Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Silvanus]

So they had visas or some kind of permit?

Yes, 50 of the 90 whose method of entry is known had permission. We've already covered this.

The U.S. Supreme Court held in Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, No. 23-583 (Dec. 10, 2024), that one cannot appeal a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) revocation of an approved visa petition in federal court because such revocation is a discretionary agency decision, thus not subject to judicial review.

Riiight, but 1) this was the revocation of an initial approval, not a revocation of status; 2) the agency still had to provide grounds (in this case, a sham marriage); 3) the text of the SCOTUS ruling states that Bouarfa was entitled to (and did) petition again and receive judicial review.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Phoenixmgs desperately wants to have fewer rights just to be contrarian.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Phoenixmgs desperately wants to have fewer rights just to be contrarian.

He thinks that so long as he toadies up to the powerful, he'll be fine. And really, that's all we should care about.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Yes, 50 of the 90 whose method of entry is known had permission. We've already covered this.



Riiight, but 1) this was the revocation of an initial approval, not a revocation of status; 2) the agency still had to provide grounds (in this case, a sham marriage); 3) the text of the SCOTUS ruling states that Bouarfa was entitled to (and did) petition again and receive judicial review.

Again, that's not true.

Also, not all of those 50 came in legally. even on your source it says of 50 legal immigrants, 45 were through the CBP One app where 24 of them were paroled in, the other 21 were not (how were these considered legal immigrants?).

The state department can revoke visas...

He thinks that so long as he toadies up to the powerful, he'll be fine. And really, that's all we should care about.

What?!?! You think that I think that because I post on some barely visited message board that powerful people are reading my posts and I'm safe?

 

[Silvanus]

Again, that's not true.

You haven't provided anything to rebut what the article says. You've just pointed out that 21 of them weren't "paroled in". That doesn't mean they entered illegally, obviously-- the article is explicit that they entered legally.

The state department can revoke visas...

....with grounds.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

You haven't provided anything to rebut what the article says. You've just pointed out that 21 of them weren't "paroled in". That doesn't mean they entered illegally, obviously-- the article is explicit that they entered legally.



....with grounds.

Just because you use an app doesn't make you a legal immigrant. Also, you never admitted than none of them were legal residents as you have claimed.

State department can revoke visas for whatever reasons they want. If that's what you consider "grounds" to be, then sure.

 

[Silvanus]

Just because you use an app doesn't make you a legal immigrant. Also, you never admitted than none of them were legal residents as you have claimed.

Because they were legal residents. You have been given a source explicitly stating that 50 of them were, and have offered nothing substantive to counter it, except blanket denial.

The entire purpose of the app was to arrange entry through a legal channel. They were permitted it. By the government. Using a government-approved channel. The government granted permission through that app. That you still haven't grasped what CBP One actually did is nobody's fault but yours.

State department can revoke visas for whatever reasons they want. If that's what you consider "grounds" to be, then sure.

So you keep claiming, yet the law clearly lays out grounds on which status can be revoked, and the Constitution clearly lays out protections for all persons from arbitrary detention.

I've asked you to show me the law, or legal precedent, that imbues the State Dept with this power. So let's see it.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Because they were legal residents. You have been given a source explicitly stating that 50 of them were, and have offered nothing substantive to counter it, except blanket denial.

The entire purpose of the app was to arrange entry through a legal channel. They were permitted it. By the government. Using a government-approved channel. The government granted permission through that app. That you still haven't grasped what CBP One actually did is nobody's fault but yours.



So you keep claiming, yet the law clearly lays out grounds on which status can be revoked, and the Constitution clearly lays out protections for all persons from arbitrary detention.

I've asked you to show me the law, or legal precedent, that imbues the State Dept with this power. So let's see it.

Legal immigrants =/= legal residents

Just Google it, many sources say the State can revoke visas for like any reason.

 

[Silvanus]

Legal immigrants =/= legal residents

This is true: legal residents is a broader term that includes both legal immigrants and temporary residents. Someone who has been granted permission to enter via the CBP One app is the latter, but not necessarily yet the former.

Just Google it, many sources say the State can revoke visas for like any reason.

I'm asking you for the law. Because every single act or legal precedent I've found allows revocation of status only on certain grounds.

 

[Eacaraxe]

I'm asking you for the law. Because every single act or legal precedent I've found allows revocation of status only on certain grounds.

Like, you don't understand brah. They can totally do it for like, any reason. Like, man, if they were like standing around, bruh, in front of a Home Depot being all Mexican and shit, like ICE can totally show up and be like, naw bruh. Like, all out in the open with like no badges in plain clothes, dude. That's like totally how doo prawncest works, bruh.

Like any reason. It's like all those activist courts man. They're like "naw Obama said we have to let all the browns in", and I'm like, the ones from Cleveland? They're totally a sports team, bruh. And ICE is like, yeah, let's go get those browns! But it's like confusing, because they're whites when they're away so ICE totally needs to raid Cleveland during a home game when the browns are actually brown! For like any reason, they've never even won a Super Bowl, bruh!

I've caught covid like seventeen times but they keep saying the vaccine is what causes brain damage, but I've never had the vaccine and it's just like a cold anyway. And even I understand the federal government can deport the Cleveland Browns at any time for like any reason. Like, eat a book bruh, get on my level. Maybe some day you can start power huffing Alex Jones' protein powder just like me, it's got extra lead these days so it's Super Alpha Max! brain power food and shit. Like, any reason.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

This is true: legal residents is a broader term that includes both legal immigrants and temporary residents. Someone who has been granted permission to enter via the CBP One app is the latter, but not necessarily yet the former.



I'm asking you for the law. Because every single act or legal precedent I've found allows revocation of status only on certain grounds.

No, they aren't, I've provided sources on that months ago. You still just don't simply admit you were wrong.

That's what every result says and I've provided at least 2 or 3 sources already. What else you want me to do?

 

[Silvanus]

No, they aren't, I've provided sources on that months ago. You still just don't simply admit you were wrong.

That's what every result says and I've provided at least 2 or 3 sources already. What else you want me to do?

"That's what every result says"? You've provided nothing relevant. So far you've provided 1) snippets of text about methods of deportation such as Expedited Removal, which do not apply here and have already been addressed; 2) a page from the American Immigration Council, which contradicts you; and 3) a citation of Bouarfa v Mayorkas, which also didn't establish what you were claiming.

You haven't provided anything whatsoever to dispute that many of these people were legal. You haven't provided anything to substantiate the idea that the State Dept can revoke legal immigration status at whim, without grounds and without notice.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

"That's what every result says"? You've provided nothing relevant. So far you've provided 1) snippets of text about methods of deportation such as Expedited Removal, which do not apply here and have already been addressed; 2) a page from the American Immigration Council, which contradicts you; and 3) a citation of Bouarfa v Mayorkas, which also didn't establish what you were claiming.

You haven't provided anything whatsoever to dispute that many of these people were legal. You haven't provided anything to substantiate the idea that the State Dept can revoke legal immigration status at whim, without grounds and without notice.

This is simply not true:

They entered legally. They were legal temporary residents. Yes, legal residents must legally be allowed to... reside.

You have absolutely zero idea of how the law is supposed to work in your own country.

Temporary vs. Permanent Residency | KGW Law Firm

Learn the key differences between Temporary vs. Permanent Residency in the U.S., including visa types, work rights, and paths to citizenship.

www.kgwlawfirm.com

You simply won't admit from fucking April that you were wrong.

 

[Silvanus]

This is simply not true:

Temporary vs. Permanent Residency | KGW Law Firm

Learn the key differences between Temporary vs. Permanent Residency in the U.S., including visa types, work rights, and paths to citizenship.

www.kgwlawfirm.com

I have no idea how you think this link proves anything you're claiming.

We have so far had a source saying 50 of 90 were in the country legally, and you've provided absolutely fuck all to dispute it. You've just repeatedly denied it, or insisted that even if they're there legally they can be removed without notice or grounds, or just linked to irrelevant articles like the above. It's so goddamn tiresome.

Either provide something that actually substantiates your claim that they were all illegally in the country-- that disproves the source you've already been given-- or move. the. fuck. on.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I have no idea how you think this link proves anything you're claiming.

We have so far had a source saying 50 of 90 were in the country legally, and you've provided absolutely fuck all to dispute it. You've just repeatedly denied it, or insisted that even if they're there legally they can be removed without notice or grounds, or just linked to irrelevant articles like the above. It's so goddamn tiresome.

Either provide something that actually substantiates your claim that they were all illegally in the country-- that disproves the source you've already been given-- or move. the. fuck. on.

You're original claim wasn't that they were merely legal immigrants.

 

[Silvanus]

You're original claim wasn't that they were merely legal immigrants.

Correct, and nor is it now. One can legally be in the country without settled immigration status.

So how are you disputing the fact that they were in the country legally?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Correct, and nor is it now. One can legally be in the country without settled immigration status.

So how are you disputing the fact that they were in the country legally?

How are you gonna dispute the fact that you were wrong?

 

[Silvanus]

How are you gonna dispute the fact that you were wrong?

A source has already been provided stating 50 of 90 were in the country legally, and the Fifth Amendment states no person can be subjected to arbitrary detainment and punishment. So that's sort of the end of that.

 

[hanselthecaretaker2]

Guess this would be considered a woke/anti-woke clash -

Whoopi Goldberg Under Fire For Insisting Black People In The U.S. Have It As Bad As People Living In Iran

Whoopi Goldberg is facing backlash for comparing life in the U.S. to that in Iran during a heated debate on “The View."

www.yahoo.com