>Froes and Patel are among 113 immigration judges who have been fired during the current Trump administration. According to the National Association of Immigration Judges, six judges were terminated this past weekend alone.
Administrative law judges work for the executive branch and not the judicial branch. They review cases within a particular department of an administration related to 'rules' and not law (I'm paraphrasing). And more than the DOJ has administrative law judges. Social Security has a bunch, HHS has a few. And immigration law **had** a bunch.
647
Perona2Bear2Order25 days ago
+111
Commerce also has judges
111
graveybrains5 days ago
+74
Immigration judges are not administrative law judges. https://ballotpedia.org/Attorney-examiner
74
dregan5 days ago
+67
That's fucked up. The executive branch should not be making rulings. And if they aren't making rulings, they shouldn't be called judges. It's assigning authority where there isn't any.
67
Insensibilities5 days ago
+34
"And immigration law **had** a bunch."
There are 600 immigration judges or somewhere around there - so there are still quite a few, just less who didn't toe the Trump-line:
[https://www.justice.gov/eoir/office-of-the-chief-immigration-judge](https://www.justice.gov/eoir/office-of-the-chief-immigration-judge)
34
lindendweller5 days ago
+78
A 15% réduction in capacity is still a huge reduction.
Well, unless the goal is to deport and dissapear people indiscriminately.
78
BriefausdemGeist5 days ago
+9
Especially considering the backlog of cases.
9
shnieder885 days ago
+7
Blatant weaponization of the judicial system
7
funtimes-forall5 days ago
+1
No conflict of interest there.
1
El_Gallo_Pinto4 days ago
+1
Thanks Kind stranger. Today i learned something new :)
1
Affectionate_Run74145 days ago
+309
*Administration fires 2 judges who wont follow what they want...
309
EndlessSenseless5 days ago
+26
> Judge is hired to do the right thing
> The right thing is not aligned with what the regime wants
> Judge gets fired
welcome to the land of the free
26
SomewhereNo83785 days ago
+303
if dems ever hold office again, they better do a clean sweep of the government from top to bottom
303
EternalGandhi5 days ago
+365
They won't. They'll claim they want to heal and come together across the aisle.
365
shotgunpete22225 days ago
+160
I watched them call Bush a war criminal and rail against the Patriot Act!
Then as soon as W was out of power it's time to heal and oh what do you know, the patriot act has bipartisan appeal now in Congress.
Not like every single warning that was made about the burgeoning surveillance state and declaring citizens as terrorists isn't coming to pass or anything
Edit: bipartisan spelling
160
goomyman5 days ago
+14
Why are you going all the way back to bush.
We literally had a full investigation into obstruction of justice handed to Biden on a silver platter for Trump.
“We can’t charge a sitting president”…. And he’s out of office. Here are the charges. My parents even printed them out.
The Biden picked a Garland - a literal Republican to run the DOJ without even asking if he would charge Trump - or maybe that was the point.
Corruption is what happens when you don’t pursue justice.
All this current corruption started with the previous administrations letting crimes slide.
People will be corrupt but they do so by moving the bar little by little seeing what they can get away with. This is why Trumps second term is so much more blatantly corrupt than his first term. Because all of the laws we thought we had were an honor system and then once that broke down the actual laws were easier to break.
Even republicans admit Trump is blatantly violating the law now and joking about how there will be no consequences - why? It was and is literally their job to ensure consequences.
If you ignore criminals, they don’t stop committing crimes - they push further.
You have to stop them early and apply justice equally - the idea of blind justice and no one is above the law has been utterly shattered. Our society openly accepts government corruption and from their billionaire backers. When you’re laughing about laws being broken openly the criminals have won.
It’s just a matter of time before we start accepting societal corruption from our oligarchs chosen. We are not far from having to bribe our police officers to avoid tickets. Buying get out of consequences free cards from the president is already legalized.
14
FreeUsePolyDaddy5 days ago
+30
It was when we most egregiously ignored the Constitution (specifically the 8th Amendment). Suddenly it didn't matter anymore if torture was expedient. After that, all bets were off. Sooner or later everything could be ignored by an administration.
30
voidox5 days ago
+8
yup, the reality is that the establishment dem are just controlled opposition, they are fine with most of the republican policies they only care about the aesthetics of it all.
just look at how they are talking about the Iran war, they clearly love that Trump is doing it, so they only whine about "omg why didn't Trump ask Congress!?" as if that is the only issue with the war, or now they legit say "he messed it up" basically saying they would have done it better, again no word against the war itself.
8
Epstein_Bros_Bagels5 days ago
+11
I still think they will still have to address the public anger for this. They have only faced anger from committees and meetings, but it will hit when they hit the road. There will be no Kumbayaa for anyone in 2028
11
goomyman5 days ago
+7
100% this. My primary vote goes to the guy who has taken the best notes and will literally open new courts to speed things up.
50k signing bonuses to prosecutors and judges.
7
Substantial-Ad-85755 days ago
+1
Hmm, US Immigration courts are a bit different. Run by USCIS. Judges are hired, do not go through selection or Senate confirmation.
So adding more funding to DHS, routing that to USCIS. Will allow for more US Immigration Judges to be hired. Same with more USCIS workers to sit on behalf of US, as “prosecutors”.
1
FreeUsePolyDaddy5 days ago
+22
Yeah, we've had such great results from that. Sigh.
Even if it worked, which it doesn't, it's an idiotic policy if only one party follows it.
22
CannibalBabygirl5 days ago
+9
If the dems don’t clean out all the white supremacists who have been given power then they will lose the black vote forever
9
Weaver2705 days ago
+1
They were already going 100mph in that direction anyway.
1
_Not_A_Vampire_5 days ago
+1
The US needs to reform the whole system, starting with the removal of the electoral college and first past the post, make way for more parties to form and every vote should be worth the same.
1
mex20055 days ago
+6
It entirely depends on the candidate people cant be voting in the primary the most milk toasts establishment dem candidates and then be shocked when they tow the line.
6
SunMoonTruth5 days ago
+4
Yeah but that’s part of the culture too. Post civil war and all that…
4
ButIDigr3ss5 days ago
+5
even then it was a mistake tbh, and it will have just as many terrible downstream consequences
5
Weaver2705 days ago
+1
See the aftermath of 2008. That tracks
1
Head-like-a-carp2 days ago
+1
Sad, but true. This was Joe Biden's greatest failure. He hired Merrick Garland, and justice was not even attempted .
1
FeijoaMilkshake5 days ago
+10
You mean prosecutions laid on the Jan 6th riots culprit, epstein collaborators, just to name a few, right?
10
AbanoMex5 days ago
-9
both sides are bought off from the same bosses.
-9
TinKnight15 days ago
+17
All the more reason that immigration judges *cannot* be allowed to remain in the executive branch, & MUST be moved into the judicial branch.
If they can be fired for merely following the law, then there's no possibility that the law will be followed when there's a conflict with the executive branch in the future. And if that happens, there's nothing to protect against executive overreach.
17
silver_grain_dust5 days ago
+68
So “independent” immigration judges can be fired for not lining up with the administration’s politics. Totally not chilling at all. At minimum, people should be hammering their reps about real judicial protections here.
68
profesorgamin5 days ago
+27
People happily are eating a bowl of shit as long as the rest of the world has to eat two...
27
b1argg5 days ago
+10
Immigration judges are executive branch employees. They aren't real judges under the judicial branch.
10
PrefersEarlGrey5 days ago
+39
The guy who said we should demolish the Gaza Strip and replace it with Trump branded real estate is treating Palestinians like garbage?
I'm shocked.
Elections have consequences and this is one of them.
39
BuyingDragonScimitar5 days ago
-23
>Elections have consequences and this is one of them.
I agree, a big consequence for Democrats to run a completely unelectable person then get mad at the voters
-23
Neuromangoman5 days ago
+19
I don't think she was any more or less electable than 2020 Joe Biden. US voters just seem to want Trump until he reminds them of what he does when he's in power.
19
BuyingDragonScimitar5 days ago
-7
>I don't think she was any more or less electable than 2020 Joe Biden. US voters just seem to want Trump until he reminds them of what he does when he's in power.
You don't think she was any more or less electable than 2020 Joe Biden but Joe biden won presidency and Kamala dropped out with 3% polls.
Sure.
-7
Neuromangoman5 days ago
+12
There are many reasonable explanations for that kind of polling, like a complete lack of name recognition and a crowded primary. Given that, I don't think polling from months before voting even started is enough to say she was unelectable. If this were VP Harris in 2024 open primaries, just from being more well-known she would have done better (not that I think it's a given she would have won).
Again, I just think that Trump is just a bizarrely charismatic person who somehow speaks to a lot of Americans when there's no undeniable evidence of his incompetence. His populism and rhetoric is able to crush both Democrats and Republicans from the establishment, which we saw in the 2016 and 2020 Republican primaries too. Both Biden and Harris are cut from a similar cloth, with Biden's biggest advantage being timing.
12
BuyingDragonScimitar5 days ago
+4
Not having primaries was an immediate loss
4
Neuromangoman5 days ago
+10
Honestly, yeah. That stems from letting Biden stay in so long when he was showing his age. They should have just run a primary in 2024 and let Harris either rise or fall, and let Biden govern instead since it's clear he couldn't handle both governing and campaigning at the same time.
10
PrefersEarlGrey5 days ago
+14
Yeah about that one, can you give me some reasons why she was a completely unelectable person?
Harris served as District Attorney of San Francisco, Attorney General of California, Senator of California, then Vice President of the United States, arguably the most qualified candidate you can find for the job.
But what about her was unelectable?
14
BuyingDragonScimitar5 days ago
+8
>But what about her was unelectable?
Brother she lost every swing state, was unpopular in her **previous attempt at presidency and she polled at 5% of the african american community where Biden had 43%**
[This](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGZ3E2bEKco)
Please tell me how we were beating trump with that?
8
CommandMaster20635 days ago
Plus she told BBC recently she would like to run again. Ha ha...
0
Maeglom5 days ago
+2
>Yeah about that one, can you give me some reasons why she was a completely unelectable person?
When given the entire resources of the democratic party she was unable to win an election against Donald Trump. It's a bit of a tautology, but her failure to get elected points to her as unelectable, which was a foreseeable problem considering she scored last place in the 2020 primary and only got the VP s*** because Biden promised he'd nominate a black woman as his running mate.
2
UbiSububi85 days ago
+11
She got *75 million* votes
11
BuyingDragonScimitar5 days ago
+8
>She got *75 million* votes
She **LOST EVERY SWING STATE.**
8
UbiSububi85 days ago
+14
By generally small margins.
But that’s not the point, is it?
My point was you declared her “a completely unelectable person,” which is clearly false.
14
Maeglom5 days ago
Right and did she get elected with those votes? No she did not, thus the unelectable.
0
UbiSububi85 days ago
+13
That just means she *wasn’t* elected, not that she wasn’t “completely unelectable.”
Words matter. Precision and accuracy matter.
Catch-alls like “she was unelectable” are reductive, unhelpful, and *wrong.*
13
Maeglom5 days ago
-9
To disprove the claim, she'd have to get elected first. Considering she's 0 for 1 in presidential elections, the evidence leans more to the completely unelectable side. Based on her past performance I wouldn't be willing to support her in another presidential run.
-9
UbiSububi85 days ago
+9
That’s just objectively nonsense.
She was electable. She just wasn’t elected.
9
Maeglom5 days ago
-3
You're being pedantic. OP obviously was a bit hyperbolic when he said she was completely unelectable, but she was clearly not too electable judging by the results in both of her presidential runs where she came last place in both of them.
-3
UbiSububi85 days ago
+3
And you’re being *wrong*
3
_ECMO_5 days ago
+2
If you at any point considered Kamala unelectable and therefore decided to support even the more unelectable Trump, then I don't know what to tell you.
2
BuyingDragonScimitar5 days ago
+2
I love how me saying Kamala was unelectable somehow means I voted for trump
2
_ECMO_5 days ago
+1
There is no relevant difference between voting for Trump and not voting at all.
1
BuyingDragonScimitar5 days ago
+1
Who said I didn’t vote at all?
1
UbiSububi85 days ago
+10
Time to remove judgeships from the purview of the executive branch.
10
Glittering_Cow92085 days ago
+4
Gonna be fun lawsuits!
4
Error_404_4035 days ago
+2
That’s exactly how rule of law was ended in Russia and Belarus. Trump’s administration converts immigration courts into monkey courts.
2
Weaver2705 days ago
+2
Seems like it should not be that easy to fire them. We need reforms.
2
JayPlenty244 days ago
+2
When they try to say "crime is down" just remember how many lawyers and judges have quit or been fired.
A lack of court cases and convictions ≠ lower crime
2
OrranVoriel4 days ago
+2
>It's unclear if the two judges were terminated directly because of their rulings in the deportation cases of the students.
I'm going to file this under "No shit, it's blatant retaliation for ruling against God Emperor Trump"
2
Exact_Insurance79835 days ago
+4
Im glad them Palestine protesters sat home to teach Kamala a lesson.
4
AbanoMex5 days ago
people will always find a way to vote against their own interests
0
DogsAreOurFriends5 days ago
And yet pro-Palestinian protester will disrupt Kamala Harris speaking engagements to this day.
Make it make sense.
0
Extension-Toe-70274 days ago
+1
I can not .
1
mr_sakitumi5 days ago
+1
They preach democracy elsewhere but inside their home.
71 Comments