Kirsten Zittlau

That means that they have to take a credible fear interview and be detained and that they only get to fight a case if they pass their credible fear interview. And then they do not qualify for an immigration judge bond. So they only get out if ICE lets them out, which, of course, ICE is letting nobody out.

That means that they have to take a credible fear interview and be detained and that they only get to fight a case if they pass their credible fear interview. And then they do not qualify for an immigration judge bond. So they only get out if ICE lets them out, which, of course, ICE is letting nobody out.

That means that they have to take a credible fear interview and be detained and that they only get to fight a case if they pass their credible fear interview. And then they do not qualify for an immigration judge bond. So they only get out if ICE lets them out, which, of course, ICE is letting nobody out.

So the administration wants to have people detained under this authority, this 235 authority, as much as possible to have them have to fight their case detained and either lose the will to do so and or not be able to afford an attorney because detained cases move along a lot quicker and are very costly as well for that reason.

So the administration wants to have people detained under this authority, this 235 authority, as much as possible to have them have to fight their case detained and either lose the will to do so and or not be able to afford an attorney because detained cases move along a lot quicker and are very costly as well for that reason.

So the administration wants to have people detained under this authority, this 235 authority, as much as possible to have them have to fight their case detained and either lose the will to do so and or not be able to afford an attorney because detained cases move along a lot quicker and are very costly as well for that reason.

So what they're doing is anybody who was here two years or less but was paroled in. So they're in the regular immigration court proceedings. They got out there under 240 proceedings, it's called. So DHS attorneys in court are terminating those proceedings. They are asking the judge to terminate the 240 proceedings.

So what they're doing is anybody who was here two years or less but was paroled in. So they're in the regular immigration court proceedings. They got out there under 240 proceedings, it's called. So DHS attorneys in court are terminating those proceedings. They are asking the judge to terminate the 240 proceedings.

So what they're doing is anybody who was here two years or less but was paroled in. So they're in the regular immigration court proceedings. They got out there under 240 proceedings, it's called. So DHS attorneys in court are terminating those proceedings. They are asking the judge to terminate the 240 proceedings.

So then that case is closed and then they immediately restart a case under Section 235. And the second they do that, the person is subject to mandatory detention and ICE is right there in the courthouse to arrest them and detain them.

So then that case is closed and then they immediately restart a case under Section 235. And the second they do that, the person is subject to mandatory detention and ICE is right there in the courthouse to arrest them and detain them.

So then that case is closed and then they immediately restart a case under Section 235. And the second they do that, the person is subject to mandatory detention and ICE is right there in the courthouse to arrest them and detain them.

And colleagues and I have been talking about this. I haven't researched it thoroughly, but I think also the nature of these proceedings, like the 235 proceeding, like you are mandatory detention, like you were taken into custody. It's as if you just crossed the border. And, you know, are taken into custody. It's treated like like that type of situation, like no warrant is necessary.

And colleagues and I have been talking about this. I haven't researched it thoroughly, but I think also the nature of these proceedings, like the 235 proceeding, like you are mandatory detention, like you were taken into custody. It's as if you just crossed the border. And, you know, are taken into custody. It's treated like like that type of situation, like no warrant is necessary.

And colleagues and I have been talking about this. I haven't researched it thoroughly, but I think also the nature of these proceedings, like the 235 proceeding, like you are mandatory detention, like you were taken into custody. It's as if you just crossed the border. And, you know, are taken into custody. It's treated like like that type of situation, like no warrant is necessary.

I don't believe, you know.

I don't believe, you know.

I don't believe, you know.

Exactly. So the real issue here is the the ethical. I mean, a lot of us are grappling with this and, of course, fiercely opposing these motions. In that the justification that the DHS attorneys are attempting to use is that circumstances have materially changed since the issuance of their initial case that they're in now. Which, of course, is not the case. Right. Like, whose circumstances?

Exactly. So the real issue here is the the ethical. I mean, a lot of us are grappling with this and, of course, fiercely opposing these motions. In that the justification that the DHS attorneys are attempting to use is that circumstances have materially changed since the issuance of their initial case that they're in now. Which, of course, is not the case. Right. Like, whose circumstances?