Deportation law

The New Neo Posted on by

I think I’ll post most of the comment today from “Brian E,” which quotes Grok. I don’t usually post AI content, but this is so useful that I would like to call attention to it.

You may have noticed that many people criticize the deportations by saying that overstaying a visa isn’t a criminal act but is a civil offense. They’re right that it’s not criminal – although many of those being rounded up are also guilty of crimes. But let’s just stick with overstaying a visa. The fact that it’s a civil offense does not protect the alien; in fact, it removes the protection afforded to defendants in criminal cases. Nor are those people who’ve overstayed visas (or otherwise entered illegally, but are not criminals) being given prison sentences, as in the criminal system. They are being deported, which is a civil action.

I believe the following is substantially true, although AI isn’t always correct. Let me know if you find fault with it. But here it is:

ICE can immediately deport you for overstaying a visa because overstaying is a civil immigration violation, not a criminal offense in almost all cases — and removal (deportation) is a civil administrative process, not a criminal prosecution.
Here’s how it works in plain terms:

1. Overstaying = Civil Violation, Not a Crime

When your authorized stay (marked by the I-94 arrival/departure record) expires, you begin accruing unlawful presence (INA § 212(a)(9)(B)).
This is purely a civil immigration violation — it does not require a criminal conviction or even a criminal charge.
The government does not need to prove you committed a crime to remove you; it only needs to prove you are removable under immigration law.

2. Removal (Deportation) Is a Civil Administrative Process

Deportation is handled through immigration courts under the Department of Justice (Executive Office for Immigration Review), not criminal courts.
The standard of proof is preponderance of evidence (“more likely than not”), not “beyond a reasonable doubt” (criminal standard).
ICE can initiate removal proceedings against you simply by showing:
You were admitted or paroled into the U.S.
Your authorized stay has expired (I-94 shows overstay)
You are still in the country

That’s it — no criminal trial is required.

3. Expedited Removal and Administrative Removal (Fast-Track Deportation)
In many cases, ICE doesn’t even need to go to immigration court:

Expedited removal (INA § 235(b)(1)): Applies to people who entered without inspection or were admitted for a short period (e.g., Visa Waiver Program) and are caught near the border or within 2 years of entry. Overstays can sometimes fall under this if recently entered.
Administrative removal (INA § 238(b)): For non-citizens who are not lawful permanent residents and have been convicted of an aggravated felony — but this is less common for pure overstays.

Reinstatement of removal (INA § 241(a)(5)): If you were previously removed and re-entered illegally or overstayed again, ICE can reinstate the prior order without a hearing.

For most garden-variety visa overstays (e.g., tourist visa B-2 or student visa F-1), ICE typically places you in regular removal proceedings (Notice to Appear), but if you have no legal defense (no pending application, no asylum claim, no U.S. citizen spouse, etc.), the process can move very quickly — sometimes days or weeks from arrest to deportation.

4. Why It Feels “Immediate”

Once ICE takes you into custody (e.g., traffic stop, workplace raid, routine check), they can verify your status instantly via databases.
If you admit the overstay or have no credible claim to stay, ICE can issue a final order of removal very rapidly.
You may be detained without bond (especially if flight risk or prior violations).
Voluntary departure (self-deport) is sometimes offered to avoid a formal removal order, but if you refuse, they proceed to deport you.

Bottom Line
Overstaying a visa is not a crime ? no criminal trial is needed.
Deportation is a civil immigration process ? ICE only needs to prove you are unlawfully present, which is straightforward once your I-94 shows you overstayed.
That’s why ICE can move to deport you very quickly (sometimes in days) without any criminal prosecution.

This has been the law since 1996. President Clinton signed the law.

However, overstaying a visa can segue into criminal behavior rather easily. Here’s the law on that:

Any alien against whom a final order of removal is outstanding by reason of being a member of any of the classes described in section 1227(a) of this title, who—

(A)willfully fails or refuses to depart from the United States within a period of 90 days from the date of the final order of removal under administrative processes, or if judicial review is had, then from the date of the final order of the court,

(B)willfully fails or refuses to make timely application in good faith for travel or other documents necessary to the alien’s departure,

(C)connives or conspires, or takes any other action, designed to prevent or hamper or with the purpose of preventing or hampering the alien’s departure pursuant to such, or

(D)willfully fails or refuses to present himself or herself for removal at the time and place required by the Attorney General pursuant to such order, shall be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than four years …

There’s a lot more at the link, but that’s the basic idea.

What are the goals of George Soros?

The New Neo Posted on by

I promised a while back to tackle this subject, and here’s my effort. I don’t claim to really know the answer – that’s the short version of this post. But I’ll give it a try.

A great many people would probably answer that his goal is to do evil. But of course, that’s not the way he would conceptualize it. He’s also supported some causes that, objectively, seem inarguably good, such as the end of Communism in the eastern European countries. So, what gives?

One hint is the name of his philanthropic foundation: Open Society. What does that mean?:

Under George Soros’s leadership, the Open Society Foundations support individuals and organizations across the globe working to advance human rights, equity, and justice.

So far, it sounds like basic leftist boilerplate.

More:

Starting in Hungary in the mid-1980s, George Soros used his fortune to build a philanthropic network that became the Open Society Foundations—the name reflecting the influence of the philosopher Karl Popper, whom Soros first encountered as a student at the London School of Economics. In his book Open Society and Its Enemies, Popper argues that no philosophy or ideology is the final arbiter of truth, and that societies can only flourish when they allow for democratic governance, freedom of expression, and respect for individual rights—an approach at the core of the Open Society Foundations’ work.

Except for the “no final arbiter of truth” part, that sounds more like classical liberalism or libertarianism.

He started with efforts that weren’t expressly leftist:

George Soros began his philanthropy in 1979, giving scholarships to Black South Africans under apartheid. In the 1980s, he helped promote the open exchange of ideas in Communist Hungary by funding academic visits to the West and supporting fledgling independent cultural groups, as well as other initiatives. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, he created Central European University as a space to foster critical thinking—which at that time was an alien concept for most universities in the former Communist bloc.

With the Cold War over, he gradually expanded his philanthropy to Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the United States, supporting a vast array of new efforts to create more accountable, transparent, and democratic societies.

He then segued into libertarian efforts to end restrictions on drugs and same-sex marriage, the latter of which is certainly a more conventional leftist cause but could also be considered libertarian. The website explains his “evolving causes” this way:

Though his causes have evolved over time, they continue to hew closely to his ideals of an open society.

I suppose that he would consider anything traditional to be non-open – that is, closed. Which brings us to things such as this:

Since 2016, Soros has been donating sums exceeding $1 million to the campaigns of progressive criminal justice reform proponents through the Safety and Justice PAC in local district attorney elections. In many districts, such large contributions were unprecedented and the campaigning strategy was “turned on its head” with a focus on incarceration, police misconduct and bail system, according to the Los Angeles Times.

There’s nothing more “closed” than a prison, right?

Soros also has promoted “death with dignity” euthanasia and assisted suicide efforts; also basically a libertarian and/or leftist cause. He’s become persona non grata in his native Hungary, because (among other things) he backs lots of “migration” from third-world countries into Europe – again, that seems a very “open” and boundary-free cause.

I’ve written about Soros many times before; see this. For post about his Jewishness, please see this, this, and this. Soros was born an ethnic Jew but had zero education in Judaism and in fact he has said the following:

With Soros there’s also the fact that, that although he was born a Jew by the Nazis’ definition—in other words, he was born in Hungary to parents of Jewish ancestry—he was never given any instruction in Judaism and his parents had actually repudiated Judaism. They weren’t just non-practicing Jews (although they were indeed that), they were actually anti-Jewish, according to Soros himself, who said that he “grew up in a Jewish, anti-Semitic home,” and called his parents “uncomfortable with their religious roots.”

So one wouldn’t expect him to support Israel. What he’s said on that subject is this:

“I don’t deny Jews the right to a national existence – but I don’t want to be a part of it”. According to hacked emails released in 2016, Soros’s Open Society Foundation has a self-described objective of “challenging Israel’s racist and anti-democratic policies” in international forums, in part by questioning Israel’s reputation as a democracy. He has funded NGOs which have been actively critical of Israeli policies including groups that campaign for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel

Typical leftist stuff and quite unsurprising.

I’ve probably barely scratched the surface on this, but I think the basic template is Soros’ opinion that whatever he sees as “open” is good, and what he sees as “closed” is bad.

[NOTE: Here’s a summary of Popper’s book about “open societies.” His definition doesn’t seem exactly the same as that of Soros.]

Jack Smith tries to run out the clock in his Congressional testimony

The New Neo Posted on by

Ace covers the story quite thoroughly. A few excerpts:

Brandon Gill grilled Jack Smith on three points:

1, why he had sought the phone records of the incoming Speaker of the House, extending back a year, when he had just become speaker 16 days earlier. This makes it look very much look like a purely political witch-hunt, as Johnson did not have power to run interference for Trump before hand.

2, why he sought these phone records in defiance of a warning from a Biden attorney that doing so would be a violation of the Speech and Debate Clause. (A clause which says that no member of Congress shall be subject to legal process for any statement they make in Congress (later extended to cover any statement they make outside of Congress, so long as it’s part of their work as a congressman.)

3, why he claimed that Mike Johnson was a “flight risk” when he told Johnson’s phone company to hide the fact that his records had been granted to a third party. Jack Smith claimed that keeping this secret was necessary to make sure that Johnson did not take flight from prosecution.

He now admits that Johnson was no flight risk. …

Jack Smith is asking to have questions re-asked because each congresman only has five minutes total time, and he wants to waste as much Republican time as possible endlessly repeating and clarifying questions.

Just think how much power Smith had just a while ago, and how much he probably will have again if the Democrats take the helm any time soon.

Much much more at the link.

The anti-ICE lies that get halfway round the world

The New Neo Posted on by

Whether or not it was Mark Twain who said it, it certainly is an astute and still-relevant observation: that a lie spreads fast and is often impossible to correct.

There are many variations on the theme. The first that’s documented is by Swift:

Besides, as the vilest Writer has his Readers, so the greatest Liar has his Believers; and it often happens, that if a Lie be believ’d only for an Hour, it has done its Work, and there is no farther occasion for it. Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when Men come to be undeceiv’d, it is too late; the Jest is over, and the Tale has had its Effect…

Hear, hear.

Other versions:

By the early 19th century, the idea had spread to the United States and, by 1820 (fifteen years before Twain was born), “the truth” was trying to pull on its boots before starting out after the lie. Various 19th century versions of this have “the truth” pulling on “her boots” or “lacing up her boots.” (Probably because, in classical artistic representation, “truth” often took a feminine form.)

At roughly the same time, people began referring to a lie travelling from “Maine to Georgia” while truth was still putting on its boots.

Liars and propagandists are well aware of the phenomenon, which means that lies are a tactic that often works. It’s a tactic the left has come to use very often, because the MSM is simpatico and complicit in the spread of such lies. That’s invaluable, as is social media.

Which brings us to the fact that last night I was in the company of a friend who was listening to the nightly network news, and it was full of references to some pathetic 5-year-old who supposedly was cruelly mistreated by ICE. And yet today we have this:

A Thursday update to the article said the Department of Homeland Security had confirmed to KARE that both Liam and his father, Adrian Alexander Conejo Arias, were at the Dilley Immigration Processing Center in Texas.

DHS informed the media outlet that “its agents tried to get Liam’s mother to take the boy but she allegedly refused and ‘abandoned’ him.”

In the meantime, Omar’s one-sided version of events posted the previous evening had quickly set off a firestorm on social media. The sensational claim that ICE had arrested a lone five-year-old raced across the Twitterverse overnight, triggering widespread outrage among the Left. Countless users echoed the story uncritically, denouncing ICE and amplifying what DHS later described as a false narrative — before the underlying facts had a chance to emerge.

Conservative influencer Allie Beth Stuckey described the internet reaction in a post on X:

“On Instagram, it’s 2020 all over again. Women, including many, many Christian women, are being completely duped by the anti-ICE propaganda. Believed the “ICE arrested a lone 5-year-old” completely. It’s demoralizing. I am working HARD in my DMs and posts and on my show trying to combat this nonsense and appeal to these women. However, I felt like I was the only white evangelical woman questioning BLM in 2020, and I don’t feel as alone now. There are more of us 5 years later, and I am grateful for that.”

On Thursday morning, DHS published a statement to set the record straight. The agency wrote:

“ICE did NOT target a child. The child was ABANDONED.”

The left doesn’t care. Most of the watchers and readers of the MSM probably don’t care – those images of the child are burned into the brain along with the story.

And this:

ICE agents took that 5-year-old boy in Minnesota to MCDONALD’S, and “played his favorite music to comfort him”

McDonald’s? That’s child abuse right there.

[NOTE: And here’s a list of recently-debunked hoaxes about ICE.]

Fresh water under the ocean

The New Neo Posted on by

Where Alph, the sacred river, ran
Through caverns measureless to man
Down to a sunless sea.

This intrigues me:

A giant reservoir of “secret” fresh water off the East Coast that could potentially supply a city the size of New York City for 800 years may have formed during the last ice age, when the region was covered in glaciers, researchers say.

Preliminary analyses suggest the reservoir, which sits beneath the seafloor and appears to stretch from offshore New Jersey as far north as Maine, was locked in place under frigid conditions around 20,000 years ago, hinting that it formed in the last glacial period due, partly, to thick ice sheets.

That’s pretty nifty.

And then there’s the Board of Peace

The New Neo Posted on by

An strange title, descriptive of a lofty goal and somehow sounding like something out of Orwell: The Board of Peace.

One opinion:

At issue is not a lack of goodwill or insufficient urgency around Gaza. Rather, the problem is structural. The Board’s design, scope, and governance diverge sharply from the mandate provided by UN Security Council Resolution 2803, which authorized a Gaza-specific, UN-anchored, and time-limited stabilization mechanism linked to a credible political horizon. Instead, the Board of Peace was introduced as a quasi-permanent institution, chaired for life, funded through high entry fees, and endowed—at least rhetorically—with ambitions extending well beyond Gaza. Notably, the word “Gaza” does not appear in the Board’s charter at all.

These choices were not lost on the international community. Nor were they merely inferred. Trump himself publicly suggested that the Board might one day replace or supersede the United Nations, and he repeatedly floated roles for the Board beyond the Gaza context. For many governments, this raised unavoidable questions about institutional overlap, mandate creep, and the erosion of existing international frameworks. The result has been hesitation where unity was expected — and absence where legitimacy was required.

“Unity was expected”? Give me a break. The article goes on to say that Europe’s leaders think it threatens the UN – which I am pretty sure it does, but that’s a feature rather than a bug. Speaking of “legitimacy,” the UN has lost all it ever had.

And about those Arab nations:

The pattern among Muslim-majority states is more nuanced, but no less revealing. Eight such states joined the Board, yet none of the Arab signatories did so at the head-of-state level. This was not accidental. It was a signal.

Across the Muslim world, there is broad consensus on a core point: without the Palestinian Authority, there can be no unified Palestinian governance, and without unified governance, there can be no credible path to statehood.

I think the last thing they actually want is Palestinian statehood.

Then there’s Jared Kushner’s presentation on Gaza:

Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, who played a leading role in brokering that agreement, leaned into optimism …

A map of Gaza was pulled up on a screen to show how the enclave would be developed.

A “coastal tourism” zone would run along the seafront — long enough for up to 180 skyscrapers, many likely earmarked as hotels. …

Kushner highlighted two urban developments, which he referred to as New Rafah and New Gaza.

At “New Rafah,” more than 100,000 permanent housing units would be built, along with over 200 schools and more than 75 medical facilities, he said. He expressed hope that the construction would be completed within two to three years. Work has already begun to remove the rubble, he said. …

“New Gaza” is to be a center of industry, with the aim of achieving 100% full employment, Kushner said. Computer-generated images suggest a metropolis bearing a strong resemblance to Persian Gulf cities like Doha and Dubai, with gleaming waterside accommodations and office locations. …

The presentation said that heavy weapons, tunnels, military infrastructure, munitions and production facilities will be destroyed, but it did not dictate how the process will be carried out.

Seems like a fantasy – to put it mildly – albeit a pleasant one. It would take a great deal more than real estate to transform a population raised on hate and destruction into this vision. The optimistic point of view says that the people in charge of this aren’t naive idiots (after all, the Abraham Accords probably seemed absurdly unrealistic at first) but time will tell.

“Trump is right” …

The New Neo Posted on by

… says NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte at Davos.

Yes, he did say that:

And when it comes to the Arctic, I think President Trump is right, other leaders in NATO are right: we need to defend the Arctic. We know that the sea lanes are opening up. We know that China and Russia are increasingly active in the Arctic. There are eight countries bordering on the Arctic. Seven are a member of NATO, that’s Finland and Sweden and Norway and Denmark, Iceland, Canada and the US. And there’s only one country bordering on the Arctic outside NATO, that’s Russia.

And I would argue there is a ninth country, which is China, which is increasingly active in the Arctic region. So, President Trump and other leaders are right. We have to do more there. We have to protect the Arctic against Russian and Chinese influence. And that is exactly what NATO ambassadors decided to do in September. We are working on that, making sure that, collectively, will we defend the Arctic region. …

There was one big irritant on the on the American side with NATO, and the big irritant, since Eisenhower, was that they were spending, the US was spending, so much more than Europe was spending. Even today, the US is spending 3.5% of GDP on core defence; we are spending in Europe average 2% on defence. And here’s my question to the audience. I mean, many of you, I know, criticize Donald Trump, but do you really think that without Donald Trump, eight big economies in Europe, including Spain and Italy and Belgium, Canada, by the way, also outside Europe, would have come to 2% in 2025 when they were only on 1.5% at the beginning of the year?

No way. Without Donald Trump, this would never have happened. They are all on 2% now.

On this Twitter thread from Fox News about Rutte’s remarks, about half the responses are anti-Trump.

I seem to recall that Trump has been harping on this “Europe doesn’t pay its share of defense” message for a long time. He seems to be making good on the goal of making them pay more of their share.

Oh, and Greenland? Stay tuned, but here’s what he’s saying now:

Based on a very productive meeting that I have had with the Secretary General of NATO, Mark Rutte, we have formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland and, in fact, the entire Arctic Region. This solution, if consummated, will be a great one for the United States of America, and all NATO Nations. Based upon this understanding, I will not be imposing the Tariffs that were scheduled to go into effect on February 1st. Additional discussions are being held concerning The Golden Dome as it pertains to Greenland. Further information will be made available as discussions progress. Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, and various others, as needed, will be responsible for the negotiations — They will report directly to me. Thank you for your attention to this matter!

More here:

… [E]ssentially it’s total access. It’s, there’s no end, there’s no time limit. We’re not doing a 99 or 10 year or anything else. You know, the famous 99 year deals that you hear about because countries can’t do it for that countries go on longer. And so I think it’s going to be something that’s very well. Already it’s being reviewed very well. Well, I noticed the stock market went up very substantially after we announced it, but the details are being negotiated now. It’ll be very good.

Pipe dream? Empty braggadocio? I doubt the details will be as rosy as that picture, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the results are advantageous to both the US and Europe – and maybe even to the people of Greenland.

I don’t think the fat lady has yet sung regarding an Iran attack

The New Neo Posted on by

Will Trump or won’t Trump?:

U.S. Central Command, which oversees U.S. forces in the region, confirmed the squadron’s presence in the Middle East with an official photo posted on social media Jan. 20. C-17 Globemaster III cargo aircraft have also flown from Britain to the Middle East on missions that appear to be supporting the fighter squadron’s deployment.

“The F-15’s presence enhances combat readiness and promotes regional security and stability,” CENTCOM wrote in a post on X accompanying the photo. The command did not offer any further comment.

The U.S. military has also dispatched an aircraft carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln, to the Middle East. …

Speaking during a press conference at the White House on Jan. 20, Trump left open the option of some military action against Iran.

“We’re just going to have to see what happens with Iran. There’s a military option,” Trump said.

In recent days, Trump has also suggested he wants the Iranian regime to fall.

“It’s time to look for new leadership in Iran,” he told POLITICO Jan. 17.

The beefed-up American airpower could assuage fears that the U.S. does not have enough firepower in the region, particularly if even more aircraft are deployed.

It’s even possible that the threats regarding Greenland were cover for whatever might be going on militarily regarding Iran.

One thing about Trump, he keeps everyone guessing – even the people who think they have him all figured out for good or for evil.