It’s a very important question. You cited the right statute, what rules should be used to implement that statute?
For all the Trump apologists
- Thread starter Baller23Boogie
- Start date
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.
Hardly. There would be pushback on anyone not abiding by the Constitution or by the supreme Court.
It takes people with their head up trump's rear to support this crap
What part of the constitution did the supremes hold Trump violated by sending Garcia to Salvador?
Skipping due process. Pretty sure that has been mentioned multiple times already. Struggling with reading?
Wrong.
This is not a multiple choice question. You don’t know your ass from first base.
The lefty cult are incredibly stupid people. You just have to laugh. They use up all their political oxygen playing identity politics with shitbags. This El Salvador deal is a boon for the right. Hardly a boondoggle. Great distraction. The left look like lunatics per usual and they’re stepping over 20s to chase pennies
To wit - did a massive target Whole Foods grocery store run this am. Flip the script. Every word out of the left’s mouths should be Trump lied!!!!! Why are prices so high. What is he doing. He said day one. They’re higher!!! When are they coming down?!!! He’s failing. He hasn’t done shit blah blah blah
Could be correct. But I don’t think any smart economist would see a trend based upon 60 days of data.
Illegal Immigration is to Democrats roughly what abortion is to Republicans.
They’re on the short side of it politically. But they either don’t realize it or do realize it but are so dug in on it that it’s a hill they’re willing to die on.
Justice Roberts specifically stated that the Trial Court's opinion and order was to remain in effect:
"The rest of the District Court’s order remains in effect but requires clarification on remand. The order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s orderis, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority.
The trial court clearly held that there was, inter alia, a violation of the 5th Amendment and the Supreme Court Agreed. Justice's Roberts' order is a clear as day.
Correct. Again, all you have to do is read the opinion.
Wasn't the 'mistake' was in not deporting him to a 3rd country? He wasn't supposed to be sent back to El Salvador?
I saw the impact immediately in the pricing of labor and the costs on construction projects for non-unionized jobs. Framers, masons, welders, disappeared by the thousands. Have to go to a union hall to competentaly replace that labor, at least doubling the cost for labor.
What do you think they do…spin a wheel and see where it lands?
We can’t just drop some guy off in whatever country we want to without their consent.
Imagine if some other country tried to do that with us.
The mistake, which the government admitted, was deporting him because there was a do not remove order issued for Garcia. The process to effectuate the termination of the order is to go back to the immigration court and have a hearing before the court with parties presenting evidence. These are not lengthy proceedings--the initial bond hearing lasted less than a day. Government didn't do that.
We've since found that that's incorrect. 2 judges had already determined his gang membership. To say there 'were no legal grounds whatsoever for his arrest, detention, or removal" is just laughable.
So all an illegal has to do is claim he is in danger in his own country and he can't be deported to another country without their consent?
How f'king stupid is that?
PS, If another American is in another country illegally, I couldn't possibly care less what happens to them.
Well I did forget to put in the "emphasis added", so my citation would need correction 🤣
It's not. The government conceded the point.
If it's stupid, change the rule. Until you do, follow it.
I read it once--going on memory--Garcia presented what the judge said was "more than credible evidence" that he would be in signficant danger from the gangs in El Salvador. THere was additional information that the judge relied upon such has his experience in the US--good work reviews, voucher from emplyer, a kid, etc. The trump admin didn't object at the time to that order, nor did they appeal
Surprised you were able to pass the bar given how little you know
That isn't quite true. In fact, the first opinion was on the bond (not the substance of whether he stays or goes), where the court said "had her doubts", but there was no finding of fact because the government doesn't have to prove he is a violent criminal--only that there is evidence. The guy who provided the evidence, was later convicted for lying under oath and framing people up. Either way, it wasn't a hearing on the merits--only the bond. The appeals court only said the trial court did not abuse its discretion--a highly deferential standard-which is fine. The substance of the deportation was dealt with by the judge who issued the do not remove order.
How about giving a shit about allowing millions of illegals to enter the country and live here 11 years before they're finally deported?
There are plenty of you who have no problem making up novel laws when it comes to Trump, but when an illegal criminal is deported because all the rules weren't followed to a T, you lose your minds.
You omitted Roberts’ “deference” comment.
“The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.”
I think the trial court is wrong if it believes it has authority to decide the removal issue. That decision is clearly an administrative decision which is subject only to limited judicial review.
The deference comment and the directive are in relation to how they get Garcia back.
You need to read the opinions.
And thankfully we have procedures in place to change the rules.
And judges aren’t them.
ChatGPT, please explain "common law" to me.
We are two ships passing in the night--you went from arguing that the supreme court didn't say x, when it clearly did-- to arguing about deference, which is irrelevant to the original discussion and whether a substantive right was infringed. You may disagree with the trial court's opinion, but the Supreme Court implicitily, if not explicitly, supported the trial court's decision when it could have struck it down. The Surpemes did it and said "it stands".
That too. It’s all one paragraph.
.
8 USC 1231 --aka INA § 241(b)(3)(A)
(3) Restriction on removal to a country where alien's life or freedom would be threatened
(A) In general
Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), the Attorney General may not remove an alien to a country if the Attorney General decides that the alien's life or freedom would be threatened in that country because of the alien's race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. ( my emphasis )The court’s role is very limited.
Sotomayor with Kagan and Jackson added their statement because Roberts did not say what you think he said.
Similar threads
