and file their notice to leave the US in order to receive the financial assistance, and the stipend will only be paid once the alien is confirmed to have left the United States. DHS tells us any aliens who register to self deport will be immediately de-prioritized for ICE arrest and will maintain the ability to return to the U.S. legally in the future. DHS says they have already successfully tested out the financial assistance, recently paying for an illegal alien to fly back to Honduras from Chicago, with more tickets booked this week.
10:00 AM · May 5, 2025

If you want to talk about due process, what about the state's attorney and the victims in the courtroom waiting for the case to be heard, who were left high and dry because of what Dugan did? They didn't find out until later that the case had been adjourned after the state's attorney wondered why the case hadn't been called.

Now, Chief Judge Carl Ashley is blowing up the notion that you can't arrest someone in the public hallway where the agents were waiting, and that the warrant the federal agents had was sufficient.

Milwaukee County Chief Judge Carl Ashley said federal agents have leeway to operate in the hallways of the Milwaukee County Courthouse, even if they only have what's known as an administrative warrant.

Asked to comment on the April 25 arrest of Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan, Ashley said a formal policy for access to the courthouse is still being drafted but the county faces "limitations on what we can do."

"The reality is, for my colleagues, we don't have control in the public hallways," Ashley said.

He said that an administrative warrant, despite lacking a judge's signature, can be used to make arrests in a public hallway.

Dieter Schultz
4 hours ago edited

Milwaukee County Chief Judge Carl Ashley said federal agents have leeway to operate in the hallways of the Milwaukee County Courthouse, even if they only have what's known as an administrative warrant.

I recently read a comment on another site that noted a Catch 22 situation with these 'administrative warrants'.

But what I want to make note of is that the "sanctuary" entities always say they will not accept anything but a "judicial warrant". However, there is no mechanism under the law to issue a "judicial warrant" for violations of 8 USC 1182 or 8 USC 1227 (which all administrative violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act fall under).

They know this, that is why the make a requirement for something that does not exist.

I did a little checking and that seems about right.

The constant repeating of the term 'due process' plays to the public's discomfort with thinking deeply on subjects like the law and what it means to this country.

It's a cute trick if INS can only issue 'administrative' warrants and the left keeps insisting on 'judicial' warrants and the left knows that few people will call them on it and, if someone does call them on it, all the left has to do is ignore the event and wait a few hours until the people move on and forget the previous reveal.

The Justice Department has begun the first criminal prosecutions of migrants who breach a newly expanded military zone at the southern border that is patrolled by U.S. troops, threatening people with additional penalties for crossing the U.S.-Mexico border illegally.

At least 28 migrants were charged Monday with crossing into the 170-mile long “National Defense Area,” a 60-foot strip of land that stretches across the bottom of New Mexico and has effectively been turned into part of a U.S. military installation. Prosecutors added the new charge of violating security regulations in U.S. District Court in Las Cruces to the more common misdemeanor of entering the United States illegally. //

That's a brilliant use of government land. Because the U.S. government owns some of the border areas in New Mexico, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth was able to declare it a "National Defense Area" and turn it into a restricted military installation, complete with patrols conducted by American troops. That immediately upped the ante, making it criminal to cross into the area, allowing federal authorities to skip a variety of legal hoops and head straight to criminal prosecutions that should be open-and-shut cases.