We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Attempting to reconnect
George A.A. · 84.7K views · 12.7K likes
Analysis Summary
Ask yourself: “What would I have to already believe for this argument to make sense?”
Us vs. Them
Dividing the world into two camps — people like us (good, trustworthy) and people not like us (dangerous, wrong). It exploits a deep human tendency to favor our own group. Once you accept the division, information from "them" gets automatically discounted.
Tajfel's Social Identity Theory (1979); Minimal Group Paradigm
Worth Noting
Positive elements
- The video provides a basic explanation of the 'substantial evidence standard' in immigration law and correctly identifies a unanimous Supreme Court decision.
Be Aware
Cautionary elements
- The use of ad hominem attacks and mocking nicknames for a Supreme Court Justice to frame a procedural legal victory as a personal humiliation of 'the left'.
Influence Dimensions
How are these scored?About this analysis
Knowing about these techniques makes them visible, not powerless. The ones that work best on you are the ones that match beliefs you already hold.
This analysis is a tool for your own thinking — what you do with it is up to you.
Transcript
Ladies and gentlemen, Justice Kinja Brown Jackson may not know who a woman is, what a woman is, but she understands BS. Okay, common sense BS. I can't believe it. But today, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in favor of President Trump. And guess who authored the majority opinion? >> [laughter] >> Katanji. Wow. I might have to start calling her her real name. Kinja no more. You are now Katanji. Okay. She actually made a really amazing legal ruling. So, what did Kinja Brown Jackson do? Well, there was a case brought before the court seeking to depower Trump's immigration judges and prevent them from doing their job, which is reviewing asylum cases and making decisions that are legal. And the Supreme Court has ruled unanimously rejecting that lawsuit from the Democrats. She issued the ruling in the case and the case goes as follows. An illegal alien from El Salvador was ordered to be deported, Urias Orurana, and he was like, "No, I want to be an asylum seeker." So he filed for an asylum case under the INA, the Immigration and Nationality Act. And then the federal government, the Trump administration said no. Now Urias Orinana or Orana is from El Salvador and he claimed that a hitman was going to come get him. Ladies and gentlemen, what do you guys know about El Salvador right now? Does that sound like a country with hitmen? Seriously, does El Salvador sound like a dangerous dump? Absolutely not. Right. He claimed that bad people in El Salvador were waiting for him to get back. He wants asylum. But the Board of Immigration Appeals, plus the immigration judge overseeing his case, rejected his claim, his asylum application. And so he filed a lawsuit for review to the federal court system because immigration judges are part of the executive branch. After you get your case heard by an immigration judge plus the board of immigration appeals, you are allowed to go to the federal courts to the judiciary branch. And usually how it works is the judiciary branch defers to the opinion of the executive of the immigration judges. And there's a very easy standard. It's called the substantial evidence standard. Meaning it's like the lowest standard of evidence. Meaning if the federal judges feel like the immigration judges got it right, they side with the immigration judges. That makes sense because Congress has given so much power and oversight to the executive branch as it relates to immigration law. So many laws outline what makes someone a qualified asylum seeker. The substantial evidence standard simply says if the immigration judge looked at your case and they thought they made the right decision, n it's good enough. That's the substantial evidence standard. The highest standard would be you know beyond a reasonable doubt which is used in criminal cases and below that is the clar and convincing evidence standard and then the preponderance of the evidence meaning the likelihood that something is true. So the lowest evidence standard is applied to immigration judges when their rulings and decisions are appealed to the federal courts. So this person wanted the Supreme Court to overturn the decision not overturned the decision from the immigration judges. Just wanting want to remind you guys that. and Keninja Brown Jackson delivered the opinion for a unanimous court. So 90. It's not often the Supreme Court rules unanimously on anything. These people are always divided, always arguing, always dissenting. So it's rare that you see all nine justices agree, especially when three are liberal lunatics. and Katanji Brown Jackson delivered the opinion of the court explaining that federal law and just common sense means federal courts must continue must defer to immigration judges on asylum decisions. Jackson emphasized the high high bar courts courts must meet before overturning an immigration judge's findings, potentially making it more difficult for migrants to challenge their deportations as the Trump administration cracks down on illegal immigration. The AY's determination is generally conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary. So unless there is zero evidence backing the immigration judge's decision, Katanji Brown Jackson is saying federal courts cannot intervene in that decisions in in those decisions. They can't keep intervening. This makes deportations smoother. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, ma migrants can claim asylum when crossing the border without documentation. But immigration judges who are employees of the Justice Department eventually vet those claims and determine whether to grant migrant asylum, which would allow them to stay in the country or order their deportation. The migrant can appeal the decision to the board of immigration appeals which is also housed within the executive branch and can then appeal that decision to the federal circuit courts and the supreme court. The decision in this case, Urias Orurelana versus Bondi affirmed that the judicial branch must largely defer to the executive branch's findings about whether the migrant would suffer persecution if deported rather than start from scratch and conduct its own review. Yeah, this is huge because it empowers ICE Border Patrol to keep doing their job. It actually makes immigration jud judges more powerful, more efficient because imagine you make one decision and you know you're you're an immigration judge and you get overturned every other decision. That that's stupid. And these immigration lawyers who work for George Sorrows, they're more than happy to work for pennies on the dollar as long as they get to keep Juan and Pablo and and all kinds of illegals in the country from Senagal plotting atrocities against Americans. So this is huge. It's massive. And it's such a troll that the lady that can't define woman authored the decision. I think that's why I'm so happy about this. [laughter] I mean, I'm happy it's a great decision, but I'm also happy mainly because Kaninja wrote the decision. She did out of everyone. They picked her. And now the left is pissed because a decision like this empowers Trump's team. It gives them more power and and authority over the immigration process. And you know, we all want super mass deportations, but the problem is it's like every other person has a lawyer from some NGO and they'll sue and that person gets to stay for months. Like what is some like El Salvador is a country that has been rescued from the control of MS-13 and satanic gangs. Naib Bukle has turned that country around. It's now on its national ascent as a country. It's safe. And this person wants us to believe that if they land in El Salvador, there's a hitman waiting for them. Who the heck does this person think they are? >> [laughter] >> There's a hitman waiting for you. You're not James Bond. You think you're Tom Cruz, Ethan Hunt? Of course you're not Mission Impossible. What are you doing? Who do you think you are? You're going to land in El Salvador and they're going to come after you. So, you must stay in the United States. It's bizarre. But even if these people don't win the case, the the design is to delay the overall immigration process. Because every time an immigration judge is having to answer in federal court, that's time taken away from processing other claims from asylum to deportations to orders for removal. like they're taking precious time away by shoving these judges in the courtroom or, you know, wasting their time with paperwork. An immigration judge should be allowed to look boom yes, no, boom, yes, no, no, yes, yes, no. That's their job. and the the lawfare apparatus, the strategy Democrats have built is slowing them down and it's annoying. So, it's good to see it get unraveled. This is huge. So, I'm very happy. Thank you, Caninja. Thank you, Caninja. Okay, we love you. Love your channel. don't often catch you live. Support from Australia. Thank you, G. Ladies and gentlemen, that's the news. Quick and easy. Okay. Fast food news, McDonald's news. That's what we do on this channel. Lord, I pray for our judges that they continue to rule with common sense and wisdom in Jesus name. Amen. All right. Thank you all very much for watching. God bless and good night.
Video description
I'm glad to be back on YouTube! Find me on X: https://x.com/BehizyTweets Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/behizygram TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@donbehizy?lang=en Praise the LORD!