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.
News
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 biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
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. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
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, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
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.
view the rest of the comments
He should not have. It is best for the agencies to make that call. heck its best for places to make that call at the lowest level and then be responsible for their output. Like teams. Trump is not just threatening though. He is flat out tearing it apart and putting in political apointees. Like the pressroom stuff it is things that were fixed in the past to avoid abuses of power. At some point someone says biden saying he has no power over agencies. Thats was just a stupid thing to say. Biden and all presidents run the agencies and have significant power over them. But the civil service has rights as well. They can replace people, especially agency heads, but are expected not to in a haphazard way in order to not destabilize the country. If every agency head had pushed back at biden he would have backed down because replacing every head would be unacceptable. But if only one or even a few had resisted they might have been replaced because that would have been acceptable. You are comparing the scaple with the axe and its just not the same.
So you think what makes Biden better, is he wouldn't have went thru with it?
Or that he didn't apply the same pressure to the FBI on Trump's investigation, even tho that lack of pressure led to trump receiving zero consequences and becoming president again?
Even if you used paragraphs, I don't think I'd have read all that. There's no consistent logic, so I can't use logic to help you, and that's kind of my whole bag...
I can't help you seeing the logic. Its not a black and white thing so it is hard to see or understand. Its something where you have to in some way have experience in similar things. Clubs or orgs for example. Its funny because you see him pressing a single head to do what he wants for what would be looked at as political gains. ie going after his enemies (this would get compared to what trump did with zelinski back when he wanted the hit job news article fabricated by ukranian press). You are comparing that to putting pressure across the agencies to do something that is relatively a-political (as much as things can be in an age when vaccines are political).
Then why did you say:
You said a president doing this would be unacceptable and lots of people, such as yourself, wouldn't have voted for Biden if he did it...
I informed you that he did it.
So now it's stopped being a black and white thing like you said.
Suddenly, there's shades of grey and it's 100% fine with you that Biden did the thing that you said would be unacceptable.
There's zero logical consistency, so this is the last time you'll ever hear from me.