quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Now, El Salvador is going to refuse his return. I wonder if that is a decision of El Salvador’s own design.

I’m sure El Salvador believes will garner kindness from the Regime.

If this can happen to this man, we are all in danger.

So, let's be clear. trump thinks he can take Canada, Greenland, Panama Canal, whatever, but he can't get nobody El Salvador to return a single innocent man? Paper tiger? Allikeet? Alligator mouth & a parakeet ass?

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Now, El Salvador is going to refuse his return. I wonder if that is a decision of El Salvador’s own design.

I’m sure El Salvador believes will garner kindness from the Regime.

If this can happen to this man, we are all in danger.

Isn’t he a citizen of El Salvador?…Bingo

"So, let's be clear. trump thinks he can take Canada, Greenland, Panama Canal, whatever, but he can't get nobody El Salvador to return a single innocent man? Paper tiger? Allikeet? Alligator mouth & a parakeet ass?"

Make any argument you like over the details, here's the big picture. trump has never cared about right or wrong.

Ok, so he was arrested persuant to a legally proper process, and there was reasonable suspicion to do so?

Yes, he was illicitly deported to his nation of citizenship and the custody of him from the point they decided to deport him without following due process was illegal. However, his actual arrest and initial detention in the US was not, correct?

It became illegal once they decided to violate due process, correct?

You look somewhat disingenuous to me when you imply that he should never had been arrested in the first place.

You are a prosecutor. Using your logic, every time you arrest someone and they are released you just illicitly detained them.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
I thought the accuracy of the charge was a decision for trial/ hearing, not a conclusion? Isn’t the appellate panel review essentially saying that because he was shipped out we don’t know the facts? That he MAY be someone who was here rightfully?

I agree that this is why Trump’s folks should be in hot water.

I do think gang tattoos should be admissible- they are essentially a public utterance by the person who put them on. One of a number of things that are evidence. It’s not admission of guilt quite, but it is evidence. That’s for a court/judge to say. I don’t know that this guy has gang tattoos, but heard that is “why” he was considered a gang member.

I don’t know that he is rightfully here is a foregone conclusion… but our system requires it be challenged in court, not some DOJ functionary shipping him off.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
No he was not lawfully detained.

He was detained under the color of law.

That is not the same.

Read the Circuit Court of Appeals.

His original detention was improper. He was not who the Administration said he was.

That is why these due process rights Trump Administration is violating is more than dangerous.

When, you are detained under the color of jaw and deboned due process that detention is illegal.

And the excuses just keep on a coming….

Whether his arrest was just or unjust misses the point.
Our Constitution does not grant rights, it acknowledges them.
Our Constitution and laws constrain what our government is allowed to do.
Once we depart from those constraints, we are floundering in the deep end.

El Salvador has a point, they do not want to smuggle him back in and they're getting paid to keep him out.
The contract to keep him is maybe not legal due to illegal acts getting him there and so not enforceable.
Trump should refuse to pay his keep and get him back for due process. We aspire to be a nation of laws.

If we let this go, what will it be next time? There will be a next time, guaranteed. We have employed people to do a job who are not competent to meet their quota within the constraints of the law.

Hell-of-a-mess, in an age of epic and stupid hell-of-a-messes.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Ok, so he was arrested persuant to a legally proper process, and there was reasonable suspicion to do so?

Yes, he was illicitly deported to his nation of citizenship and the custody of him from the point they decided to deport him without following due process was illegal. However, his actual arrest and initial detention in the US was not, correct?

It became illegal once they decided to violate due process, correct?

You look somewhat disingenuous to me when you imply that he should never had been arrested in the first place.

You are a prosecutor. Using your logic, every time you arrest someone and they are released you just illicitly detained them.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
I thought the accuracy of the charge was a decision for trial/ hearing, not a conclusion? Isn’t the appellate panel review essentially saying that because he was shipped out we don’t know the facts? That he MAY be someone who was here rightfully?

I agree that this is why Trump’s folks should be in hot water.

I do think gang tattoos should be admissible- they are essentially a public utterance by the person who put them on. One of a number of things that are evidence. It’s not admission of guilt quite, but it is evidence. That’s for a court/judge to say. I don’t know that this guy has gang tattoos, but heard that is “why” he was considered a gang member.

I don’t know that he is rightfully here is a foregone conclusion… but our system requires it be challenged in court, not some DOJ functionary shipping him off.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
No he was not lawfully detained.

He was detained under the color of law.

That is not the same.

Read the Circuit Court of Appeals.

His original detention was improper. He was not who the Administration said he was.

That is why these due process rights Trump Administration is violating is more than dangerous.

When, you are detained under the color of jaw and deboned due process that detention is illegal.

The process was not followed. The Supreme Court has ruled he and all ten are entitled to due process. At the very least that is an adversarial hearing before a judge of competent jurisdiction that the government can lose.

This is palpable non-compliance.

Of this regime cdm do this. They can do it to all of us.

Trump is already taking about doing it to citizens.

The Regime had even admitted, before suspending the lawyer, he should not have been deported.

This is the Executive ruling unilaterally so any regard for the Checks snd Balances found in the Constitution. The rule of law, recognized precedents, and long recognized Due Process Rights.

It is lawlessness. It is tyranny.

https://open.substack.com/pub/...=post&utm_medium=web

The two tipping points for when we officially become a dictatorship could occur this week
Robert Reich
Apr 14, 2025

Friends,

I wouldn’t intrude on your day for a second time if this weren’t deadly serious.

The Trump regime is on the cusp of a showdown with the Supreme Court. Depending on what the Court does and how the regime responds, it could openly become a dictatorship two ways.

1. The first way the Trump regime clearly becomes a dictatorship is by directly defying a Supreme Court order.

Last Thursday, the Supreme Court ordered the Trump regime to “facilitate” the return from an El Salvador prison of a Maryland man, Kilmar Abrego García, whom the administration admitted it mistakenly deported there (given a court order specifically banning his deportation to El Salvador because of the possibility he faced torture from the government there if returned).

Trump officials said Sunday that the Supreme Court’s ruling requires only that the Trump regime allows Garcia to return —and only if he’s released by the government of El Salvador.

President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador, in a visit to the Oval Office today, said that the idea that he would send Chavez back was “preposterous.”

So, what happens now if the Supreme Court clarifies that the Trump regime must use every means possible to get Chavez back to America, but the regime chooses to defy that order?

JD Vance is a proponent of the view that a president can defy a Supreme Court order. In 2021, when he was then running for a Senate seat in Ohio, Vance said that if the courts stopped Trump, he should “stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did and say: ‘The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.’”

On February 8 of this year, after being sworn in as Vice President, Vance declared that “judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power” (without acknowledging that it’s up to the Supreme Court to determine the extent of a president’s “legitimate power.”)

2. The second way we officially become a dictatorship is if the Trump regime can accuse any American citizen of being so dangerous as to justify being sent to a foreign prison, without any independent court review of the regime’s evidence.

If the answer is yes, none of us is safe from the Trump regime.

This isn’t as far-fetched as it may seem.

During Bukele’s visit today, Bukele and Trump celebrated their joint crackdown on immigration and gangs. Bukele told Trump: “You have a crime problem and a terrorism problem that you need help with. And we’re a small country, but we can help.”

In response, Trump made clear he’s also considering sending American citizens to prison in El Salvador. "The homegrowns are next," Trump told Bukele. "You gotta build about five more places. ... It's not big enough."

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, argued in a statement accompanying Thursday’s Court’s order that if Garcia can be abducted and handed over to El Salvador, no American citizen is safe: “The Government’s argument … implies that it could deport and incarcerate any person, including U. S. citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene.”

The possibility of arbitrary abduction by a sovereign and imprisonment abroad is one criterion that separates democracies from dictatorships. One of the grievances the Founders of the United States listed in the Declaration of Independence was "transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences."

***

What does the American public think?

A Reuters/Ipsos poll from late last month showed that 82 percent of Americans, including a majority of Republicans, believe a president “should obey federal court rulings even if the president does not want to.”

Yet in the same poll, 76 percent of Republicans agreed that “the Trump Administration should continue to deport people they view as a risk despite the court order.”

The poll was completed before the Abrego Garcia case came to public attention, so Republican opinion about presidential obedience to a court order in a case of someone whom the administration admits they erroneously deported remains unclear.

You are missing the point, Doc.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ne...l&utm_campaign=share

Trump Dares the Supreme Court to Do Something
His administration takes a new step toward authoritarianism.

By David A. Graham

April 14, 2025, 4:57 PM ET

https://www.theatlantic.com/po...l&utm_campaign=share

The Constitutional Crisis Is Here
Trump’s administration is only pretending to comply with the Supreme Court on the matter of a Maryland man it deported erroneously.

By Adam Serwer

April 14, 2025, 2:10 PM ET

Between the path of outright defiance of the Supreme Court and following its order to “facilitate” the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia from El Salvador’s infamous Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (CECOT), the Trump administration has chosen a third way: pretending it is complying while refusing to do so.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...b0308f98c7a3ef&ei=27

‘As many as possible’: Trump says he is open to deporting American citizens who commit crimes

Trump met with the president of El Salvador today. No resolution on Garcia’s return because neither president wanted to resolve the problem. Trump did state categorically that he wanted to ship American criminals to El Salvador and asked their president to build 9 more prisons! I guess due process now means convicted prisoners here will head south. What an orange WPOS… Time for the TX Trumpiteers to go all in on this blatant abuse of power and the rule of law- with a little help from the Minnesota contingent….

quote:

Originally posted by TomP:
Whether his arrest was just or unjust misses the point.
Our Constitution does not grant rights, it acknowledges them.
Our Constitution and laws constrain what our government is allowed to do.
Once we depart from those constraints, we are floundering in the deep end.

El Salvador was a point, they do not want to smuggle him back in and they're getting paid to keep him out.
The contract to keep him is maybe not legal due to illegal acts getting him there and so not enforceable.
Trump should refuse to pay his keep and get him back for due process. We aspire to be a nation of laws.

If we let this go, what will it be next time? There will be a next time, guaranteed. We have employed people to do a job who are not competent to meet their quota within the constraints of the law.

Hell-of-a-mess, in an age of epic and stupid hell-of-a-messes.

Trump could just say he wants him returned and that would be the end of it. He doesn't want to and doen't care.

I don’t get it
You are illegal here so you have no right to demand your right otherwise we’d have whole world here which under Biden we almost got them all
So how many judges we need to process 15-20 million illegals to have their “due process “?
Isn’t it complete insanity that illegals sneak here and we have to give them due process that might take years while we technically according to Dems feed them cloth them, give them roof over their head, give them free medical and I can go on forever.
This is insanity no matter how you slice it

No M Shy:

Bern “illegals” have due process rights.

Even enemy combatants held outside the US (where the U.S. has de facto sovereignty) have Due Process rights. These include civil criminal trials, bail, counsel, and adversary proceedings before a neutral arbitrator of law (judge).

These are long established precedents.

We do not take the Executive’s word for it. Never have, never will, and SHALL not.

If rights of those you do not like can be violated. Your rights can be likewise stripped by the Executive.

Al not would take is a President putting you on a list, his Administration grabbing you, and putting you on a plane (or in grave). That is how Trump is governing.

The Constitution and due process rights are those things the government must do. They are not an exhaustive. Such a document would be thousands of pages long. That is found in our Supreme Court jurisprudence.

If you don’t come here through proper channel, you are illegal thus, you’re out,you got no right to be here in first place
That’s the way I look at it
Who is paying for all this?
Taxpayers and that is all of us
When gov runs out of money for illegals, what then?

The law says you ate incorrect. We do not take the accuser, Executive’s words for it.

If we did, you could be on the next plane.

These fold have rights. It does not matter that you do not like it.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004)

Sorry, what I said is the factual position of the law.

Above case extending due process rights to non citizen, “enemy combatants” even when they are not within the territorial jurisdiction of the US.

Of course, one could read the Circuit .
Court of Appeals concerning the specific case we are discussing here.

Laugh all you want. You are wrong to the law, and the consequences of what you advocate.

Oh, and there is:
Eventually, the Supreme Court extended these constitutional protections to all aliens within the United States, including those who entered unlawfully, declaring that “aliens who have once passed through our gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness encompassed in due process of law.”

Case

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-s...5206/usrep345206.pdf

The incorporated 5th Amendment. The precedent is binding and goes back to the 1950s. There was a case in 1972 that reiterated the above holding. Yes, this individuals have due process rights. No, the Executive does not fer to unilaterally declare their status, arrest them, and send them to wherever the Executive wants.

Look in the mirror and laugh at yourself clown.

So my Lord, what will the outcome be? Since you are all knowing…you should be able to tell us. I am all ears.

Clown, prove That my legal statements are wrong. You can’t. See the above caselaw.

You can post little picture all you want. That dows not change the FS t you are wrong. M Shy is wrong. I have provided the caselaw.

If Congress wants to permit a lawless Executive. So e it.

I hope the federal Courts start enforcing their orders against the Regime like they would against any other entity. Contempt hearings and jailing.

The fact you support and make excuses for the lawless regime does not change the fact the regime is violating Due Orocess Rights. It does not change the fact when an Executive can violate these ur process tithe to these people without consequences, an Executive can do the same to you.

Cases yuh would not read because your are an intellectual hack.
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004)

Sorry, what I said is the factual position of the law.

Above case extending due process rights to non citizen, “enemy combatants” even when they are not within the territorial jurisdiction of the US.

Of course, one could read the Circuit .
Court of Appeals concerning the specific case we are discussing here.

Laugh all you want. You are wrong to the law, and the consequences of what you advocate.

Oh, and there is:
Eventually, the Supreme Court extended these constitutional protections to all aliens within the United States, including those who entered unlawfully, declaring that “aliens who have once passed through our gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness encompassed in due process of law.”

Case

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-s...5206/usrep345206.pdf

The incorporated 5th Amendment. The precedent is binding and goes back to the 1950s. There was a case in 1972 that reiterated the above holding. Yes, this individuals have due process rights. No, the Executive does not fer to unilaterally declare their status, arrest them, and send them to wherever the Executive wants.

So is that your prediction?

Little lord fontleroy needs to be DOGE'd.....he is obviously a useless government employee......


.

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:
Little lord fontleroy needs to be DOGE'd.....he is obviously a useless government employee......


.

100%

I have no prediction.

We should not be on this constitutional crisis?

I am here to provide the caselaw. To prevent folks like you and M Shy from advancing lies on what the law is.

Why do you not declare this Regime should and must follow the incorporated 5th Amendment rights concerning this issue?

Do you support the Regimes willful disobedience of these incorporated due process rights through the 5th Amendment?

If you are correct…the law will prevail…right!

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:
Little lord fontleroy needs to be DOGE'd.....he is obviously a useless government employee......


.

100%

Telling the truth about the law is not useless. It is vital. Especially, in this debate.


Jtex and you have not and cannot provide any argument that the Regime is acting within the bounds of the Constitution. The Court said no all the way back in 1950s. It has arid no again.

Follow the law.

You both are arguing the Executive is free to ignore the Checks and Balances of the Constitution. That ye Execute may ignore recognized due process rights from the incorporation Ed 4th Amendment.

That is truant. That lawlessness. That allows you two to be listed, grabbed, and buried by the Executive.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
If you are correct…the law will prevail…right!

The law only will prevail when good people refuse to stay silent and do mouthing in the face of evil.

This is real evil. A President ignoring the fundamental Checks and Valances found in the Constitution. A President unilaterally ignoring due process rights found in the Incorporated 5th Amendment.

When the president can ignore those rights to one class, ignore the courts enforcement of those rights. A president can do it to you.

It is not conservatism. This tyranny.

You are here supporting given unrecognized, unilateral pier to a president.

You have no colon to bring correct.

You are not arguing you are correct in doing so. The case are not permitting that. You simply agree the president should have such power. You damn The Constitution, the courts’ ability to enforce and protect all our rights, and the incorporated 5th Amendment.

I answer you question.

As usual you refuse to answer questions.

No one can race relevant constitutional caselaw and argue this Regime’s actions are constitutional.

Laugh at yourself and Jtex. You are supporting palpable destruction of the Constitution.

Again, this is the truth:

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004)

Sorry, what I said is the factual position of the law.

Above case extending due process rights to non citizen, “enemy combatants” even when they are not within the territorial jurisdiction of the US.

Of course, one could read the Circuit .
Court of Appeals concerning the specific case we are discussing here.

Laugh all you want. You are wrong to the law, and the consequences of what you advocate.

Oh, and there is:
Eventually, the Supreme Court extended these constitutional protections to all aliens within the United States, including those who entered unlawfully, declaring that “aliens who have once passed through our gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness encompassed in due process of law.”

Case

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-s...5206/usrep345206.pdf

The incorporated 5th Amendment. The precedent is binding and goes back to the 1950s. There was a case in 1972 that reiterated the above holding. Yes, this individuals have due process rights. No, the Executive does not fer to unilaterally declare their status, arrest them, and send them to wherever the Executive wants.

There will be updated case law when this is ovet.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
If you are correct…the law will prevail…right!

The law only will prevail when good people refuse to stay silent and do mouthing in the face of evil.

This is real evil. A President ignoring the fundamental Checks and Valances found in the Constitution. A President unilaterally ignoring due process rights found in the Incorporated 5th Amendment.

When the president can ignore those rights to one class, ignore the courts enforcement of those rights. A president can do it to you.

It is not conservatism. This tyranny.

You are here supporting given unrecognized, unilateral pier to a president.

You have no colon to bring correct.

You are not arguing you are correct in doing so. The case are not permitting that. You simply agree the president should have such power. You damn The Constitution, the courts’ ability to enforce and protect all our rights, and the incorporated 5th Amendment.

I answer you question.

As usual you refuse to answer questions.

No one can race relevant constitutional caselaw and argue this Regime’s actions are constitutional.

Laugh at yourself and Jtex. You are supporting palpable destruction of the Constitution.

Again, this is the truth:

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004)

Sorry, what I said is the factual position of the law.

Above case extending due process rights to non citizen, “enemy combatants” even when they are not within the territorial jurisdiction of the US.

Of course, one could read the Circuit .
Court of Appeals concerning the specific case we are discussing here.

Laugh all you want. You are wrong to the law, and the consequences of what you advocate.

Oh, and there is:
Eventually, the Supreme Court extended these constitutional protections to all aliens within the United States, including those who entered unlawfully, declaring that “aliens who have once passed through our gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness encompassed in due process of law.”

Case

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-s...5206/usrep345206.pdf

The incorporated 5th Amendment. The precedent is binding and goes back to the 1950s. There was a case in 1972 that reiterated the above holding. Yes, this individuals have due process rights. No, the Executive does not fer to unilaterally declare their status, arrest them, and send them to wherever the Executive wants.

If it is unconstitutional…the SCOTUS will correct it…right?

The Suoreme Court just ruled against you.

Your motor laughing face underscores your moral and intellectual bankruptcy.

This case restates those cases I have provided.

You advocating to pls e unsterile in the President free of constitutional checks and balances.

You have lost this argument twice in the less 60 days before the Supreme Court.

You are advocating for the destruction of fundamental checks and balances found in the Constitution. You are advocating for destroying the 5th Amendment that protects the President from declaring you an undesirable, seizing you, and making you disappear unilaterally.

You are not a conservative.

You are a fool. You would not permit a Dem president to weld such power. You would not condone a Dem president through Executive order voiding Heller and McDonald.

However, you permit, make excuses, and desire this President to weld such power.

You are more dangerous than the President doing it.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
If you are correct…the law will prevail…right!

The law only will prevail when good people refuse to stay silent and do mouthing in the face of evil.

This is real evil. A President ignoring the fundamental Checks and Valances found in the Constitution. A President unilaterally ignoring due process rights found in the Incorporated 5th Amendment.

When the president can ignore those rights to one class, ignore the courts enforcement of those rights. A president can do it to you.

It is not conservatism. This tyranny.

You are here supporting given unrecognized, unilateral pier to a president.

You have no colon to bring correct.

You are not arguing you are correct in doing so. The case are not permitting that. You simply agree the president should have such power. You damn The Constitution, the courts’ ability to enforce and protect all our rights, and the incorporated 5th Amendment.

I answer you question.

As usual you refuse to answer questions.

No one can race relevant constitutional caselaw and argue this Regime’s actions are constitutional.

Laugh at yourself and Jtex. You are supporting palpable destruction of the Constitution.

Again, this is the truth:

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004)

Sorry, what I said is the factual position of the law.

Above case extending due process rights to non citizen, “enemy combatants” even when they are not within the territorial jurisdiction of the US.

Of course, one could read the Circuit .
Court of Appeals concerning the specific case we are discussing here.

Laugh all you want. You are wrong to the law, and the consequences of what you advocate.

Oh, and there is:
Eventually, the Supreme Court extended these constitutional protections to all aliens within the United States, including those who entered unlawfully, declaring that “aliens who have once passed through our gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness encompassed in due process of law.”

Case

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-s...5206/usrep345206.pdf

The incorporated 5th Amendment. The precedent is binding and goes back to the 1950s. There was a case in 1972 that reiterated the above holding. Yes, this individuals have due process rights. No, the Executive does not fer to unilaterally declare their status, arrest them, and send them to wherever the Executive wants.

If it is unconstitutional…the SCOTUS will correct it…right?

They ruled Twice in less than 60 days these presidential actions were unconstitutional and ordered the Administration to correct. Why would you not condemn the President who refuses?

Answer the questions posed to you. You have been answered.

Except they didn’t.

They did.

This case that leads this thread.

And right before, the Administration must provide due process. That is consistent with all the prior cases provide by herein.

You are lying.

Great job providing no response to the specific questions posed to you.

Oh and Bourbon saw the first federal legislation to regulate production, safety, and quality. The Bonded in Bond Act. It create the Food and Drug Administration enabling statute. Glad we have it, and other regs governing the production of sports in this county.

My point was you are being as hyperbolic as Dr. Easter in this.

He says "its all good, SCOTUS supports it"

You say "its all bad, SCOTUS refutes it" You said that no other president has ever removed civil rights by executive order, which is patently untrue. Then you keep trying to evade that point and the point that aside from not following due process SCOTUS was silent on the facts of the case. Yet herein, you also say that he is not a member of a gang (which has not been debated in a court yet... seems like he is from his asylum paperwork and some statements in the press, but that is just an allegation at this point...)

It wasn't that cut and dried.

I think SCOTUS was saying that he may well have been legally arrested and who knows, he may well be appropriately expelled, but we need to have the due process hearing to do so first.

I fully agree with you that the violations of due process affect us all.

I also think that its rather difficult for the court to force the executive's hand on some things. What is the due effort involved? Asking El Salvador to return the guy? Offer them some of our prisoners in exchange? A sternly worded letter? Threaten them with the 82nd Airborne? Threaten to throw a few cruise missiles at them? Threaten to nuke them?

The court has an issue- they cannot by law be involved in making foreign policy.

I agree its wrong and bad that this man was deported without a legal hearing. It is an attack on the civil liberties of us all. I am not about to admit that a prosecutor's say so should take anyone's rights away from them... that is what this case was at its basis. A prosecuting attorney decided that this guy was an illegal and should be sent back to El Salvador- and he was sent before a judge could stop it because the prosecution decided to get him out before the trial.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Ok, so he was arrested persuant to a legally proper process, and there was reasonable suspicion to do so?

Yes, he was illicitly deported to his nation of citizenship and the custody of him from the point they decided to deport him without following due process was illegal. However, his actual arrest and initial detention in the US was not, correct?

It became illegal once they decided to violate due process, correct?

You look somewhat disingenuous to me when you imply that he should never had been arrested in the first place.

You are a prosecutor. Using your logic, every time you arrest someone and they are released you just illicitly detained them.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
I thought the accuracy of the charge was a decision for trial/ hearing, not a conclusion? Isn’t the appellate panel review essentially saying that because he was shipped out we don’t know the facts? That he MAY be someone who was here rightfully?

I agree that this is why Trump’s folks should be in hot water.

I do think gang tattoos should be admissible- they are essentially a public utterance by the person who put them on. One of a number of things that are evidence. It’s not admission of guilt quite, but it is evidence. That’s for a court/judge to say. I don’t know that this guy has gang tattoos, but heard that is “why” he was considered a gang member.

I don’t know that he is rightfully here is a foregone conclusion… but our system requires it be challenged in court, not some DOJ functionary shipping him off.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
No he was not lawfully detained.

He was detained under the color of law.

That is not the same.

Read the Circuit Court of Appeals.

His original detention was improper. He was not who the Administration said he was.

That is why these due process rights Trump Administration is violating is more than dangerous.

When, you are detained under the color of jaw and deboned due process that detention is illegal.

The process was not followed. The Supreme Court has ruled he and all ten are entitled to due process. At the very least that is an adversarial hearing before a judge of competent jurisdiction that the government can lose.

This is palpable non-compliance.

Of this regime cdm do this. They can do it to all of us.

Trump is already taking about doing it to citizens.

The Regime had even admitted, before suspending the lawyer, he should not have been deported.

This is the Executive ruling unilaterally so any regard for the Checks snd Balances found in the Constitution. The rule of law, recognized precedents, and long recognized Due Process Rights.

It is lawlessness. It is tyranny.

You can't tell me that Trump doesn't have enough influence in El Salvador to get this man returned, if he wanted to.

He's not complying in good faith with the court's order; and I hope the judge starts jailing people in the administration.

This executive order idea, that the potus somehow can micromanage the workings of governmental institutions. I used to think that was a good idea since it would create political accountability.

In Sweden, politicians have always hid behind "you know, it's really horrible, but I cannot do anything about it since it's the law and this is a complicated thing to deal with and it takes time etc etc".

But hey, executive orders... "Fuck the law, and if people who do my bidding are still convicted in any way I'll just pardon them".

Executive orders can be used for tyranny, as we've seen. America's founding fathers never imagined their country being ruled by a narcissistic clown.

quote:

I think SCOTUS was saying that he may well have been legally arrested and who knows, he may well be appropriately expelled, but we need to have the due process hearing to do so first.

That^^^is exactly what they are saying.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
You can't tell me that Trump doesn't have enough influence in El Salvador to get this man returned, if he wanted to.

He's not complying in good faith with the court's order; and I hope the judge starts jailing people in the administration.

You are the wordsmith…what does “facilitate his return” compel the President to do?

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:
"So, let's be clear. trump thinks he can take Canada, Greenland, Panama Canal, whatever, but he can't get nobody El Salvador to return a single innocent man? Paper tiger? Allikeet? Alligator mouth & a parakeet ass?"

Make any argument you like over the details, here's the big picture. trump has never cared about right or wrong.

The only thing this MAGA FUCKWIT is good at is LYING!

And glorifying himself!

Here are the facts:

1) Garcia is an El Salvador citizen.
2) He is not a US citizen.
3) He did enter the country illegally.
4) He is more likely than not a MS-13 member.
5) Some immigration judge issued a Withholding of Removal order for fear of persecution in El Salvador. From what I have read…the persecution was rival gang related activity.

So here we are…a sanctuary for gang members from other countries who fear other gang members.

And now we are going to spend thousands on arguing if we should bring him back.

Damn…it's no wonder the US is in the shape it is. He’s gone. Good riddance. We should all be happy. Father’s of daughters should be ecstatic.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
No M Shy:

Bern “illegals” have due process rights.

Almost right. By our Constitution, our government has no rights without due process.
Our government is to acknowledge rights and protect them, it is not the source of rights.
Status of citizen, immigrant, or visitor is not the issue at all.

As to whether the man was or was not a gang participant, the end does not justify the means.