What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Immigration Judges Forbidden to Use the Word ‘Alien’

excalibur

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2015
Messages
6,199
Reaction score
11,213
Points
2,140
Just more anti-American crap out of the Biden maladministration. Open borders, open border policies, flooding America with illegals. Cloward-Piven at work.

How can anyone who loves America support this mess that Biden is?


In January I analyzed the Biden administration’s plans to alter the terminology used to refer to “aliens”. Those changes are now being imposed on the nation’s 539 immigration judges (IJs) and the 28 members of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). It is a problematic move, because their job is to apply the law, and the main word they are now all-but forbidden to use — “alien” — is the law. The courts should really focus on issuing more decisions, a task they are struggling to accomplish.

On July 23, Jean King, Acting Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) — the DOJ entity that oversees the immigration courts and the BIA — issued Policy Memorandum (PM) 21-27. It “directs EOIR staff, including adjudicators, to use language that is ‘consistent with our character as a Nation of opportunity and of welcome.’” [Internal brackets omitted.]

The quote within that quote comes from section 1 of Executive Order (EO) 14012, issued by President Biden on February 2 and captioned “Restoring Faith in Our Legal Immigration Systems and Strengthening Integration and Inclusion Efforts for New Americans”.

If the president truly wanted to “restore faith in our legal immigration systems”, he would start by enforcing the immigration laws at the border and interior of the United States. With the border a chaotic disaster (largely due to Biden’s own policies), and interior enforcement all-but nonexistent (again, thanks to the Biden administration), EO 14012 plainly does not mean what it says.

In any event, as part of the administration’s policy of promoting “opportunity and welcome”, King told the IJs and BIA members that they must use incorrect wording in their decisions. As I will explain below, this is an extremely sinister precedent, but first let me explain how the verbiage has changed.

In lieu of the word “alien”, adjudicators must now use “respondent, applicant, petitioner, beneficiary, migrant, noncitizen, or non-U.S. citizen”. Adjudicators can no longer use the phrase “undocumented alien or illegal alien”; instead, those folks are now “undocumented noncitizens, undocumented non-U.S. citizens, or undocumented individuals”.

The next one gets really complicated. A minor who was heretofore an “unaccompanied alien child” is now an “unaccompanied noncitizen child, unaccompanied non-U.S. citizen child, or UC”.

When I was a schoolboy, I was taught to never use double negatives, but apparently “The Gods of the Copybook Headings” are dead now, too.

None of these changes has any basis in law (or logic for what that matters), as I detailed in that January post. “Noncitizen” is not a word, at least not in a legal sense, because it includes “aliens” (who can be removed from the United States and non-citizen “nationals” (who cannot).

In the "definitions" provision in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), those distinctions are clearly explained for purposes of applying our immigration laws.

Section 101(a)(3) states: "The term 'alien' means any person not a citizen or national of the United States." Section 101(a)(22) of the INA, in turn, states: "The term 'national of the United States' means: (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States."

Referencing a 1998 dissent from the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a June 2017 post, I analyzed each of these terms and the distinctions between them (and some others to boot), and described how they are used in the law. Simply put, residents of American Samoa and Swains Island are “nationals of the United States” (meaning they cannot be removed under the INA), but they are not “citizens”.

The distinction appears to be lost on King (she does not even mention it, unlike then-Acting DHS Secretary David Pekoske, who kicked off this nomenclature nonsense on January 20), but it is crucial to those American Samoans and Swains Islanders.

The bigger issue, however, is that when it comes to the INA, the now-banned word “alien” is the law. King admitted recognized this fact, circuitously, when she granted adjudicators forbearance in PM 21-27 to use the term "when quoting a statute, regulation, legal opinion, court order, or settlement agreement”. But, if it’s not in quotes, adjudicators better not use it.

...


 

BasicHumanUnit

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
17,769
Reaction score
12,530
Points
2,405
Location
Everywhere needed
A People (of a Nation) unwilling to defend their Country and Liberty deserve neither.

The nation shall crumble exactly as it deserved to and the People will go down with the ship.
 

Damaged Eagle

Angels have fallen
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2015
Messages
18,380
Reaction score
26,015
Points
2,445
Location
Inside a window that leads to your conscience
1627417637760.png


Next up they're not allowed to use the term "illegal" or make reference to immigration law.

*****SMILE*****


:)
 

Rambunctious

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Messages
46,385
Reaction score
31,357
Points
2,605
If any of you had a question about whether or not we are still a free nation...ask yourself if 25 years ago we had forbidden words in America.....
 

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
77,100
Reaction score
27,889
Points
2,250
"alien" is codified into US law
The drooler n chiefs handlers must not have known that.
 

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
77,100
Reaction score
27,889
Points
2,250

JOSweetHeart

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2012
Messages
16,211
Reaction score
3,892
Points
255
Location
East Tennessee
I have never understood why the word "alien" is used in the first place. Until a person looks like E.T., a human being is what they are in my opinion.

God bless you always!!!

Holly
 

beautress

Always Faithful
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2018
Messages
19,772
Reaction score
11,931
Points
1,295
Location
Walker County, TX
Just more anti-American crap out of the Biden maladministration. Open borders, open border policies, flooding America with illegals. Cloward-Piven at work.

How can anyone who loves America support this mess that Biden is?


In January I analyzed the Biden administration’s plans to alter the terminology used to refer to “aliens”. Those changes are now being imposed on the nation’s 539 immigration judges (IJs) and the 28 members of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). It is a problematic move, because their job is to apply the law, and the main word they are now all-but forbidden to use — “alien” — is the law. The courts should really focus on issuing more decisions, a task they are struggling to accomplish.
On July 23, Jean King, Acting Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) — the DOJ entity that oversees the immigration courts and the BIA — issued Policy Memorandum (PM) 21-27. It “directs EOIR staff, including adjudicators, to use language that is ‘consistent with our character as a Nation of opportunity and of welcome.’” [Internal brackets omitted.]
The quote within that quote comes from section 1 of Executive Order (EO) 14012, issued by President Biden on February 2 and captioned “Restoring Faith in Our Legal Immigration Systems and Strengthening Integration and Inclusion Efforts for New Americans”.
If the president truly wanted to “restore faith in our legal immigration systems”, he would start by enforcing the immigration laws at the border and interior of the United States. With the border a chaotic disaster (largely due to Biden’s own policies), and interior enforcement all-but nonexistent (again, thanks to the Biden administration), EO 14012 plainly does not mean what it says.
In any event, as part of the administration’s policy of promoting “opportunity and welcome”, King told the IJs and BIA members that they must use incorrect wording in their decisions. As I will explain below, this is an extremely sinister precedent, but first let me explain how the verbiage has changed.
In lieu of the word “alien”, adjudicators must now use “respondent, applicant, petitioner, beneficiary, migrant, noncitizen, or non-U.S. citizen”. Adjudicators can no longer use the phrase “undocumented alien or illegal alien”; instead, those folks are now “undocumented noncitizens, undocumented non-U.S. citizens, or undocumented individuals”.
The next one gets really complicated. A minor who was heretofore an “unaccompanied alien child” is now an “unaccompanied noncitizen child, unaccompanied non-U.S. citizen child, or UC”.
When I was a schoolboy, I was taught to never use double negatives, but apparently “The Gods of the Copybook Headings” are dead now, too.
None of these changes has any basis in law (or logic for what that matters), as I detailed in that January post. “Noncitizen” is not a word, at least not in a legal sense, because it includes “aliens” (who can be removed from the United States and non-citizen “nationals” (who cannot).
In the "definitions" provision in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), those distinctions are clearly explained for purposes of applying our immigration laws.
Section 101(a)(3) states: "The term 'alien' means any person not a citizen or national of the United States." Section 101(a)(22) of the INA, in turn, states: "The term 'national of the United States' means: (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States."
Referencing a 1998 dissent from the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a June 2017 post, I analyzed each of these terms and the distinctions between them (and some others to boot), and described how they are used in the law. Simply put, residents of American Samoa and Swains Island are “nationals of the United States” (meaning they cannot be removed under the INA), but they are not “citizens”.
The distinction appears to be lost on King (she does not even mention it, unlike then-Acting DHS Secretary David Pekoske, who kicked off this nomenclature nonsense on January 20), but it is crucial to those American Samoans and Swains Islanders.
The bigger issue, however, is that when it comes to the INA, the now-banned word “alien” is the law. King admitted recognized this fact, circuitously, when she granted adjudicators forbearance in PM 21-27 to use the term "when quoting a statute, regulation, legal opinion, court order, or settlement agreement”. But, if it’s not in quotes, adjudicators better not use it.
...


Before I read your great post I was thinking how insane it is to prohibit free speech when the First Amendment of our Constitution gives us all free speech. I have seen the Democrats defend pornography as free speech which it isn't and now they are disallowing free speech on political matters the likes of which appear in the Constitution that disallows persons in power from criminally telling Americans what we the free people can and cannot say. What another can of worms comes squiggling out of this communist nidus by Joe Biden's deep state bosswomen.
 

beautress

Always Faithful
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2018
Messages
19,772
Reaction score
11,931
Points
1,295
Location
Walker County, TX
"alien" is codified into US law
The drooler n chiefs handlers must not have known that.
His communist-leaning handlers believe what they like is already the law, but it isn't.
 

beautress

Always Faithful
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2018
Messages
19,772
Reaction score
11,931
Points
1,295
Location
Walker County, TX
I have never understood why the word "alien" is used in the first place. Until a person looks like E.T., a human being is what they are in my opinion.

God bless you always!!!

Holly
Before 1953 and movies like "Invasion of the Body Snatchers," the word alien referred exclusively to people whose origin was outside U. S. borders.
 

Rye Catcher

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2019
Messages
8,717
Reaction score
5,090
Points
940
Just more anti-American crap out of the Biden maladministration. Open borders, open border policies, flooding America with illegals. Cloward-Piven at work.

How can anyone who loves America support this mess that Biden is?


In January I analyzed the Biden administration’s plans to alter the terminology used to refer to “aliens”. Those changes are now being imposed on the nation’s 539 immigration judges (IJs) and the 28 members of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). It is a problematic move, because their job is to apply the law, and the main word they are now all-but forbidden to use — “alien” — is the law. The courts should really focus on issuing more decisions, a task they are struggling to accomplish.
On July 23, Jean King, Acting Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) — the DOJ entity that oversees the immigration courts and the BIA — issued Policy Memorandum (PM) 21-27. It “directs EOIR staff, including adjudicators, to use language that is ‘consistent with our character as a Nation of opportunity and of welcome.’” [Internal brackets omitted.]
The quote within that quote comes from section 1 of Executive Order (EO) 14012, issued by President Biden on February 2 and captioned “Restoring Faith in Our Legal Immigration Systems and Strengthening Integration and Inclusion Efforts for New Americans”.
If the president truly wanted to “restore faith in our legal immigration systems”, he would start by enforcing the immigration laws at the border and interior of the United States. With the border a chaotic disaster (largely due to Biden’s own policies), and interior enforcement all-but nonexistent (again, thanks to the Biden administration), EO 14012 plainly does not mean what it says.
In any event, as part of the administration’s policy of promoting “opportunity and welcome”, King told the IJs and BIA members that they must use incorrect wording in their decisions. As I will explain below, this is an extremely sinister precedent, but first let me explain how the verbiage has changed.
In lieu of the word “alien”, adjudicators must now use “respondent, applicant, petitioner, beneficiary, migrant, noncitizen, or non-U.S. citizen”. Adjudicators can no longer use the phrase “undocumented alien or illegal alien”; instead, those folks are now “undocumented noncitizens, undocumented non-U.S. citizens, or undocumented individuals”.
The next one gets really complicated. A minor who was heretofore an “unaccompanied alien child” is now an “unaccompanied noncitizen child, unaccompanied non-U.S. citizen child, or UC”.
When I was a schoolboy, I was taught to never use double negatives, but apparently “The Gods of the Copybook Headings” are dead now, too.
None of these changes has any basis in law (or logic for what that matters), as I detailed in that January post. “Noncitizen” is not a word, at least not in a legal sense, because it includes “aliens” (who can be removed from the United States and non-citizen “nationals” (who cannot).
In the "definitions" provision in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), those distinctions are clearly explained for purposes of applying our immigration laws.
Section 101(a)(3) states: "The term 'alien' means any person not a citizen or national of the United States." Section 101(a)(22) of the INA, in turn, states: "The term 'national of the United States' means: (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States."
Referencing a 1998 dissent from the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a June 2017 post, I analyzed each of these terms and the distinctions between them (and some others to boot), and described how they are used in the law. Simply put, residents of American Samoa and Swains Island are “nationals of the United States” (meaning they cannot be removed under the INA), but they are not “citizens”.
The distinction appears to be lost on King (she does not even mention it, unlike then-Acting DHS Secretary David Pekoske, who kicked off this nomenclature nonsense on January 20), but it is crucial to those American Samoans and Swains Islanders.
The bigger issue, however, is that when it comes to the INA, the now-banned word “alien” is the law. King admitted recognized this fact, circuitously, when she granted adjudicators forbearance in PM 21-27 to use the term "when quoting a statute, regulation, legal opinion, court order, or settlement agreement”. But, if it’s not in quotes, adjudicators better not use it.
...


A total waste of bits ^^^, the jerk who wrote the OP is in league (minor league) with other captious clowns.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$95.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top