Trump Ignores the Courts

#1,876
#1,876
MontyPython said:
Constitutional crisis? Dipshit Trump knowingly and wilfully illegally deported a man wrongfully who has a get out of jail free card. Hope ****ing Trump burns in hell on this one.
Click to expand...
Burn in hell for deporting an illegal back to his own country. Your hysterics are hilarious.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LSU-SIU
#1,878
#1,878
Sandman 423 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Because there is no further controversy, what controversy do you believe exists?
 
  • Like
Reactions: just bob
#1,879
#1,879
hog88 said:
I thought in a previous ruling it was decided that he could be removed, just not to El Salvador?
Click to expand...

There was a stay I believe on his deportation process, but he was not removed via immigration process, he was removed via AEA. But yes, the only question was the destination.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland
#1,880
#1,880
Sea Ray said:
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
Click to expand...

There isn't anything to present at this point, the U.S.'s involvement in the case is more or less over - although I guess the wife beater could continue in the immigration process where the only question is what country to send him back to.
 
#1,881
#1,881
Page one of their decision:

The United States acknowledges that Abrego Garcia was subject to a withholding order forbidding his removal to El Salvador, and that the removal to El Salvador was therefore illegal.
Click to expand...


Here the court acknowledges that the withholding order was legal and binding, hence deporting him was illegal. There it is in black and white. Very clearly stated

Do you have any further questions?
 
#1,882
#1,882
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland and UT_Dutchman
#1,883
#1,883
LSU-SIU said:
I don't think you are following, matter of fact I know you are not following.

You are disputing the facts or the law in context as to the facts but you don't have a case in which really the courts have jurisdiction or authority to rule on any of that. You have the cart before the horse. As I have mentioned many times, you are going to have to first bring a solid case i.e. jurisdiction, standing, and proper authority.

My opinion, is the courts are generally going to stay away from that and for good reason i.e. war powers, its the same reason why the AEA was still in active proclamation many years after WW2.

But in the meantime, you are not helping your cause imo because you haven't really pointed out any real injustice.... even these people's attorney don't claim they were here legally. To be honest, I really don't even see a controversy.
Click to expand...
due process. whatever the process is, follow it. don't mix and match, don't swap between non-criminal charges and courts, and criminal charges and courts.

its about more than just the end results. we have laws, even when they are broken, there are laws that cover how they should be addressed and how punishment is handed out. that ENTIRE system is "justice". picking and choosing which parts of which laws our government follows is not justice even if the same result is achieved at the end.

as we say so much, if you don't like it, change it. you don't just get to ignore the parts you don't like.
 
#1,884
#1,884
Sea Ray said:
Page one of their decision:




Here the court acknowledges that the withholding order was legal and binding, hence deporting him was illegal. There it is in black and white. Very clearly stated

Do you have any further questions?
Click to expand...
It merely states that he can not be deported to El Salvador. It does not state that he can't be deported, nor that he is here with legal status.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland
#1,885
#1,885
Sea Ray said:
Page one of their decision:




Here the court acknowledges that the withholding order was legal and binding, hence deporting him was illegal. There it is in black and white. Very clearly stated

Do you have any further questions?
Click to expand...

Yes, and the government has clarified where the Supreme Court got that, meaning the Supreme Court takes the facts in the filings... that doesn't mean those facts are correct or are the finding of the Supreme Court as it hasn't been fully adjudicated.

The government position is he was sent to the right place.
 
#1,886
#1,886
LouderVol said:
due process. whatever the process is, follow it. don't mix and match, don't swap between non-criminal charges and courts, and criminal charges and courts.
Click to expand...

That is the whole system. Basically, what you are doing is explaining post after post that you don't understand the basics.

None of this involves criminal procedure.
 
#1,888
#1,888
Orange_Crush said:
And it remains to be seen if deporting him to El Salvador under the AEA was illegal.
Click to expand...

They just don't want to listen. Meaning, even if I thought an injustice was being done (which I don't at this stage with any of these guys), its not an easy one to tackle.

At the end, unless everyone (nobody claims he was here legally) is lying and he was an American... there isn't much that can be done for him... justice was served.
 
#1,890
#1,890
hog88 said:
I'm going to say that it was. Should have found another place that would have taken him.
Click to expand...

How was it illegal, seems like the followed everything to me. There really isn't much to the process, you basically add one half step if they are under a court's criminal jurisdiction.

It was not proper under the stay of the deportation order but that has no real legal consequence that I can see under AEA. If he was in prison under criminal jurisdiction, than I think there would be some teeth.

At the end of the day, nobody is really pointing to an injustice.... not that I can see.

I have no idea what people are upset about on this one.

> He was deemed illegal under immigration process
> Nobody seems to be claiming he was legal
> He got a stay of his immigration order by saying he was fearful of gangs after the fact
> The gangs in El Salvador are not a problem anymore.... which is really what he is trying to escape... even that stupid stay was going to be lifted down the pipe, right?
> His wife reported him in domestic abuse issues
> The only question really is the destination
> He could have in theory filed a habeas, but either way he was going to be deported, and probably back to El Salvador either way

There is no injustice here that I can see. 🤷‍♂️

Let's say he filed a Habeas and somehow won that he was not a gang member, he would still be detained.... and most likely still be deported back to El Salvador, at best, he would be sent to a third country. 🤷‍♂️
 
Last edited:
#1,891
#1,891
Orange_Crush said:
It merely states that he can not be deported to El Salvador. It does not state that he can't be deported, nor that he is here with legal status.
Click to expand...
I quoted earlier what a withholding order is. It means he cannot be deported. The SC said that that order was still valid, hence deporting him anywhere was not legal. That's why they're saying that he should be brought back

What exactly are you arguing? That it was illegal to send him to El Salvador but they could send him to Mexico?
 
#1,892
#1,892
Sea Ray said:
I quoted earlier what a withholding order is. It means he cannot be deported. The SC said that that order was still valid, hence deporting him anywhere was not legal. That's why they're saying that he should be brought back

What exactly are you arguing? That it was illegal to send him to El Salvador but they could send him to Mexico?
Click to expand...
The SC has no jurisdiction over other countries. He is a resident of the country he is currently in. What is there to complain about?
 
#1,893
#1,893
Sea Ray said:
I quoted earlier what a withholding order is. It means he cannot be deported. The SC said that that order was still valid, hence deporting him anywhere was not legal. That's why they're saying that he should be brought back

What exactly are you arguing? That it was illegal to send him to El Salvador but they could send him to Mexico?
Click to expand...

No, the Supreme Court is mimicking what the government said in its filings, the Supreme Court the facts of the case haven't been fully adjudicated. So, in a filing the government said they made a mistake as to his deportation, but that is not the government's position. The person that put that in the filing was let go as its not correct or correct in context as to their position.

The immigration process is mostly immaterial as he was deported via AEA, under the immigration process it was not allowed... but its moot because it was done under AEA.

That it was illegal to send him to El Salvador but they could send him to Mexico?
Click to expand...

Under the immigration process, the only question remaining was the destination of the ejection. Under AEA, that isn't a question, although he could have challenged his detention under habeas.
 
#1,894
#1,894
LSU-SIU said:
How was it illegal, seems like the followed everything to me. There really isn't much to the process, you basically add one half step if they are under a court's criminal jurisdiction.

It was not proper under the stay of the deportation order but that has no real legal consequence that I can see under AEA. If he was in prison under criminal jurisdiction, than I think there would be some teeth.

At the end of the day, nobody is really pointing to an injustice.... not that I can see.

I have no idea what people are upset about on this one.

> He was deemed illegal under immigration process
> Nobody seems to be claiming he was legal
> He got a stay of his immigration order by saying he was fearful of gangs after the fact
> The gangs in El Salvador are not a problem anymore.... which is really what he is trying to escape... even that stupid stay was going to be lifted down the pipe, right?
> His wife reported him in domestic abuse issues
> The only question really is the destination
> He could have in theory filed a habeas, but either way he was going to be deported, and probably back to El Salvador either way

There is no injustice here that I can see. 🤷‍♂️

Let's say he filed a Habeas and somehow won that he was not a gang member, he would still be detained.... and most likely still be deported back to El Salvador, at best, he would be sent to a third country. 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
Why is he in a prison in El Salvador? Why isn't he free?
 
#1,898
#1,898
LSU-SIU said:
Because there is no further controversy, what controversy do you believe exists?
Click to expand...
Only the the Supreme court thinks he should be brought back to determine what to do with him. If you don't think this is a PR nightmare, you are in the minority.
 
#1,899
#1,899
LSU-SIU said:
Not my problem, he isn't in U.S. custody or jurisdiction. I mean you can go down there and fight for him. I would rather help the innocent victims here - Americans.
Click to expand...
He was sent there illegally according to the SC. It is our problem if our gov't sent him there illegally

It is debatable whether we can get El Salvador to give him back. I think we could tell them that we want him back but I don't think the Trump administration is doing that. Admittedly that is speculation on my part and not fact
 
#1,900
#1,900
Sea Ray said:
He was sent there illegally according to the SC. It is our problem if our gov't sent him there illegally

It is debatable whether we can get El Salvador to give him back. I think we could tell them that we want him back but I don't think the Trump administration is doing that. Admittedly that is speculation on my part and not fact
Click to expand...
You should mount an operation to go get him and smuggle him back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland and LSU-SIU
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top