For all the Trump apologists
- Thread starter Baller23Boogie
- Start date
I think they can (and should) defend Abrego Garcia's denied right to due process without defending him.
In fact, I'd say it's vitally important for them to continue pressing that. It's certainly the correct position legally. And I think it's also a better position for them politically. Make Trump and the Republicans explain why a 6-3 conservative Supreme Court ruled unanimously against them. Make them explain why we should just shrug our shoulders at something as foundational as Due Process -- that the 5th amendment guarantees to "all persons". Mock Trump for the photoshopped tattoo farce.
But they should stay away from defending Abrego Garcia himself. He's pretty obviously no bueno.
You are adopting the democrats’ talking points. Due process is not the basis for the holding. The holding is that Garcia’s removal was illegal because the government made a mistake.
Correcting the mistake is a different issue. I’m not even sure that Garcia should be heard on that issue since the important decision is in the hands of the attorney general.
The only thing we know for sure is that he was in the country illegally and he will be deported anyway.
Deport them no questions asked. Those are the rules. And he had his due process. 2 judges ordered him deported.
It's why they lost to Trump twice. They're incompetent and really stupid. IF AOC has half a brain she should be able to take over the party.
Last edited:
It's an extremely easy answer crazed. They allowed in 10-20 million illegals the past 4 years and the people negatively impacted by it don't give a shit about a technicality.
You're not characterizing this case correctly:
Due Process and the Abrego Garcia Case - FactCheck.org
The Supreme Court ruled on the evening of April 10 that the Trump administration must comply with a lower court's order to "facilitate" the release from custody of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, an immigrant who was deported without a hearing to a mega prison in El Salvador. The case underscores...
www.factcheck.org
When Abrego Garcia was arrested on March 12, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers didn’t provide a warrant and “told him only that his ‘status had changed,'” according to U.S. District Court Judge Paula Xinis’ explanation of her April 4 decision that he should be returned from El Salvador. He was shuttled between detainment facilities before being flown to El Salvador on March 15, without having seen a judge.
“Although the legal basis for the mass removal of hundreds of individuals to El Salvador remains disturbingly unclear, Abrego Garcia’s case is categorically different—there were no legal grounds whatsoever for his arrest, detention, or removal,” Xinis wrote, concluding that “his detention appears wholly lawless.”
I'm for deporting every illegal immigrant but check your numbers. My position that has been entirely consistent for as long as I've posted here. However, there were not 10-20 million new illegals over the past four years that's a wild exaggeration which has originated with the President who routinely claims those numbers with his most recent assertion being 21 million. We have an estimated 10 to 11 million illegals living in this country and the majority of them came into the country before 2010.
The heart of the matter :You're not characterizing this case correctly:
Due Process and the Abrego Garcia Case - FactCheck.org
The Supreme Court ruled on the evening of April 10 that the Trump administration must comply with a lower court's order to "facilitate" the release from custody of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, an immigrant who was deported without a hearing to a mega prison in El Salvador. The case underscores...
When Abrego Garcia was arrested on March 12, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers didn’t provide a warrant and “told him only that his ‘status had changed,'” according to U.S. District Court Judge Paula Xinis’ explanation of her April 4 decision that he should be returned from El Salvador. He was shuttled between detainment facilities before being flown to El Salvador on March 15, without having seen a judge.
“Although the legal basis for the mass removal of hundreds of individuals to El Salvador remains disturbingly unclear, Abrego Garcia’s case is categorically different—there were no legal grounds whatsoever for his arrest, detention, or removal,” Xinis wrote, concluding that “his detention appears wholly lawless.”
and said it should “ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.”
What process is due to answer this question?
The rest of the fact check article is mostly irrelevant legal mumbo jumbo. Of course DP applies to non- citizens. The point is that due process is not the same for all cases. Deportations are a civil process. Not criminal. Deportations don’t affect property or liberty. Non citizens don’t forfeit their property if they are deported.
The heart of the matter is: Did Garcia receive due process when he was arrested, detained, and removed to El Salvador?
The answer is no. The SCt did not reverse that finding by the district court.
An argument waiving away complicated law with the phrase “legal mumbo jumbo” is not one I expected here.
Point to a post defending the person... it's always the process.
They had more encounters than that, but they all aren't still here or living here. Am I the only person here that likes to fact check things? Just search. Homeland Security puts out reports on this annually, including during the first Trump administration. The President said 21 million under Biden which is absolutely false. I'm not calling it a lie because I don't know if he actually believes that false things that he says or not every time.
I think that is begging the question.
The court said the administration must decide the case de novo. Do you think that must be an evidentiary court hearing?
I don’t think this is complicated. The AG makes an administrative determination. That’s the relevant statute you cited. There might be a judicial review, but judicial review of an administrative decision is not nearly the same as a quasi judicial review.
The process got an illegal wife beating gang member out of the country. The process is working.
LOL at begging the question. The question I wrote is THE question. That the answer to it is clear and contrary to your argument is not begging it.
What court said "the administration must decide the case de novo"? Link?
From the district court opinion (NONE of these findings were challenged on appeal!):
In 2019, an immigration judge—acting under the authority delegated by the United States Attorney General and pursuant to powers vested by Congress—granted Plaintiff Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia (“Abrego Garcia”) withholding of removal, thereby protecting him from return to his native country, El Salvador. ECF No. 1 ¶ 41; ECF No. 1-1. Such protection bars the United States from sending a noncitizen to a country where, more likely than not, he would face persecution that risks his “life or freedom.” See Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); see also 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16–.18 & .24 (setting forth the standard for withholding of removal and the procedures required for its termination).
Six years later, without notice, legal justification, or due process, officers from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), a subagency of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), put him on a plane bound for the Terrorism Confinement Center (“CECOT”) 1 Case 8:25-cv-00951-PX Document 31 Filed 04/06/25 Page 2 of 22 in El Salvador. ECF No. 1¶ 59. 1 Neither the United States nor El Salvador have told anyone why he was returned to the very country to which he cannot return, or why he is detained at CECOT.2 See Hr’g Tr., Apr. 4, 2025, 25: 13–14 (Mr. Reuveni: “We have nothing to say on the merits. We concede he should not have been removed to El Salvador.”); see Hr’g Tr., Apr. 4, 2025, 34:2535:5 (The Court: “[W]hat basis is he held? Why is he [in CECOT] of all places?” . . . Mr. Reuveni: “I don’t know. That information has not been given to me. I don’t know.”).
That silence is telling. As Defendants acknowledge, they had no legal authority to arrest him, no justification to detain him, and no grounds to send him to El Salvador3—let alone deliver him into one of the most dangerous prisons in the Western Hemisphere.4
I miss spoke. I meant 10-20 million immigrants total. As for illegals, 50 years ago the reported population of the U.S. was around 210 million. The population today is closing in on 340 million. We have been below replacement births at least 43 of of the past 50 years (some reports have it at 47). I think the number of illegals is closer to 30 million. I take the government estimates with a grain of salt.
Last edited:
When I asked you which law the Administration violated, you cited the correct one.
Yes the district court noted the removal was done without due process. The reason I said mentioning due process begs the question is because there was been no decision whether the AG determination is administrative done w/o hearing or is an evidentiary hearing required. I think the answer is clearly the former. Judicial review is substantially different. With all due respect to the district court, the judge is just flat wrong if the court thinks it can hold a hearing and make its own deportation determination. What matters is the statute you and I agree applies.
You need to read the decision. They asked for a PI and got it:
Next as to Count II, the procedural due process claim, Abrego Garcia alleges that Defendants forced removal to El Salvador without any process constitutes a clear constitutional violation. This the Defendants also concede. But for completeness, the Court briefly addresses why the parties are correct. To succeed on a Fifth Amendment due process claim, the plaintiff must show that he possesses “a constitutionally cognizable life, liberty, or property interest”; that he was deprived of that interest because of “some form of state action”; and “that the procedures employed were constitutionally inadequate.” Sansotta v. Town of Nags Head, 724 F.3d 533, 540 (4th Cir. 2013).
Abrego Garcia has demonstrated that he had a liberty interest by virtue of the INA in avoiding forcible removal to El Salvador. “In order for a statute to create a vested liberty or property interest giving rise to procedural due process protection, it must confer more than a mere expectation (even one supported by consistent government practice) of a benefit.” Mallette v. Arlington County Employees’ Supplemental Ret. Sys. II, 91 F.3d 630, 635 (4th Cir.1996). There must be entitlement to the benefit as directed by statute, and the statute must “‘act to limit meaningfully the discretion of the decision-makers.’” Id. (quoting Board of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369, 382 (1987) (O’Connor, J., dissenting)).” Here, the statutory scheme which conferred withholding of removal also entitled Abrego Garcia to not be returned to El Salvador absent 18 Case 8:25-cv-00951-PX Document 31 Filed 04/06/25 Page 19 of 22 process. Further, the statutes at issue eliminated the discretion altogether. Thus, this element is easily met.
As to the third element, Defendants deprived Abrego Garcia of this right without any procedural protections due to him. Indeed, nothing in the record suggests that Abrego Garcia received any process at all. Accordingly, he is likely to succeed on the merits of Count II.
Can't get into Instagram. My guess is, your reply has to do with a different type of cougar. Both wild, but the 2 legged kind is crazier.Many verifications:
Login • Instagram
Welcome back to Instagram. Sign in to check out what your friends, family & interests have been capturing & sharing around the world.www.instagram.com
It’s best to go with best data available and those with the means to gather and compile it rather than Wild evidence free guesses.
The SC using that word, was an evident FY to the whole process. I'm an 8th grade level Dr with a 6th grade level lawyer masters.... and saw a circus full of loop holes once I saw that word.
THESE ID 10 T's simply can't see that far in front of their noses!
This was a total cop out from the Supremes, since "Facilitate" is not determinate nor directional!
It's hog wash BS, and they knew it. ..............Enter CNN Stage left.
Justice is ruined, if just one foreign guilty fvcker gets punished without $millions of tax $ spent on him and months of TV ratings on CNN.
Wait... That isn't exactly how the old saying goes, is it? Am I close?
Seems to me that's what most of them are doing. You see a lot more complaining from the GOP about people defending Abrego Garcia than you actually see people, you know, defending him.
Obviously, there are exceptions. Big country and all that.
You quoted the “Statement” provided by Sotomayor, joined by Kagen and Jackson. None of that is part of the order. Given how those three demonstrated a total lack of understanding of the straight-forward issue of official immunity, I’m not surprised they don’t get this either. These three are way too Trump centric.
Edit: even though your quote looks like what Sotomayor wrote, it isn’t exactly. What are you quoting? The trial court? That has been superseded by the SCOTUS deference comments and conspicuous absence of a DP hearing upon remand.
Last edited:
Nobody gives a shit about Abrego Garcia. But everyone should give a shit about following the rules and regs to legally remove someone from the country. If the SC doesn't enforce the rules they will have rendered themselves irrelevant and just be a collection of knuckleheads in ugly black kimonos.
I think you could argue that Sen. Van Hollen’s trip amounted in some measure to an appeal on behalf of the man himself. He may not have said those words, but the optics of it came across that way…to generate public sympathy for him.
In general, I think a lot of the pushback on immigration law enforcement amounts to emotional appeals based on humanitarian themes.
Don’t agree. The only theme with Garcia is an anti-Trump theme. The left doesn’t like Trump’s deportation efforts and the left chose Garcia as their poster boy for that opposition.
I've been quoting the trial court decision. I've never quoted Sotomayor.
Read it. As a general rule, reading an opinion before criticizing it and claiming the judge is completely clueless is a good idea.
In relation to the Milwaukee incident, I heard one commentator say the left treats illegal immigrants now like they are escaped slaves.
Do you agree with the trial court?
Do you really think the trial court should decide deportation after a full evidentiary due process hearing on the issue?
It’s a very important question. You cited the right statute, what rules should be used to implement that statute?
Oof. Given what that judge did, and how much support she’s gotten for doing it, that’s not an unfair analogy.
I’ve seen some of the smarter center-left commentators suggest they keep their heat more on trade and the economy and less on immigration. Trump’s support on the economy has cratered, with good reason. It’s easy to understand, completely on him, and directly impacts every person, every day.
Similar threads
