Trump Ignores the Courts

[Orange_Crush]

we have extradition rights with El Salvador. not sure what that process is, but there is one to bring a criminal back into the states to face the charges here.

now I have no idea if this judge can order that extradition, or how it works out, but there absolutely is a way to bring a known criminal back into the country from somewhere outside the US.

But is he coming here to face charges, or as a minor pitstop on his way to...? Where?

 

[LSU-SIU]

we have extradition rights with El Salvador. not sure what that process is, but there is one to bring a criminal back into the states to face the charges here.

now I have no idea if this judge can order that extradition, or how it works out, but there absolutely is a way to bring a known criminal back into the country from somewhere outside the US.

There is an outstanding criminal warrant for his arrest? The U.S. involvement in this is complete. (this case was about the TRO, not the individual)

 

[LouderVol]

But is he coming here to face charges, or as a minor pitstop on his way to...? Where?

I don't think the final destination makes a difference. if he is supposed to be facing US judgement it makes sense for that to happen in the US. we aren't the UN, we don't operate our justice in other nations.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I don't think the final destination makes a difference. if he is supposed to be facing US judgement it makes sense for that to happen in the US. we aren't the UN, we don't operate our justice in other nations.

There is an outstanding criminal warrant for his arrest? The U.S. involvement in this is complete. (this case was about the TRO, not the individual)

Again... Immigration law is not criminal law. Can you point to an arrest warrant?

Also, the only reason this is a major headling is because people are saying that the final destination DOES matter--i.e. NOT El Salvador. So, if he can't stay here, and he can't go to his home country, then... Where do we send him?

 

[LouderVol]

There is an outstanding criminal warrant for his arrest? The U.S. involvement in this is complete. (this case was about the TRO, not the individual)

considering he is already in jail, I am not sure what there is to "arrest"? seems like whatever justification was used to place him there is still valid, and can be used to extradite him.

 

[LouderVol]

Again... Immigration law is not criminal law. Can you point to an arrest warrant?

Also, the only reason this is a major headling is because people are saying that the final destination DOES matter--i.e. NOT El Salvador. So, if he can't stay here, and he can't go to his home country, then... Where do we send him?

so if it isn't a criminal case, why is he in jail?

are you arguing that the US government can just lock up anyone it wants in another country without criminal charges? That is beyond slippery slope and down right authoritarian.

if we are supposed to a nation of laws and justice, and not just a banana republic, it seems like we should have figured out where to send him, before we sent him anywhere.

 

[LSU-SIU]

considering he is already in jail, I am not sure what there is to "arrest"? seems like whatever justification was used to place him there is still valid, and can be used to extradite him.

He is not in U.S. custody, the U.S.'s involvement is over.

 

[LSU-SIU]

so if it isn't a criminal case, why is he in jail?

Because, he chose................... poorly.

 

[Orange_Crush]

so if it isn't a criminal case, why is he in jail?

are you arguing that the US government can just lock up anyone it wants in another country without criminal charges? That is beyond slippery slope and down right authoritarian.

if we are supposed to a nation of laws and justice, and not just a banana republic, it seems like we should have figured out where to send him, before we sent him anywhere.

Good question. Why is he in jail? 'd love to know if El Salvador knows something we don't. Have you wondered why he is in his own country, and they are keeping him in prison? As far as the US is concerned, he could be at home with his mom. Why has El Salvador drawn a line in the sand to keep him in prison when it's only a financial drain on them to do so?

No. Not anyone. It's the Alien Enemies Act. I guess we've been authoritarian since just after we were founded.

The Alien Enemies Act is a law.

Looks like they did. El Salvador. My understanding is that he was accused of being in a gang that has been deemed a terrorist group, and is part of the AEA roundup. Two judges agreed. He had his chance at that time to show that he's not, and didn't. If he had self-deported when given multiple opportunities, this would be a non-issue.

 

[hog88]

Something I haven't seen mentioned, this guy is a citizen of El Salvador so does Salvadorian law even allow them to "deport" him back to the US? Was he wanted in El Salvador prior to him leaving?

 

[GroverCleveland]

we have extradition rights with El Salvador. not sure what that process is, but there is one to bring a criminal back into the states to face the charges here.

now I have no idea if this judge can order that extradition, or how it works out, but there absolutely is a way to bring a known criminal back into the country from somewhere outside the US.

Now I like this. We want to extradite someone from another country for committing acts that would lead to them being deported again.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Something I haven't seen mentioned, this guy is a citizen of El Salvador so does Salvadorian law even allow them to "deport" him back to the US? Was he wanted in El Salvador prior to him leaving?

The president of El Salvador broached the same point. "You're asking me to smuggle an ES citizen into the US? No."

I asked similar in the post above. Why is he in his own country, in prison, when it's nothing more than a financial drain to be feeding and housing him in prison."

I actually wonder if this "Don't send me home b/c the gangs hate me" is closer to "I was in the gang and fled so they can't put me in prison..."

 

[LSU-SIU]

As far as the individual (this judge wasn't over that case btw), he not only was determined to be illegal by the executive branch via AEA, he already had an existing deportation order which had been stayed. It was only a matter of which country he was going to be deported to at most, but as the government said... El Salvador solved their gang probably quite a while ago.

I have no idea what the problem is with the one guy, he was sent home.

 

[Sea Ray]

At this point the facts are meaningless, meaning Trump could say he ordered them to do whatever and there is nothing the court can do as the President has immunity for official acts. They guy should have been removed.
Even his request for them to clear the contempt makes no sense, as the most they could do is telling him we have no ability to comply even if we wanted to let a criminal back in the country. They could simply say, we do not believe there was a valid written order, even if it was a valid written order - we did not violate it, and we have no ability to do anything else because bringing a known criminal back into the country is against the law and we don't have jurisdiction or custody anyway.

If there was no valid court order to deport him then Trump cannot deport him without due process. Otherwise, they owe him a hearing. If they can’t get him back, let’s have the hearing without him but let’s get to the bottom of this

 

[LSU-SIU]

If there was no valid court order to deport him then Trump cannot deport him without due process. Otherwise, they owe him a hearing. If they can’t get him back, let’s have the hearing without him but let’s get to the bottom of this

He was given all the due process allowed in law.

If they can’t get him back, let’s have the hearing without him but let’s get to the bottom of this

I have no idea what you are going to have a hearing about. He was already determined to be an illegal by the immigration process and determined to be here illegally by the executive branch via AEA. Nobody is disputing he was here illegally. He was ejected, the controversy is over at this stage as he is no longer in U.S. custody or jurisdiction.

You guys are confusing two different cases, the one I comment on is the TRO case.

 

[Sea Ray]

He was given all the due process allowed in law, if he wanted additional due process he could have filed a habeas in the correct court.



I have no idea what you are going to have a hearing about. He was already determined to be an illegal by the immigration process and determined to be here illegally by the executive branch via AEA. Nobody is disputing he was here illegally.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that all deportees under the Alien Enemies Act must be afforded due process of law, including "notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal.

According to the Supreme Court's unsigned order in Noem v. Abrego Garcia, however, the district court's 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."

Supreme Court unanimously orders Trump to 'facilitate' the return of wrongly deported man

Trump lost on his most aggressive claims of executive power for the second time in a week.

reason.com

 

[LouderVol]

Good question. Why is he in jail? 'd love to know if El Salvador knows something we don't. Have you wondered why he is in his own country, and they are keeping him in prison? As far as the US is concerned, he could be at home with his mom. Why has El Salvador drawn a line in the sand to keep him in prison when it's only a financial drain on them to do so?

No. Not anyone. It's the Alien Enemies Act. I guess we've been authoritarian since just after we were founded.

The Alien Enemies Act is a law.

Looks like they did. El Salvador. My understanding is that he was accused of being in a gang that has been deemed a terrorist group, and is part of the AEA roundup. Two judges agreed. He had his chance at that time to show that he's not, and didn't. If he had self-deported when given multiple opportunities, this would be a non-issue.

I thought you said this was an immigration case. Now you are saying he is being tried under a criminal law. which is it? and yes, I confirmed that the AEA is a criminal law.

this has been the problem, the admin part of the government has been picking and choosing. dancing back and forth between a criminal law, and the immigration laws.

the use of the AEA requires more review than an immigration case does, which is what the supreme court noted in their ruling.

 

[LouderVol]

Now I like this. We want to extradite someone from another country for committing acts that would lead to them being deported again.

got to love the government efficiency. but personally I find it more palatable than the executive branch just picking and choosing what laws and procedures they follow at will.

this is a huge matter of due process. we can not give the government precedence to ignore due process, even if its for an illegal citizen. that is not something they are going to honor and hold to. its just the next step, and Trump has already admitted to wanting to do it to citizens as well.

 

[LouderVol]

He was given all the due process allowed in law.



I have no idea what you are going to have a hearing about. He was already determined to be an illegal by the immigration process and determined to be here illegally by the executive branch via AEA. Nobody is disputing he was here illegally. He was ejected, the controversy is over at this stage as he is no longer in U.S. custody or jurisdiction.

You guys are confusing two different cases, the one I comment on is the TRO case.

AEA is not an immigration law. its a criminal law.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I thought you said this was an immigration case. Now you are saying he is being tried under a criminal law. which is it? and yes, I confirmed that the AEA is a criminal law.

this has been the problem, the admin part of the government has been picking and choosing. dancing back and forth between a criminal law, and the immigration laws.

the use of the AEA requires more review than an immigration case does, which is what the supreme court noted in their ruling.

He was tried under immigration law and sent under the AEA. So, with extradition, are you saying that there is an outstanding warrant? You're the one that brought up extradition agreements without pointing out where it is appropriate. (Which is ironic considering your complaints that the administration is apparently picking and choosing what/how to abide laws.)

 

[LouderVol]

He was tried under immigration law and sent under the AEA. So, with extradition, are you saying that there is an outstanding warrant? You're the one that brought up extradition agreements without pointing out where it is appropriate. (Which is ironic considering your complaints that the administration is apparently picking and choosing what/how to abide laws.)

I never said that extradition was appropriate. I even pointed out that I didn't think this particular judge could do it.

I was responding to LSU making a bold, and wrong claim, that there was no method to legally bring criminals back into the country. considering we do have an extradition agreement with El Salvador, it was a valid point to bring up.

and the Supreme Court ruled that the admin can't start with immigration then "send" out under AEA. you can't charge someone under one law, then punish them, or carry out sentencing, under another. they have to pick a lane and stick to it.

you guys are being over backwards to excuse Trump being a Banana Republic dictator who just does whatever he wants. yall have completely ignored Trump's statements to do the same thing with citizens.

 

[BeardedVol]

He was tried under immigration law and sent under the AEA. So, with extradition, are you saying that there is an outstanding warrant? You're the one that brought up extradition agreements without pointing out where it is appropriate. (Which is ironic considering your complaints that the administration is apparently picking and choosing what/how to abide laws.)

When exactly was he tried under immigration law after 2019?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf

 

[UT_Dutchman]

The way I understand it a judge ordered his deportation a year or so ago with the stipulation he couldn't be deported to El Salvador because the gang there didn't like the gang he was in and this put him in possible physical harm. So they want him brought back and deported to another country.

 

[volfanhill]

Now I like this. We want to extradite someone from another country for committing acts that would lead to them being deported again.

I can think of more preferable ways to rack up frequent flier miles

 

[LSU-SIU]

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Supreme Court unanimously orders Trump to 'facilitate' the return of wrongly deported man

Trump lost on his most aggressive claims of executive power for the second time in a week.

reason.com

What do they disagree with me about?