Joe Garza

This woman is completely unqualified for any elected office. To describe lawful arrests as “kidnapping” is offensive, sure, but it also shows that Nithya is a child who has zero curiosity about how anything actually works. She is a Tik Tok candidate. Non-citizens charged with removability appear before an Immigration Judge. That judge determines whether the non-citizen is removable from the U.S. If the judge makes this finding, the non-citizen has the opportunity to apply for relief from removal. There are several forms of this, including but not limited to asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the regulations implementing the Convention Against Torture, adjustment of status, cancellation of removal, among other forms of relief. Lawful permanent residents who are charged with removability based on criminal conduct can apply for certain waivers. If the immigration judge has found the non-citizen to be removable, then he or she hears these these above-mentioned applications for relief. The non-citizen is entitled to counsel during these hearings. If the immigration judge decides to grant the non-citizen’s application for relief from removal, the non-citizen is not removed from the U.S., unless the government appeals and wins. If the judge doesn’t find the non-citizen removable in the first place, they are not removed, unless the government appeals and wins. If the immigration judge finds the non-citizen removable, and doesn’t grant any form of relief from removal, the non-citizen can appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals. If the Board rules in the non-citizen’s favor, he or she cannot be removed - because a removal order is required to remove people from the U.S. (There are exceptions in which the removal order does not come from the judge, but they are limited). If the Board doesn’t rule in the non-citizen’s favor, the non-citizen can appeal to federal court, unless it has been stripped of jurisdiction over certain issue by the statute. But even then, the courthouse door is open; as the Ninth Circuit said, “we have jurisdiction to determine jurisdiction.” (Not verbatim, don’t @ me). Obviously, actual kidnapping victims don’t have three layers of due process - the analogy is just so stupid I can’t believe I have to write something that stupid. But what’s even more stupid is that all of the above is laid out plainly in the Immigration and Nationality Act, which for better or worse, Congress hasn’t meaningfully amended since 1996. Nothing is stopping Nithya or her advisors from cracking open that statute and learning something, other than her childish belief that if she just does what the cool kids are doing (hating on ICE) that’s somehow qualifies her to be mayor. It qualifies her to be an Instagram influencer but not a mayor. I personally like my mayors to have a grip on how federal law actually works. Either Nithya doesn’t actually know how it works or she does and she’s pretending not to. Both are disqualifying. To be clear, criticism of immigration policy is fine, but that’s not what’s happening here.