The Deportation of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

 

[norrislakevol]

What questions should be answered beyond “are you here legally?” ?

Absolutely. It really doesn't get any more complex than that.

 

[norrislakevol]

I'd say let the left shoot all their bullets and make themselves look as bad as possible, then announce that we will be deporting illegals (including gang members) under a different statute.

 

[Sea Ray]

What questions should be answered beyond “are you here legally?” ?

That’s what has to be settled by a court. The government (Trump) might say you’re not here legally. You have a right to a court date to say otherwise. Then if you have a court order to be deported, Trump can ship you out. That’s how our system works

 

[Sea Ray]

Now, I am not so sure that I agree with this but under Congressional Acts related to the formation of Department of Homeland Security, Trump does not even need to have a Court Case (at least not outside DHS) if there is proof of Garcias actions in MS-13.

This is related to rulings from the War of Terror era where the US Government could apprehend and even deport members of Al Quadi and other terrorist groups. The Trump administrations declaration of MS-13 as a terrorist group was strategic.

It is not well known but DHS has an internal court mechanism that was uniquely created for them to rule on terrorism threats.

Now, I think there is a solid argument that DHS and all the acts around it are unconstitutional and I can join you in that argument but that is the current state of law we are in.

OK, where does the Trump administration “prove that Garcia is in a terrorist gang”? In a court hearing. A hearing where Garcia has a right to be present and face his accusers. That’s what is not happening here

 

[Orangeslice13]

That’s what has to be settled by a court. The government (Trump) might say you’re not here legally. You have a right to a court date to say otherwise. Then if you have a court order to be deported, Trump can ship you out. That’s how our system works

So very much like traffic court that you can run people through quickly.
Are you here legally?
Yes or no.
Deported.

So what due process did this guy not get?
He wasn’t here legally

 

[LSU-SIU]

That’s what has to be settled by a court. The government (Trump) might say you’re not here legally. You have a right to a court date to say otherwise. Then if you have a court order to be deported, Trump can ship you out. That’s how our system works

All of that has occurred, he was determined to be illegal in 2019 i.e. administrative immigration court. There is no controversy at this point, nobody is claiming he has legal status... he never claimed he was here legally. However, he was deported under AEA, but his legal status was determined under the immigration process and the U.S. made a determination that he fit into the Proclamation as well under AEA.

 

[LSU-SIU]

OK, where does the Trump administration “prove that Garcia is in a terrorist gang”? In a court hearing. A hearing where Garcia has a right to be present and face his accusers. That’s what is not happening here

At this stage, nowhere, as all that is material is he was here illegally. He might have challenged whether he was part of the Proclamation but he didn't file an action in court to invoke their jurisdiction as to AEA which for example could have been a habeas.

That’s what is not happening here

No, because that is not how it works see AEA. He was determined to be a gang member under the immigration process a half decade ago though.

 

[Sea Ray]

So very much like traffic court that you can run people through quickly.
Are you here legally?
Yes or no.
Deported.

So what due process did this guy not get?
He wasn’t here legally

There was a stay of his deportation order. That makes him here legally

 

[Sea Ray]

At this stage, nowhere, as all that is material is he was here illegally. He might have challenged whether he was part of the Proclamation but he didn't file an action in court to invoke their jurisdiction as to AEA which for example could have been a habeas.



No, because that is not how it works see AEA. He was determined to be a gang member under the immigration process a half decade ago though.

The SC said that he did not get due process. They in no way approved of how this administration handled his case. Because of that, at least for now, they are not allowed to handle another immigrant like they did Garcia

 

[Orangeslice13]

There was a stay of his deportation order. That makes him here legally

No there wasn’t.
The order did not come till after his deportation. Depending on who you believe….while he was in the air or already on the ground there. In addition to that, nobody is arguing that he wasn’t here legally. Nobody.
If he was here for the extended time his people claim then that only makes it worse for him. He’s had years to rectify his legal status and didn’t.
The only question that matters is “was he here legally?”

 

[LSU-SIU]

There was a stay of his deportation order. That makes him here legally

That does not make him legal its just the order to deport him was stayed, his legal status isn't going to magically change.

 

[LSU-SIU]

The SC said that he did not get due process. They in no way approved of how this administration handled his case. Because of that, at least for now, they are not allowed to handle another immigrant like they did Garcia

That is not true (but the courts do keep on taking the government's initial filing that there was an administrative error), they are saying people should get due process and under the immigration process he should be here... what is not mentioned is he was legally deported under AEA. He was still here illegally under immigration law.

Under either immigration law or AEA he was an illegal, the only additional due process in theory he could have gotten:

1. if he was in the jurisdiction of a criminal court see Title 50 Chapter 3, the court would have to review before releasing him to be removed
2. if he filed a habeas challenging the AEA removal

At this point, all of that is meaningless... he's an illegal under law and has been successful removed via AEA.

 

[Sea Ray]

No there wasn’t.
The order did not come till after his deportation. Depending on who you believe….while he was in the air or already on the ground there. In addition to that, nobody is arguing that he wasn’t here legally. Nobody.
If he was here for the extended time his people claim then that only makes it worse for him. He’s had years to rectify his legal status and didn’t.
The only question that matters is “was he here legally?”

In 2019 a judge issued an order saying that he did not have to deport:

Though Abrego Garcia entered the U.S. illegally and was subject to possible deportation, an immigration judge in 2019 granted a withholding of his removal to his home country of El Salvador due to fear of persecution.

As Kilmar Abrego Garcia's deportation battle continues, differing pictures of him emerge

Court filings and sworn declarations paint a complex picture of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who sits at the center of one of the Trump administration's biggest legal standoffs.

abcnews.go.com

Do you have any evidence that a later court decision reversed this? If not, then this was still in effect

Our courts have ruled that he was not given due process:

"The government asserts that Abrego Garcia is a terrorist and a member of MS-13. Perhaps, but perhaps not," the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit wrote Thursday. "Regardless, he is still entitled to due process. If the government is confident of its position, it should be assured that position will prevail in proceedings to terminate the withholding of removal order."

This administration needs to prove their case to a judge. They can't bypass that step according to our courts

 

[Sea Ray]

That is not true (but the courts do keep on taking the government's initial filing that there was an administrative error), they are saying people should get due process and under the immigration process he should be here... what is not mentioned is he was legally deported under AEA. He was still here illegally under immigration law.

Under either immigration law or AEA he was an illegal, the only additional due process in theory he could have gotten:

1. if he was in the jurisdiction of a criminal court see Title 50 Chapter 3, the court would have to review before releasing him to be removed
2. if he filed a habeas challenging the AEA removal

At this point, all of that is meaningless... he's an illegal under law and has been successful removed via AEA.

The Trump administration has refused to bring back Abrego Garcia despite a Supreme Court order to "facilitate" his return. The Salvadoran citizen entered the country illegally; an immigration judge said he should not be deported to El Salvador because Abrego Garcia was able to prove he was likely to suffer persecution in his home country.

That's what the SC said. This was appealed and Trump lost:

A federal court on Thursday denied the Trump administration's effort to appeal an order mandating that government officials be deposed about the accidental deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador.

"It is difficult in some cases to get to the very heart of the matter. But in this case, it is not hard at all," a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit wrote. "The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order."

Loading…

www.npr.org

We are a civil country of laws and according to our courts, Trump needs to bring him back and give him a hearing. This is a fact! You are free to disagree with the decision. But that's what our courts have ruled. The President cannot ignore laws and court decisions

 

[Orangeslice13]

In 2019 a judge issued an order saying that he did not have to deport:

As Kilmar Abrego Garcia's deportation battle continues, differing pictures of him emerge

Court filings and sworn declarations paint a complex picture of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who sits at the center of one of the Trump administration's biggest legal standoffs.

abcnews.go.com

Do you have any evidence that a later court decision reversed this? If not, then this was still in effect

Our courts have ruled that he was not given due process:

This administration needs to prove their case to a judge. They can't bypass that step according to our courts

So you’re issue is location of deportation and not the deportation itself.

And no, our courts have not ruled anything yet. Its ongoing.

And the kangaroo courts are already set up. The government was just lazy in crossing I’s and dotting T’s this time.

Here’s a spoiler alert for you.
Just like every administration in the past, nothing is going to change here. They’re going to keep doing exactly what they’ve been doing. And there’s jack **** the courts can do about it.

it’s “ lock her up” or “lock him up” all over again.

It’s not lost on me that all the Biden is righteous in ignoring courts are now all in on “Trump bad”

 

[Sea Ray]

That does not make him legal its just the order to deport him was stayed, his legal status isn't going to magically change.

That court said that he could not be deported to El Salvador and that's exactly what they did. Tell me how that's legal?

 

[Sea Ray]

So you’re issue is location of deportation and not the deportation itself.

And no, our courts have not ruled anything yet. Its ongoing.

And the kangaroo courts are already set up. The government was just lazy in crossing I’s and dotting T’s this time.

Here’s a spoiler alert for you.
Just like every administration in the past, nothing is going to change here. They’re going to keep doing exactly what they’ve been doing. And there’s jack **** the courts can do about it.

it’s “ lock her up” or “lock him up” all over again.

It’s not lost on me that all the Biden is righteous in ignoring courts are now all in on “Trump bad”

Are you saying the SC did not rule that Trump must facilitate Garcia's return?

 

[LSU-SIU]

That's what the SC said. This was appealed and Trump lost:

Loading…

www.npr.org

We are a civil country of laws and according to our courts, Trump needs to bring him back and give him a hearing. This is a fact! You are free to disagree with the decision. But that's what our courts have ruled. The President cannot ignore laws and court decisions

No, that is not what they said. Under the immigration stay order he should be here but he isn't here, but he was removed under AEA. He was entitled to additional process because of the stay, the problem is... he was removed via AEA.

He isn't coming back.

 

[LSU-SIU]

That court said that he could not be deported to El Salvador and that's exactly what they did. Tell me how that's legal?

Because he was deported under AEA, the stay not to remove to El Salvador has to do with his immigration process, not removal under AEA.

He's not coming back.

What the Supreme Court is saying is he should get due process under immigration law, but the only thing remaining there is the stay order, he could have been sent to another country. However, all of that is basically moot as he was removed via AEA.

 

[Sea Ray]

No, that is not what they said. Under the immigration stay order he should be here but he isn't here, but he was removed under AEA. He was entitled to additional process because of the stay, the problem is... he was removed via AEA.

He isn't coming back.

I'm using exact language that courts have used in ruling on this case in the past week or so. Where is your documentation to back up what you're saying? Just because you say it doesn't make it true. Yesterday you posted the dissenting argument written by Alito and Thomas. That means that their opinion did not prevail. I'm posting the words that did prevail

You might be right that he's not coming back but that doesn't make it legal. Since it's not legal, it'll cause problems for this administration, including possible criminal charges

 

[LSU-SIU]

I'm using exact language that courts have used in ruling on this case in the past week or so. Where is your documentation to back up what you're saying? Just because you say it doesn't make it true. Yesterday you posted the dissenting argument written by Alito and Thomas. That means that their opinion did not prevail. I'm posting the words that did prevail

You might be right that he's not coming back but that doesn't make it legal. Since it's not legal, it'll cause problems for this administration, including possible criminal charges

He's not coming back and yes he was giving all the process that coming to him i.e. legal.

I'm using exact language that courts have used in ruling on this case in the past week or so.

There is nothing wrong with the language, you just don't comprehend.

Where is your documentation to back up what you're saying?

Already provided multiple times, see Title 50 Chapter 3.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Are you saying the SC did not rule that Trump must facilitate Garcia's return?

Just like all their political rulings….it was all fluff and no substance. Are you saying that Trump didn’t do it?
Did you not see the president of said foreign country say we couldn’t have him back?
What’s the court ruling going to do now

Spoiler alert
Not a damn thing

 

[Sea Ray]

Garcia has never been convicted or charged with a crime and in 2019, a judge in Maryland granted him a "withholding of removal" status. That allowed him to legally work and live in the U.S. He was granted a work permit by the Department of Homeland Security and lived and worked in Maryland up until his deportation.

• April 10 - SCOTUS rules 9-0 against the Trump administration stating: "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."

Get The Facts: What to know about the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case

The deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia has made headlines over after the Salvadoran national was wrongfully deported to El Salvador.

www.wbaltv.com

Those are facts. SC ruled 9-0 that it was illegal to ship him to El Salvador.

 

[LSU-SIU]

Just like all their political rulings….it was all fluff and no substance. Are you saying that Trump didn’t do it?
Did you not see the president of said foreign country say we couldn’t have him back?
What’s the court ruling going to do now

Spoiler alert
Not a damn thing

They basically said, pretty please get him back if you can.