Replies

"OR they have to prove they are legally here - either before seeing the judge or in front of the judge. "

They have to prove that they entered here legal. The phrase that is used is

"by clear and convincing evidence, that the alien is lawfully present in the United States pursuant to a prior admission.

Yes, the burden falls to the alien to prove that they've entered legally and/or are not inadmissable. HOWEVER, the burden to deport/remove an alien falls squarely on the Service, if they entered legally.

From 8 USC § 1229a. Removal proceedings

3) Burden on service in cases of deportable aliens

(A) In general
In the proceeding the Service has the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that, in the case of an alien who has been admitted to the United States, the alien is deportable. No decision on deportability shall be valid unless it is based upon reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence.

In ALL cases, the foreign national is entitled to a hearing, if they so request. The burden of proof in an immigration case is fluid - of course, you understand that, right doctor?

"HOWEVER, the burden to deport/remove an alien falls squarely on the Service, if they entered legally."

True, but then they would have proven they entered either as an immigrant or non-immigrant.

Since immigrants are always admitted "permanently" they would remain here legally unless they commit a deportable/removable offense - which the government would have to prove by your stated standard.

However, non-immigrants are admitted for defined periods. When non-immigrants prove they were lawfully admitted they prove the period of time that lawful admission was granted. If that period of time has expired, if the government testifies that their records show no extension - if the alien claims without prove that he was granted an extension - the government case is "proven."

While you're right, that "burden of proof in an immigration case is fluid" for illegal entrants & non-immigrants, it is designed to be pro-enforcement, even if politicians and the political appointees in government chose not to be pro-enforcement.