The Deportation of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia

#402
#402
Majors said:
Sitting Jewish Governor should garner more attention nationally. Just a few months ago he was potentially the face of the futures party. Now, domestic terrorism act at his house can’t crack the news cycle.
Click to expand...
And that's because the guys is you, the left hate Jews. Always have always will
 
#405
#405
Vol8188 said:
I have no interest in making your argument for you. If you’d like tell me, feel free. But spare me the quiz from the man who doesn’t know what hearsay means and then moves the goalposts when asked about it
Click to expand...
So you're just stuck. Nice try on the hearsay but no cigar. Goalpost moving is your thing, not mine.
 
#406
#406
EasternVol said:
So you're just stuck. Nice try on the hearsay but no cigar. Goalpost moving is your thing, not mine.
Click to expand...

Lmfao okay buddy. This is your style everytime.

Moves goalposts. Refuses to make his own argument “fetch”. And then finally ends it with “you’re rubber and I’m glue!”
 
#409
#409
EasternVol said:
Why did the SC say to facilitate his return?
Click to expand...

Because they are not happy about how this was done although the President has the ability to do it under AEA (see Trump v JGG additional cites omitted). The Supreme court order in this case doesn't really even mention the elephant in the room i.e. he was removed via AEA.

Although the lower court had jurisdiction in the underlying case here (which was absent in Trump v JGG), they now lack personal jurisdiction over the person, and now lack authority to really do much.

Returning him serves no purpose as everyone is in agreement that he is illegal, what else is there to adjudicate at this point? His legal status has been determined via immigration law, his legal status was also determined by the President via AEA.... he actually had two opportunities... some of the guys on the plane(s) probably only got one shot.
 
#410
#410
LSU-SIU said:
Because they are not happy about how this was done although the President has the ability to do it under AEA (see Trump v JGG additional cites omitted).

The Supreme court order in this case doesn't really even mention the elephant in the room i.e. he was removed via AEA.
Click to expand...
So the SC says 'do something illegal'. Uh huh.
Yeah you know you'd think that they would have caught that AEA thing.
 
#412
#412
EasternVol said:
So the SC says 'do something illegal'. Uh huh.
Yeah you know you'd think that they would have caught that AEA thing.
Click to expand...

As mentioned, under immigration law the U.S. said they made a "mistake", which is what that refers to. The Supreme court is simply using the initial position by the U.S., which the U.S. has clarified. (see video) The individual was removed via AEA which is not mentioned, via immigration law there was stay of removal, so the Supreme Court is saying we agree with the U.S. the removal was not lawful via immigration law... .however, that position changed and doesn't take in account the person was removed via AEA.

Regardless, he is an illegal, there really isn't anything material to further adjudicate.

This case has to do with immigration law, but he was removed via AEA. What Stephen Miller is saying appears to be correct, meaning nothing material is going to change as the process is complete through immigration law and/or aea. The only thing remaining under immigration is the stay order which they could have removed, so the destination.

If the stupid gangster would have been under criminal jurisdiction, than the President would have had to do one more step... get the judge with jurisdiction to release him i.e. determination. In this case, it was purely an administrative civil deportation process.
 
Last edited:
#413
#413
LSU-SIU said:
As mentioned, under immigration law the U.S. said they made a "mistake", which is what that refers to. The Supreme court is simply using the initial position by the U.S., which the U.S. has clarified. (see video) The individual was removed via AEA which is not mentioned, via immigration law there was stay of removal, so the Supreme Court is saying we agree with the U.S. the removal was not lawful via immigration law... .however, that position changed and doesn't take in account the person was removed via AEA.

Regardless, he is an illegal, there really isn't anything material to further adjudicate.

This case has to do with immigration law, but he was removed via AEA. What Stephen Miller is saying appears to be correct, meaning nothing material is going to change as the process is complete.
Click to expand...
Why then did the Administration not bring up the AEA action before the Court? There's video of DHS' appeal of the SC's directive?
 
#417
#417
Vol8188 said:
Identified by gang members as a member.
Click to expand...
Which ones? Are you talking about the guy who said he was in "the Westerns clique" in a state he never lived in and then got arrested shortly thereafter? The one police themselves said was lying?
Vol8188 said:
Arrested with gang members.
Click to expand...
You mean being picked up for loitering in a Home Depot parking lot?
Vol8188 said:
Dressed in gang attire (bulls hat with a hoodie that had the eyes, ears, and mouth of presidents “ver oir y callar” which is basically an ms 13 phrase meaning we don’t speak about what we do). Some of the men he was arrested with were seen throwing drugs out as they were arrested and Garcia was holding 1,178 dollars cash. One of the other gang members he was apprehended with was held in connection to a murder case.
Click to expand...
People in a Home Depot parking lot have weed and discard it when the cops show up. Clearly this is a gang meeting at Home Depot in broad daylight and everyone in the vicinity is a gang member
NashVol11 said:
The "MS-13" case is insanely flimsy to anyone with even a modicum of honesty
Click to expand...
Just like I said. And the person making the bad faith dishonest argument is the same person as always
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#421
#421
NashVol11 said:
Which ones? Are you talking about the guy who said he was in "the Westerns clique" in a state he never lived in and then got arrested shortly thereafter? The one police themselves said was lying?

You mean being picked up for loitering in a Home Depot parking lot?

People in a Home Depot parking lot have weed and discard it when the cops show up. Clearly this is a gang meeting at Home Depot in broad daylight and everyone in the vicinity is a gang member

Just like I said. And the person making the bad faith dishonest argument is the same person as always
Click to expand...

So he was arrested with multiple other gang members. He was dressed in gang attire. Yes, they had weed they discarded and he had $1178 on his person.

If someone dresses like a gang member, hangs with gang members, is identified by gang members, and is holding drug money for gang members…..

Seriously what additional evidence would you like?
 
#422
#422
EasternVol said:
The point was and is that he hadn't been convicted of anything. He needs due process, as does everyone. If that shows he's deportable then he should be deported accordingly.
Click to expand...

He's already faced a judge who said that he could be deported, he just couldn't be deported to El Salvador.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman
#423
#423
Vol8188 said:
It’s sad that our media doesn’t include the actual facts and just pretends the guy loved the bulls.

View attachment 736246
Click to expand...
Don't be shy, include the immediately following passage since you're interested in "including the actual facts"

Steven Dudley, a journalist and author who has spent years studying the MS-13 gang, said that it is true that "at some point, the Chicago Bulls logo with the horns became a stand-in of sorts for the MS-13's devil horns symbol".
But wearing the logo of the hugely popular basketball team, he added, is of course not exclusive to the gang.
"Any assertions about gang affiliation would need to be corroborated with testimony, criminal history, and other corroborating evidence," Mr Dudley said.
Click to expand...

Read the article, saw that and deliberately pretended it didn't exist. Just hilariously dishonest, but no one should be surprised by now
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#424
#424
Vol8188 said:
So he was arrested with multiple other gang members. He was dressed in gang attire. Yes, they had weed they discarded and he had $1178 on his person.

If someone dresses like a gang member, hangs with gang members, is identified by gang members, and is holding drug money for gang members…..

Seriously what additional evidence would you like?
Click to expand...
He wasn't "dressed like a gang member," he was wearing a Bulls hat. He was "identified" by an informant who everyone agrees is lying and said he was in a gang in a state he had never been to. This might work on MAGAs with room temperature IQs but no one with a brain
 
  • Like
Reactions: MontyPython
#425
#425
NashVol11 said:
Don't be shy, include the immediately following passage since you're interested in "including the actual facts"



Read the article, saw that and deliberately pretended it didn't exist. Just hilariously dishonest, but no one should be surprised by now
Click to expand...

Right….for example people in Chicago often wear Bulls attire.

But people from El Salvador? Do you think he was just a bulls fan?

Or….do you think he’s dressing like an MS-13 member and hanging with MS-13 members because….he is an MS-13 member

Idk how you’re incapable of applying logic to this situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top