Now Justice Barrett Uses "Noncitizen" Instead of "Alien"

"Congress has comprehensively detailed the rules by which noncitizens may enter and live in the United States."

Justice Barrett's majority opinion in Patel v. Garland begins:

Congress has comprehensively detailed the rules by which noncitizens may enter and live in the United States. When noncitizens violate those rules, Congress has provided procedures for their removal. At the same time, there is room for mercy: Congress has given the Attorney General power to grant relief from removal in certain circumstances.

Yet, Congress does not use the word "noncitizen." The immigration laws use the word "alien."

Now, Justice Barrett has joined Justice Kavanaugh, Justice Sotomayor, the Solicitor General, and others, with swapping out "alien" for "noncitizen." The lower courts—including the Eleventh Circuit—continue to squabble over this issue.

Fortunately, Justice Barrett did not expurgate the word "alien" from quotations, like Justice Sotomayor did.

Section 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) renders inadmissible an "alien who falsely represents, or has falsely represented, himself or herself to be a citizen of the United States for any purpose or benefit under" state or federal law.

In Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, 589 U. S. ___ (2020), we had to decide whether subparagraph (C)—which bars review of "any final order of removal against an alien who is removable by reason of having committed" certain criminal offenses—prohibits review of how a legal standard applies to undisputed facts.

Meanwhile, Justice Gorsuch's dissent that ruled for Patel, which was joined by the Court's progressives, used the word "alien" repeatedly.

Comments

[Mr. Bumble]

First thing we do is change the meaning of words to fit the narrative.

Very depressing to see this.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Like groomer for instance?

[DaivdBehar]

I predicted she would go Swamp in 2 years, living in the rent seeking capital, Washington. This know nothing, scumbag, elitist lawyer did so in 2 months.

[DaivdBehar]

I like, illegales.

[DaivdBehar]

Euphemisms have an expiration date. Moron became mentally retarded became intellectually disabled. I will start calling the lawyer intellectually disabled, which is accurate. The parents will feel hurt and make ID politically incorrect.

Alien replaced wetback. Now, noncitizen has to replace alien, to avoid hurting the feelings of people who do not speak English.

That lawyer is really ID.

[DaivdBehar]

Right now, I also like the D word, diverse, used a noun. Here it is used in a sentence. Look at that video capture, that criminal is a diverse.

[Don Nico]

LTG,
What the hell is a “groomer.” I’ve never seen the word except in VC comments

[DaivdBehar]

A groomer is a Democrat advocate who wants to normalize the butt banging of children. He sets up a curriculum starting in kindergarten to indoctrinate our children into accepting that as totally normal and healthy.

[Krychek_2]

In other words, it’s a fictional character.

[DaivdBehar]

Then why did the Lower Merion school district spend $25000 on legal fees to block my right to know law request for the curriculum and lesson plan on this subject?

[DaivdBehar]

If I want to see the indoctrination sessions our children are being subjected to, I will have to sue in federal court and do discovery. They will fight it tooth and nail for some reason. Should all curicula and lesson plans be posted on the website, so parents and students can keep up with their assignments? Why the secrecy?

A parent got access to the material in another district. He wanted to speak into a recorder about the material. He was expelled. A court is deciding whether speaking into a recorder about the material he was allowed to read only on the premises, and could not take away, is a violation of free speech rights.

[Krychek_2]

My strong suspicion is that there’s more to the story than what you’re reporting. But assume there isn’t — assume that the facts are as you’re reporting them, and you’ve left nothing out, and put nothing in.

The most probable explanation is that school administrators have figured out that they can’t win the shell game you’re playing, so they’ve decided not to play. They know that the most innocuous statement will be taken by people such as yourself and turned into a screamfest that has little to do with what’s actually in the lesson plan.

Now, whether that strategy is wise, or even constitutional, is a separate question. But that’s the most likely explanation. My brother learned long ago not to share information with his mother in law because anything he said, she would completely twist until she made it look like he was Hitler, Ted Bundy and Beelzebub all rolled into one. So he just stopped talking to her. Her rabid speculation about what she wasn’t being told was actually less harmful than her vicious twisting of what she was told. Same principle applies here.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not quite fictional, (As you’d realize on thinking about the fact that sex offenders do exist.) but like most extreme deviations from normal behavior, hardly common.

The current controversy is about fighting efforts to move the window of acceptable behavior in their direction, which would obviously make them more common, and give them greater cover.

[Sarcastr0]

Ah yes. Don’t teach about sex in school lest you enable to molesters.

That’s some weak-ass causality, Brett.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why do you people think 4 and 5 year olds need how to blow older guys and take it in the ass?

Just curious.

[Krychek_2]

Who thinks that, BCD? Find me an actual person who actually thinks that.

[bevis the lumberjack]

The groomer thing is ridiculous culture war bullshit. But so is teaching kindergarteners and third graders about sex (straight, gay, with animals, whatever) and about intersectionality/crt/anti-racism however you want to label it.

If the culture warriors of all stripes would shut up and go away, or even just leave the schools alone, we’d all be a lot better off. But they can’t seem to control themselves.

[Brett Bellmore]

Granted, in the case of my link it was six year olds, but, still…

There is, I will grant, a case to be made for teaching children something about sex shortly before or at the time of puberty. Bringing up the topic years before seems to have some motive besides educational.

[Krychek_2]

I don’t think there’s any reason to set aside time for the specific purpose of discussing sex with five year olds. That said, excluding the topic altogether is impossible. What, for example, is a teacher supposed to say when a child asks about a classmate with two mommies or two daddies?

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, masturbation is not the same as blowing men. Which is what BCD said.
Weird you’d conflate the two. Pretty different, really. Unless you’re just looking for outrage.

Also that person resigned.

So this anecdote is doubly not on point, in addition to being a mere anecdote.

[bevis the lumberjack]

You say something along the lines of “his/her parents love each other like yours do” and let it go at that. No point in getting into the specifics of how they have sex, just like you wouldn’t if his parents were man and woman.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

“Why do you people think 4 and 5 year olds need how to blow older guys and take it in the ass? Just curious.”

How is that civility standard you have claimed to enforce coming along, Prof. Volokh?

Comments like this one — which appear regularly, sometimes daily — could incline some observers to wonder whether you were truthful and serious when you ascribed the censorship of some comments at this blog to enforcement of “civility standards.”

You can continue ignore the issue, Prof. Volokh, but not the consequences of the problem. Viewpoint-driven censorship — compounded by demonstrable hypocrisy — is a bad look at a blog that purports to be a principled champion of free expression.

[not me]

Oh.
I was wondering who BravoCharlieDelta used to be.
Now I know.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

BravoCharlieDelta — by any name — was, is, and will be the Volokh Conspiracy’s target audience.

[Krychek_2]

Brett, any movement as large as the gay movement is going to have its lunatic nutcase fringe, and God knows so does yours. So I have no doubt that if you look long enough and hard enough you will find some crazy person somewhere who thinks children should be sexualized.

But the idea that that is the view of all, or most, or even a significant percentage of, the gay rights movement is just silly.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don’t think it IS most, or even a large fraction of, ‘gays’. Nor even the ‘gay’ rights movement in general.

But movements tend to be captured by extremists. All sorts of movements are subject this dynamic. Pro-choice movements are led by people who want elective abortion right up to full term delivery. Pro-life movements are led by people who consider many forms of birth control to be murder. The gun control movement by people who want complete civilian disarmament, gun rights organizations by people who want full auto machine guns sold mail order.

And the ‘gay’ rights movement would not be an exception to this tendency.

Exacerbating this dynamic is the tendency to deny that your own cause exhibits it…

[Sarcastr0]

You don’t get to just make that assumption based on your take on general trends.

If you’re making a factual claim, especially one with such explosively negative implications, you should probably back it up with actual facts.

[Currentsitguy]

I don’t think it’s out of the pale to state that generally speaking movements aren’t led by people looking for the happy middle ground.

[Sarcastr0]

If you’re just talking about general trends, I agree that’s a cogent and legitimate statement.
But Brett is using it to argue for a specific agenda he has zero evidence is present.
Springboarding off general tendencies of advocacy groups to argue that gay rights movement is now working to make pedophilia more acceptable is beyond the pale.

(i.e.: “efforts to move the window of acceptable behavior in their direction, which would obviously make them more common, and give them greater cover.” – the them in this case is child molesters.)

I’d say you need particularized evidence of that to argue it.

[Krychek_2]

Currentitguy, as a general proposition, that may be true. But I’m not seeing a lot of evidence that the gay rights movement is run by people with a pedophile agenda, which has not stopped homophobes from accusing it of having a pedophile agenda for as long as there’s been a gay rights movement.

Many years ago (I think it was around 1980 or thereabouts) there was a group of organized pedophiles that wanted to march in the San Francisco gay pride parade. They were initially told no, threatened to sue, and were then permitted to march under threat of a lawsuit if they didn’t. The parade organizers got legal advice that such a lawsuit would fail on First Amendment grounds, so the pedophiles weren’t allowed to march after that.

So what happened? Opponents of the gay rights movement have talked for the last forty years about how gays allow pedophiles to march in their parades, ignoring that it was one time only, and then only under duress because the parade organizers weren’t sure of the legalities.

[bevis the lumberjack]

You shouldn’t make that assumption but when it’s happening in some cases and people are fighting to be allowed to do it and pouting when they can’t there’s going to be a reaction. Particularly as the majority of people disagree with doing it as you point out.

[Sarcastr0]

Don – Grooming is the act of a child molester buttering up a child over time.

Groomers are pedophiles.

The right is really off the deep end when they deploy that rhetoric.

[Bob from Ohio]

You are being too narrow. Its not only about attracting a specific child into a specific relationship.

Its convincing a young child they are really gay or queer. Of course plenty of teachers enter into illegal sexual relationships as well.

“The right is really off the deep end when they deploy that rhetoric.”

No more than libs who freely call people they disagree with racists or Nazis.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Bob you’re talking about indoctrination, not grooming. The use of the word “grooming” is irresponsible and stupid.

[Bob from Ohio]

I don’t see the difference.

groom: prepare or train (someone) for a particular purpose or activity

indoctrinate: to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments

[bevis the lumberjack]

Context, Bob. Context.

And they aren’t “training them for a specific activity”. They’re influencing their mindset. Indoctrinating.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think there is a difference, in that the groomer anticipates personally benefiting, while the indoctrinator is ‘just’ pursuing a cause.

Of course, this may make the indoctrinator worse, not better, by leading to a greater scope of effort.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I’m glad you asked Don,

“Groomer” is what some who “Grooms” someone for a sexual relationship. It’s a predatory relationship where an adult will “groom” a minor towards accepting a sexual relationship. There are a series of behaviors associated with it, including forming a relationship (often a power relationship), isolation of the victim, and importantly for this discussion, “desensitization and normalization of sexual behavior”.

So, what does it mean in this context. For that you need to know the statistics. Roughly 7% of students will be abused by an adult at school. 3.5 Million Students. It’s an epidemic that is vastly underreported.

https://childrenstreatmentcenter.com/sexual-abuse-teachers/

Many of the grooming behaviors are difficult to eliminate in a classroom. Teachers and students are going to have a professional relationship. But what can be eliminated or reduced is the desensitization and normalization of sexual behavior. Especially at a young age. That’s what many legislators are attempting to do.

Other liberals defend it (like Sarcastro and Krychek) above or strawman it (Oh, I can’t talk about my husband…strawman). But talking and teaching about items that are age inappropriate, especially masturbation (as a number of teachers have) is a type of grooming that leads to desensitization. Let’s show you how this occurs, with a couple examples.

OK: 2nd grade teacher teaches his students about math. After class, one student stays behind. “Teacher, I’m having trouble with my multiplication that you taught in class”. “OK Timmy, let me see what you are doing”.

Not OK: 2nd grade teacher teaches his students about masturbation. After class, one student stays behind. “Teacher, I’m having trouble with masturbating like you taught in class”. “OK Timmy, let me see what you are doing”.

It’s the desensitization and normalization aspect that makes it troubling, and is a “grooming” behavior for sexual abuse. This is distinct from an age appropriate well regulated health class (ie, around 7th/8th grade) which is standard to schools.

[Sarcastr0]

Many of the grooming behaviors are difficult to eliminate in a classroom. Teachers and students are going to have a professional relationship. But what can be eliminated or reduced is the desensitization and normalization of sexual behavior.

Right there. Right there you conflate sex ed with preparing a child to molest them.

Dude, you can talk about when sex ed is appropriate without being a piece of shit and saying I’m defending pedophilia.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Right-wingers seem intensely focused on abuse of children . . . except when a Christian church is involved in the systematic facilitation and concealment of the rape of children.

Or a Republican elected official.

Such as a Republican member of Congress from Florida.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Rev…if you really care, think about it.

3.5 MILLION children sexually abused in schools. Million. The numbers dwarf the issues in the church by over 100-fold. They are systematically concealed by the school system.

A intent focus on the proverbial elephant in the room is appropriate. Avoiding that focus and trying to throw attention elsewhere demonstrates a lack of concern.

[Armchair Lawyer]

This has been another logical fallacy from Sarcastro, where he avoids pieces of the argument to make a deliberate misinterpretation of another part.

Sexual education in a well regulated health class was deliberately referenced at the end of the argument.

As for Sarcastro, as he continues to defend teaching masturbation to school agers, an act of grooming behavior, he defends grooming in our schools, and perpetuates the epidemic of sexual abuse in our schools.

3.5 Million victims of sexual abuse in our schools…Think about it.

[rrgg]

Groomer is not a new term at all. Here’s a story from 2015. It goes back further than that. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3046073/Six-man-grooming-gang-begins-long-jail-sentences-convicted-sexually-exploiting-children.html

[fafalone]

Like calling members of the Court “progressives”?

Even Sotomayor wouldn’t qualify for the label. To call Breyer and Kagan progressives is a bad faith right wing attempt to paint even moderate Democrats as far left.

[Martinned]

Really? That’s what your first post is about? Not the part where the Supreme Court apparently invented a whole new category of disputes that are clearly cases or controversies, but which it doesn’t want the courts to hear?

[LawTalkingGuy]

He doesn’t have the restraint not to post anything immediately, so he picks the most inane thing he can think of to comment on.

[DaivdBehar]

LTG. You need to disclose your vote in 2020.

[Bob from Ohio]

“Not the part where the Supreme Court apparently invented a whole new category of disputes that are clearly cases or controversies, but which it doesn’t want the courts to hear?”

Congress can limit the jurisdiction of the courts, that’s what it did here. Its right in the constitution.

Gorsuch want the courts to be able to disregard a jurisdictional limit because its unfair.

[LawTalkingGuy]

No. He says the Court is misunderstanding what the jurisdictional limit actually is.

[Bob from Ohio]

He’s wrong no matter how you slice it.

If he’s right, any fact can be reviewed. Yet, the statute says matters of law or constitutional issues.

[Aladdin's Carpet]

Thats not what the opinion says. It has little to do with the constitution. It’s a textual question.

The statute itself grants judicial review, with an exception. The exception is “any judgement regarding the granting of relief under section …” and the question is what that actually means.

The decision made by the immigration judge was idiotic, as every party admits. This decision did not involve removal (though was used to justify removal) it was a factual question on mistakenly checking a box about citizenship on a form unrelated to citizenship is sufficient to justify deportation (and no justice seem to believe it is).

Is that decision then “regarding the granting of relief”? It is not obvious it is or isn’t.

[David Nieporent]

The statute says that this restriction applies to a judgment regarding the granting of relief. As Gorsuch pointed out, no such judgment was made in this case, because they stopped before that step after they decided, incorrectly, that he wasn’t eligible to ask for it.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The immigration judge denied relief (because the non-citizen wasn’t eligible for it). How is that not a decision “regarding the granting of relief”?

[Aladdin's Carpet]

They are not arguing over whether he can challenge a denial of relief. If you are going to defend the majority option, you should read it!

They are arguing over a factual question, and whether one can claim that factual question being decided incorrectly is reviewable, on the grounds that it is regarding a denial of relief. That is different.

[Martinned]

See, that’s the advantage of the comments section. I didn’t have time to look at the judgment, but now I still know what it broadly says, even though Blackman got distracted by something else and neglected to tell us.

Now all I need is a similarly succinct explanation of whether the Supreme Court just said that Ted Cruz has a constitutional right to buy an election.

[Cal Cetín]

With inflation, elections will soon be out of reach of middle-class purchasers.

[Noscitur a sociis]

It didn’t.

[Illocust]

Non-citizen accurate, and much preferred to to the many euphanisisms often employed by open border folks.

I vaguely remember that open boarder lawyer guy that posts articles on here getting roasted by the comments for writing two thousand words to try and get around using the term non-citizen.

[MatthewSlyfield]

Actually, non-citizen and alien are not 100 coextensive.

[Michael P]

There are non-citizen nationals in the US, and Congress could make more at any time (for example, people born in Puerto Rico are citizens by statute rather than by the Constitution). Immigration law treats non-citizen nationals differently from aliens, because the former still owe allegiance to the US.

[captcrisis]

Non-citizen = alien. “Alien” has increasingly assumed a pejorative connotation in this era of MAGA. You wouldn’t go back to using words like “bastard”, would you?

[Brett Bellmore]

“Alien” has no pejorative connotations. You’re perhaps thinking of “illegal alien”, but “illegal” is doing all the pejorative work.

Word substitutions like this are absurd, and ultimately futile, because regardless of the word you substitute, the concept remains the same.

It’s very troubling when judges can’t bring themselves to use the actual language of a statute when discussing it.

[Sarcastr0]

Have you talked to a foreign person living in the US lately? Alien is absolutely pejorative these days.

[Brett Bellmore]

I talk to foreign people who legally immigrated to the US all the time. I’m married to one, remember? I’ve never encountered one who found the term pejorative.

[Sarcastr0]

I don’t mean like a while ago, I mean in the last 5 years or so.

It’s what I hear from foreign students. Maybe they’re a rarified cohort and not representative. But they feel aliens is not a great word.
My agency is having meetings about general welcoming atmosphere towards immigrant scientists.

Maybe they’re all wrong about the speaker’s intent! But language’s effect on the speakers ain’t nothing.

[Sarcastr0]

language’s effect on the listener ain’t nothing.

[Brett Bellmore]

“Professional agitators claiming to be offended” DNE “this word is pejorative”.

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course in the last five minutes. I’m a member of the Phil-Am association. I spend a lot of time around Filipinos who immigrated.

If you think you can marry a Filipina and not spend a lot of time around people from the Philippines, you don’t know Filipinos.

[Currentsitguy]

There are still millions of people walking around carrying an I-551 that has the words “Resident Alien” in large letters right on the top. I don’t see them all demanding replacement.

For reference:
https://citizenpath.com/cpwp/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/green-card-1977-1989-front.jpg

[Sarcastr0]

That’s a mighty high threshold for determining if a term is perceived as hostile.

[Brett Bellmore]

Being offended on people’s behalf is a mighty low threshold for determining if they perceive a term as hostile.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

“Alien” has increasingly assumed a pejorative connotation in this era of MAGA.

No, it hasn’t. The projection is strong with you.

[Ridgeway]

Technically, that is not true. US Nationals are not necessarily US citizens, but they are not “aliens” under US law. The subset of US nationals that are not also citizens is relatively small, but is significantly greater than zero.

[captcrisis]

You’re right. I didn’t think about US Nationals. The term “national” has been used for so long in the sense of “citizen” that I’d forgotten the technical meaning.

[Currentsitguy]

If I am not mistaken the vast majority of US Nationals are natives of American Samoa.

[Ridgeway]

That is US nationals who are not also citizens. All US citizens are also US nationals.

P.S. no love for Swain Island?

[DaivdBehar]

I often use the word, bastardy. It is the single most powerful explanation for all racial disparities, after the vile feminist lawyer destroyed the black family. That family had survived slavery, war, Jim Crow, discrimination. It could not survive the assault by the vile feminist lawyer.

[bevis the lumberjack]

“Illegal alien” has been a pejorative since before I moved to Texas in 1974. Trump had nothing to do with it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sad when justices of the SC can can’t or won’t use the language of the statute.

[Don Nico]

It is not sad.
It is dishonest.

[Brett Bellmore]

The iron law of euphemism implies that any word adopted as a euphemism will itself gain the connotations of the word it replaces, because the connotations attach to the concept being denoted, not the word, and inevitably follow the concept.

But here I don’t even see the function of resorting to euphemism; There’s nothing particularly derogatory about referring to somebody as an “alien”.

[Mr. Bumble]

…as in “Let’s Go Brandon”?

[Brett Bellmore]

Let’s go Brandon

That’s just mocking the original claim that people who were yelling “Fuck Joe Biden” had actually been saying “Let’s go Brandon”.

[Aubrey LaVentana]

aaaaaannnnnd the pejorative still attaches.

[John F. Carr]

It’s called the “euphemism treadmill”.

[Brett Bellmore]

It’s called both. The ‘euphemism treadmill’ specifically refers to the fact that it keeps happening over and over.

[Mr. Bumble]

Wonder how many “Happy Birthing Person Day” cards she received from her children?

[F.D. Wolf]

If it were simply a matter of Orwellian political correctness, substituting one word for a word the bien pensant have declared offensive, then it would perhaps merit only minor objection.

But we should demand precision of language in the law, and a “noncitizen” and an “alien” are not the same thing. For example, someone born in American Samoa is a noncitizen, but not an alien, classified as a “non-citizen national” in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

[Mr. Bumble]

Unfortunately, “close enough for government work” has spread to the courts.

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe someone should take up a collection to provide the justices and their clerks dictionaries.

[Ed Grinberg]

Twitter blocks posts that use phrase ‘illegal alien’ as ‘hateful content’
As Horace Vandergelder says to his niece’s suitor in Hello, Dolly!: “All the facts about you are insults!”

[Earnest]

Love the hard-hitting commentary from JB, ignoring a decision’s merits/substance to make it about some tertiary culture war issue on this legal analysis blog.

[Aladdin's Carpet]

This is the most interesting thing you found about the opinion? And this is PC thing you found?

The entire majority opinion was a textbook example of using fancy Orwellian language to filter out any of the meaning of what they actually did, which was kick an alien out of the country because they abdicated the responsibility to review immigration judges making clearly bad and wrong decisions. As if the immigration system isn’t a kafkaist nightmare already …

Like I dont know about the textual question, to be honest it actually seem pretty close, and I’ve gone back and forth on it but … really? If anything, the conservatives are covering this language here. Gorsuch did a very good job illustrating what is actually happening in his dissent.

[Aladdin's Carpet]

Like this whole framing is ridiculous! Of course Gorsuch used the word, Gorsuch is actually doing his job to explain what the hell is going on. Read the opinion. In many instances the majority hinders effective communication with legalese, because the truth of the matter is that this is insane.

[Noscitur a sociis]

which was kick an alien out of the country because they abdicated the responsibility to review immigration judges making clearly bad and wrong decisions.

Refusing to hear a case that Congress has forbidden federal courts to hear is not “abdicating” anything.

As far as the equities, I’m not sure why I’m supposed to be especially sympathetic to a non-citizen who illegally enters the United States, tries to take advantage of our generosity to remain in the country anyway, and then fraudulently claims to be U.S. citizen while the process is ongoing.

[Aladdin's Carpet]

“Refusing to hear a case that Congress has forbidden federal courts to hear is not “abdicating” anything.”

Except that is not what the legislation actually says. The majorities reading of the legislation is effectively, immigrants have judicial review, with the minor exception that they don’t. Its a strained reading.

“then fraudulently claims to be U.S. citizen”

He filled out one form incorrectly that it turns out had zero to do with the process. It was a state document.

Come on. I know you, as probably a non-immigrant, don’t understand, but this is precisely the insane nonsense that is so frustrating to everyone who has worked in this system. The immigration judge is in the wrong here, everyone knows it. The government, the affected party, and so on.

The ruling that the immigration judge can just make shit up and the courts can do nothing??? That isn’t what the statute says.

I accept that it is plausible the majorities reading is correct, it is a poorly written clause. But in ambigous cases you are supposed to overriding both the affected party AND the government is insane.

[Bob from Ohio]

“It was a state document. ”

He falsely claimed citizenship. The type of document is not material.

[Aladdin's Carpet]

Of course it is.

If I randomly write on a paper “I am a citizen” that is obviously not material. The type of document matters.

Also, this is irrelevant. ALL parties admit the immigration judge got it wrong. If you are defending the immigration judge, you are wrong.

[Aladdin's Carpet]

Also, he checked a box by mistake. Equating that to making an affirmative claim of citizenship is beyond ridiculous. Everyone in the case agrees that it was ridiculous. The question was can the court reverse something clearly erroneous.

[bacchys]

The stupid shit Blackman whines about.

His mouthbreathing fan base bleats in chorus.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Cowards.

These people are shameful cowards who deserve no respect.

[Longtobefree]

doubleplusungood.

[Nisiiko]

I knew she was trouble when I saw that she had adopted a Haitian boy.

[JasonT20]

Having that little Black boy among her white children seems that bad to you, huh?

[Nisiiko]

As friends, no. But I don’t believe in the races mixing. Therefore, I believe people should adopt children of their own race. The fact that she adopted him says to me that she doesn’t think race matters. Race matters a lot.

[Estragon]

Do you think loving was correctly decided?

[Nisiiko]

Yes, but only because the law targeted non-whites who married whites. As an example, they didn’t seem to care if a black married an Asian. If the law was applied equally to all races, I would have said that Loving was not correctly decided.

[Estragon]

Would you be in favor of a federal law mandating same-race marriages?

[Nisiiko]

No. That type of thing should never be imposed by law. If the culture is strong enough, it’s not needed.

[tkamenick]

I think “alien” has a slight perjorative sense to it that has nothing to do with recent years or MAGA. But it’s minor, and a court should always use the statutory term.

[JasonT20]

I think that its pejorative sense is stronger than you give it credit for, in present use. Especially ever since “alien” was adopted in science fiction to mean extraterrestrials. As an adjective, it can be used to mean something strange and unfamiliar, like how a Wisconsin winter would seem alien to this Floridian. To apply it to a person is not merely descriptive of their status as being from another country and not a naturalized citizen, but it also has connotations of the person being strange and unfamiliar in at least a potentially negative way.

My view is that judges should always use statutory language when quoting the statute, but substituting a less loaded term in discussion sounds like a good idea to me.

[Cal Cetín]

Not to mention that “alien” has in some circles a specific meaning of a predatory chest-bursting extraterrestrial, and even worse, the ruining of a perfectly good franchise with dumbass sequels.

[CJColucci]

If there’s one thing that’s more annoying than people using the politically correct word for something, it’s people whining about people using the politically correct word for something.

[David Nieporent]

Well, if there’s one thing that’s more annoying than people whining about people using the politically correct word for something, it’s people whining about people whining about people using the politically correct word for something.

[ducksalad]

Let F(x) be a measure of annoyance satisfying the triangle inequality. If there exists any y such that:
F(y) > F((whining)^n)
then
F((whining)^(n+1)) > F((whining)^n)

Assignment: Does F((whining)^n) converge to a finite limit as n approaches infinity?

[M L]

Great. Another wishy washy liberal appointed by “Republicans.”

[Aladdin's Carpet]

She voted to deport … whatever. I’m not sure when everyone in this comment section became an idiot. Everyones so political. It seems that no one has actually read the opinion and everyone is arguing over the stupidest things …

[Brett Bellmore]

Using politically correct language in place of the language actually in the statute is a tell that somebody is a squish. They may have a hard core you can’t squish them past, or maybe nobody has yet applied enough pressure to properly squish them, but they’re a squish.

Because a non-squish judge would just use the legal term.

[Sarcastr0]

Seems to happen a lot.
Almost as though the real issue is that you’re an extremist zealot, rather than a problem with the Republican Party.

[CCP]

This story calls to mind a story of my own law school days. My Con Law professor, the wonderful Bob Park, had a unique teaching tool for getting students to discuss the sometimes-abstract concepts of constitutional law: he would bring his young children to class and have us explain stuff to them.

So, he did this one day when we were covering some equal protection matter relating to alienage discrimination. The next day, he came in and complimented us on the job we had done, explaining that he had quizzed his kids about their experience at home that evening and that they seemed to understand the concepts at a rudimentary level.

“But,” Park said, “there was one part that I was a little concerned that maybe you may have left out something. My son Charlie turned to me at the end of our discussion and said, ‘Daddy, there is one thing I don’t understand though. Why do we have to give these aliens jobs when we don’t even know if they’re human?'”

[Sarcastr0]

You suck at science.

New methods of synthesis do not change the mechanism of action.