Trump Ignores the Courts

[LSU-SIU]

Your facts are wrong. Please address this:

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.

He was given no opportunity to challenge his removal

There most certainly is a controversy as to whether he's here illegally. Have you not seen reports that our courts ruled he can stay here because of the gang threat he'd face if sent back? If a judge did say that then it is valid and this gives him legal status to stay here

Look, I don't know which of these reports are true. That's why he needs a hearing to sort this stuff out. You need to be careful about stating things as facts.

Yes, he could have filed a habeas, but even if he did nobody is claiming he wasn't here illegally, the only thing that could have been impacted is the destination.

 

[Sea Ray]

Yes, he could have filed a habeas, but even if he did nobody is claiming he wasn't here illegally, the only thing that could have been impacted is the destination.

That's not what the SC ruled. They said that he was not given due process to challenge his removal. Why are you not getting that?

 

[Ashevolle]

Yes, he could have filed a habeas, but even if he did nobody is claiming he wasn't here illegally, the only thing that could have been impacted is the destination.

How could he file a habeas corpus petition? He's been disappeared. His lawyers nor anyone else is being permitted to see him. He has no access to the courts. By definition this violates habeas corpus.

Also he was granted a withholding of removal by an immigration court which was not appealed by the Trump administration. Therefore, he had legal status to remain pending final adjudication and was not "illegal".

 

[LSU-SIU]

That's not what the SC ruled. They said that he was not given due process to challenge his removal. Why are you not getting that?

No, they are saying he can proceed under the existing immigration case, but imo its moot. As far as his deportation, he could have filed a habeas, see trump v J.G.G.

 

[LSU-SIU]

How could he file a habeas corpus petition? He's been disappeared. His lawyers nor anyone else is being permitted to see him. He has no access to the courts. By definition this violates habeas corpus.

No it doesn't.

There is no controversy, he was an illegal, it was just a matter of what process he was deported on.... at most he could have changed the destination.

 

[Ashevolle]

No it doesn't.

There is no controversy, he was an illegal, it was just a matter of what process he was deported on.... at most he could have changed the destination.

So you don't understand habeas corpus. Got it. He is being held prisoners outside the country on our dime and being denied access to his attorney. There is no mechanism to file a habeas corpus petition.

 

[Sea Ray]

Supreme Court said, “The [district court] 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.”

he “was subject to a withholding order forbidding his removal to El Salvador, and that the removal to El Salvador was therefore illegal,” the Supreme Court noted in its ruling.

Loading…

www.cnbc.com

In quotations the Supreme Court said that he was improperly sent to El Salvador. "Illegal" and they now must facilitate his return so they can adjudicate whether he indeed should be shipped out

 

[LSU-SIU]

So you don't understand habeas corpus. Got it.

What don't I understand?

 

[Sea Ray]

No, they are saying he can proceed under the existing immigration case, but imo its moot. As far as his deportation, he could have filed a habeas, see trump v J.G.G.

Where did the SC mention this habeas that you're referring to? Please quote it. I'm not talking about what a right or left wing site writes about this. I'm talking about the SC ruling which is "supreme" in this case

 

[LSU-SIU]

Loading…

www.cnbc.com

In quotations the Supreme Court said that he was improperly sent to El Salvador. "Illegal" and they now must facilitate his return so they can adjudicate whether he indeed should be shipped out

The Supreme Court I believe used what the United States had in their filing (by an attorney that has been let go) as to it was incorrect/mistake. It is U.S.'s position that he was correctly sent to El Salvador.

The Supreme Court has not adjudicated the facts in case.

 

[LSU-SIU]

Where did the SC mention this habeas that you're referring to? Please quote it. I'm not talking about what a right or left wing site writes about this. I'm talking about the SC ruling which is "supreme" in this case

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a931_2c83.pdf

That is one form of relief he could have in theory used, but at the end of the day there really is no controversy as he was already deemed illegal and doesn't claim he isn't illegal.

 

[Ashevolle]

What don't I understand?

Explain how he can file a habeas corpus petition right now then. He is currently legally protected by a withholding of removal order and there has been no final adjudication in his immigration proceedings. So explain for me how he would be able to file the habeas corpus petition?

 

[Sea Ray]

The SC ruled that he got a "withholding order". Such an order protects him from deportation. Are you aware of that? Here's an explanation of how that works:

6. Withholding of Removal - Immigration Equality

The information contained herein is for reference only and may not be up to date. It does not constitute legal advice. You should always consult an attorney regarding your matter. Withholding of...

immigrationequality.org

This isn't about a habeas

 

[LSU-SIU]

Explain how he can file a habeas corpus petition right now then. He is currently legally protected by a withholding of removal order and there has been no final adjudication in his immigration proceedings. So explain for me how he would be able to file the habeas corpus petition?

Nobody is claiming they filed a habeas in this individual's action, but you can go look it up yourself.

 

[LSU-SIU]

The SC ruled that he got a "withholding order". Such an order protects him from deportation. Are you aware of that? Here's an explanation of how that works:

6. Withholding of Removal - Immigration Equality

The information contained herein is for reference only and may not be up to date. It does not constitute legal advice. You should always consult an attorney regarding your matter. Withholding of...

immigrationequality.org

This isn't about a habeas

He wasn't deported via immigration law, he was deported via AEA. The U.S. couldn't deport him via immigration law to El Salvador without a removal of the stay, they deported him via AEA.

 

[Sea Ray]

The Supreme Court I believe used what the United States had in their filing (by an attorney that has been let go) as to it was incorrect/mistake. It is U.S.'s position that he was correctly sent to El Salvador.

The Supreme Court has not adjudicated the facts in case.

Your last sentence is correct. Thus they've said that this guy should be brought back so they can adjudicate the case. We're making progress here

 

[Orange_Crush]

Your facts are wrong. Please address this:

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.

He was given no opportunity to challenge his removal

There most certainly is a controversy as to whether he's here illegally. Have you not seen reports that our courts ruled he can stay here because of the gang threat he'd face if sent back? If a judge did say that then it is valid and this gives him legal status to stay here

Look, I don't know which of these reports are true. That's why he needs a hearing to sort this stuff out. You need to be careful about stating things as facts.

Can you link those reports? He admitted when detained that he was here illegally, and the only thing I've seen was an immigration judge's rulings that he was denied bail since he had a history of skipping court dates, and there was credible evidence that he was a gang member, and an order that he could not be sent back to El Salvador. I have seen no report that the judge ordered that he was now here legally and can stay.

 

[Sea Ray]

He wasn't deported via immigration law, he was deported via AEA. The U.S. couldn't deport him via immigration law to El Salvador without a removal of the stay, they deported him via AEA.

The SC is aware of that yet they still ruled that he should be returned

 

[LSU-SIU]

Your last sentence is correct. Thus they've said that this guy should be brought back so they can adjudicate the case. We're making progress here

No, he's an illegal and has been determined by the U.S. to be a terrorist... he isn't coming back. In theory, he could still continue the process in immigration, but that seems moot as he has been deported as he is illegal.

 

[LSU-SIU]

The SC is aware of that yet they still ruled that he should be returned

For immigration process I guess, but the executive branch isn't going to allow him back because he is an illegal and has been deported.

 

[Sandman 423]

That's not what the SC ruled. They said that he was not given due process to challenge his removal. Why are you not getting that?

I don't get why they don't just bring dude back, hold him in a US facility while they resolve the issue. It seems like a very unnecessary prolonged misstep by the administration.

 

[Sea Ray]

Can you link those reports? He admitted when detained that he was here illegally, and the only thing I've seen was an immigration judge's rulings that he was denied bail since he had a history of skipping court dates, and there was credible evidence that he was a gang member, and an order that he could not be sent back to El Salvador. I have seen no report that the judge ordered that he was now here legally and can stay.

Loading…

www.supremecourt.gov

Loading…

thehill.com

These quotes were all linked in my previous posts but here they are again. Which are you disputing?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Loading…

www.supremecourt.gov

Loading…

thehill.com

These quotes were all linked in my previous posts but here they are again. Which are you disputing?

I'm asking where anyone stated that he was here legally. Please quote that. All I've seen is that there was a pause on deportation while his case was adjudicated, which is NOT stating that he was here legally. The SCOTUS has NOT ruled that he was here legally. Everything they wrote was a matter of the process of how he may or may not be removed, with him having been found (and him having admitted) that he was here illegally. As a matter of fact, the SCOTUS expressly stated that they did not "reach those arguments".

 

[Sea Ray]

He wasn't deported via immigration law, he was deported via AEA. The U.S. couldn't deport him via immigration law to El Salvador without a removal of the stay, they deported him via AEA.

The courts have not yet decided that the AEA supersedes a withholding order previously issued. That's still in question and needs to be adjudicated

As a fan of deportations and of what Trump is trying to accomplish here, I'm rooting for this administration to present their case, win and send him back to El Salvador. But I fear their facts are suspect and that's why they don't want a hearing. As much as I support ridding our country of folks here illegally, I support the American ideals of due process even more. We can't go light on due process here

 

[Orange_Crush]

...

There most certainly is a controversy as to whether he's here illegally. Have you not seen reports that our courts ruled he can stay here because of the gang threat he'd face if sent back? If a judge did say that then it is valid and this gives him legal status to stay here

...

You haven't linked to this claim. Again, the only stay of deportation I've seen was that he could not be sent back to El Salvador. Not that he could stay in the US with legal status. I am open to being ignorant on this having happened, but I'm asking for proof of that, and you posted links to things said by others after the fact.