Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
Public comment posted Jan. 19, 2020 [Note: as of noon, Mountain Time, Jan. 21, 2020, 247 comments had been filed.]
"We are writing as members of the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges to express our strong opposition to the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security Joint Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“proposed rule”) on “Procedures for Asylum and Bars to Asylum Eligibility”.
The Round Table of Former Immigration Judges is a group of former Immigration Judges and Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) Members who united to file amicus briefs and engage in other advocacy work. The group formed in 2017. In just over two years, the group has grown to more than 40 members, dedicated to the principle of due process for all. Its members have served as amici 37 times in cases before the Supreme Court, various circuit courts, the Attorney General, and the BIA. The Round Table of Former Immigration Judges has also submitted written testimony to Congress and has released numerous press statements and a letter to EOIR’s director. Its individual members regularly participate in teaching, training, and press events.
The Round Table opposes the proposed rule which violates the Immigration and Nationality Act, the United States Constitution, and the country’s international treaty obligations. Each member of the Round Table has adjudicated applications for asylum and is intimately familiar with the asylum adjudication process. Accordingly, the Round Table has the following concerns about the additional asylum bars and limits to immigration judges’, appellate immigration judges’, and asylum officers’ ability to exercise discretion in asylum cases. ... [more] ..."
So lets get this straight........You took an oath to uphold the law. Subsequent administrations refused to follow the letter of the law for personal and social gains ignoring the word of the law. But according to that oath you must interpret the law as the word of law. along comes President Donald J Trump and he orders you to uphold the law as it was written, which as you full well know all immigration policy is determined by The Commander in Chief, The Executive Branch of our Government, and this 45th President invokes his immigration policy and you resist.......against the oath you took. You were overruled and ordered to follow the law. And you responded by quitting. Doesn’t that say to everyone that you don't give a crap about the law? Did you only seek to sit on the sacred bench to uphold the law, or just write the law as you see fit outside of what The President says? Which is it because i am a little confused? Are you saying to us from an "elevated" position to throw the word of law away because you don't like it? well if that's the case........why don't i just go out robbing and killing any jack ass i didn't agree with because there are a whole bunch of scumbags in South Florida that could use such punishment. As you have shown since you doesn’t care about the law then just ignore it right? Or is that wrong to ignore murdering and stealing and immigration laws on the books already. Which is it you quitters? / great example to set for the kids BTW / Don't Murder and Steal, but let invaders walk in whenever they want? Or keep them out but still go and rob kill and steal? Or follow both and keep them out and allow the trash and scum and villainy to exist without consequences? Well Quitters.......what is it?