The Deportation of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia

[utvolpj]

I dunno. It looks like you are picking fly specks out of pepper. To me it is much simple. He was illegally here. He is a citizen of El Salvador. We sent him home. What they do to him is none of concern. Next.

It gets really simple when you just ignore the facts of the case.

 

[midnight orange]

The legal scholar all seem to agree it will be squashed as soon as he’s returned. So we will bring him back, have that order overturned and redeport him to the exact same prison.

This is a huge waste of time

It’s good strategy. Make it a battle over an illegal alien whom by all means should not be here then it becomes far more difficult to deport illegals that aren’t as shady.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

It gets really simple when you just ignore the facts of the case.

Yeah I know you want to give all those who illegally came here all the protections of the Constitution simply because their feet touched our soil. I don't. They can GTFO

 

[midnight orange]

Courts can also act up and rule beyond their means as well. Not necessarily tying it to any situation being discussed, just pointing that out in general. Some of the Supreme Court rulings from 1920s-1960s make my head hurt. A lot of them were 5-4 and I tend to find the dissenters to be more logical in their analysis. Wicker vs Filburn in 1946 being the worse culprit. I would have cheered on anyone for ignoring that one.

The court’s whole existence is beyond their means. Their constitutional power was to settle disputes between the states and foreign governments. It was certainly not conceived as an equal branch (made up phrase anyway) of government until Marbury vs Madison. The president could veto, the congress could impeach and the states could nullify.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

 

[CobbVol]

Apparently not.

1. What is unlawful about his deportation?

2. What authority (statute or court order) makes it illegal?

I believe he was deported under AEA. That may turn out to be ruled unlawful by a court, but I am not aware of it having been done so yet. Without that, I don’t see how you can definitively conclude it is unlawful. I agree (see my response to @Orangeslice13, above) that he should not have been sent to ES, but I haven’t seen where he couldn’t be deported, or where he was conclusively due any more process than he has been given.

Show me where it is required, and I would love to see it; I am a process-follower here, not a partisan. I may not like the process, but if it is there, established, it should be followed.

So, show me. Cite authority, not hopes or wishes or preferences, please.


Have no idea. Not sure why El Salvador put him there/holds him there. Sounds like an El Salvador issue. I am as curious as you. Has he broken any ES laws? I don’t know.


So now you want us to TRY him for something? Dang, you are lost. What do you think he did? I think he was here illegally, and should therefore be deported. That is all.

I agree, it was via AEA. The AEA law is pretty clear it seems, the power to proclaim an invasion or predatory incursion is given to the President and not Congress or the judiciary.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I dunno. It looks like you are picking fly specks out of pepper. To me it is much simple. He was illegally here. He is a citizen of El Salvador. We sent him home. What they do to him is none of concern. Next.

Our gov't following the law is not fly specks. We literally sent him to a ES prison via a law that doesn't cover him. It costs us nothing to tell ES: "He doesn't need to be in your prison as far as we are concerned. We've just legally deported him to your country. Do with him as you see fit, per his relationship to you--his government."

Per the underlined, that's pretty much what I've said needs to happen, save the explicit comms to ES gov't that we prefer he be let out of prison unless they deem--independent of us--that he needs to be there.

Why do you care? He's a citizen of that country. If he's not a criminal they can let him go?

Because I care about the law. I explained it in fair detail above.

Unless they are on contract to keep him in prison due to the US's wishes. Like I said. It costs us nothing to tell ES: "He doesn't need to be in your prison as far as we are concerned. We've just legally deported him to your country. Do with him as you see fit, per his relationship to you--his government."

 

[utvolpj]

Yeah I know you want to give all those who illegally came here all the protections of the Constitution simply because their feet touched our soil. I don't. They can GTFO

No I want the laws of this country to be followed by all. That includes the courts, ice, etc. In this case they were not yet you want to ignore them. Which is more damaging to this country?

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

No I want the laws of this country to be followed by all. That includes the courts, ice, etc. In this case they were not yet you want to ignore them. Which is more damaging to this country?

So you do believe that by simply setting foot here, our laws apply.

It is more damaging to have 5 million unvetted people invade our sovereignty and to then require decades to send them home.

 

[utvolpj]

So you do believe that by simply setting foot here, our laws apply.

It is more damaging to have 5 million unvetted people invade our sovereignty and to then require decades to send them home.

To an extent as they are under us jurisdiction. We also need to protect the rights of us citizens during this witch hunt

However that's not the issue with this case. They ignored a court order and deported him to el Salvador. Had they done it correctly then it would not be an issue.

US entities, like law enforcement or courts, must absolutely follow US law. How can you disagree with that?

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

To an extent as they are under us jurisdiction. We also need to protect the rights of us citizens during this witch hunt

However that's not the issue with this case. They ignored a court order and deported him to el Salvador. Had they done it correctly then it would not be an issue.

US entities, like law enforcement or courts, must absolutely follow US law. How can you disagree with that?

Witch hunt??? Seriously?

Coddle the criminals. Awesome.

 

[utvolpj]

Witch hunt??? Seriously?

Coddle the criminals. Awesome.

US entities, like law enforcement or courts, must absolutely follow US law. How can you disagree with that?

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

US entities, like law enforcement or courts, must absolutely follow US law. How can you disagree with that?

He should have never been in this country. Start there.

 

[volbound1700]

The court’s whole existence is beyond their means. Their constitutional power was to settle disputes between the states and foreign governments. It was certainly not conceived as an equal branch (made up phrase anyway) of government until Marbury vs Madison. The president could veto, the congress could impeach and the states could nullify.

While I see that logic, Marbury vs. Madison happened during an era when a large # of the framers of the Constitution were still alive and they didn't have a lot of issues/complaints about it.

Now, it wasn't something to be taken lightly, though. Starting in the 20th Century, the Supreme Court started to really abuse that power.

To me, both the Executive and Judicial branches have had large power grabs at the expensive of the Legislative branch. The sad thing is that the Legislative branch has not only allowed but even encouraged it at times because Congressmen/Senators would rather or have to focus on campaigning than doing their actual job.

 

[OrangeTsar]

So you do believe that by simply setting foot here, our laws apply.

It is more damaging to have 5 million unvetted people invade our sovereignty and to then require decades to send them home.

When the rights supposedly gained by the immigrant are the direct result of the illegal action (entering the country illegally); it creates a morally untenable situation. The immigrant would not have had said rights without committing said crime. This is rewarding criminal behavior. It would be the same as allowing a bank robber to use the money he stole to pay his defense lawyers.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

When the rights supposedly gained by the immigrant are the direct result of the illegal action (entering the country illegally); it creates a morally untenable situation. The immigrant would not have had said rights without committing said crime. This is rewarding criminal behavior. It would be the same as allowing a bank robber to use the money he stole to pay his defense lawyers.

Ding.... Ding.... ****ing ding

 

[Ritzwatch]

....We literally sent him to a ES prison via a law that doesn't cover him...

Can you please elaborate on this. Other posters have refused to or been unable to when asked.

Did the law which was used to deport Garcia actually not cover him? (I am asking about the actual legal process used to deport him - not about his final destination.)

To your understanding:

1. What law was used to deport Abrego Garcia?

2. Why did that law not cover him?

3. What controlling legal authority, (statute or case law existing at the time of deportation) if any, supports your position that the law used to deport him did not cover him?

Please don't address the whole El Salvador/prison thing; I agree that under the 2019 order, he should not have been sent to E.S. and I have no idea why E.S. has him in their prison system. I am, however, very interested in what you contend prevented him from being removed from the U.S.

TIA,
RW

 

[OrangeTsar]

Can you please elaborate on this. Other posters have refused to or been unable to when asked.

Did the law which was used to deport Garcia actually not cover him? (I am asking about the actual legal process used to deport him - not about his final destination.)

To your understanding:

1. What law was used to deport Abrego Garcia?

2. Why did that law not cover him?

3. What controlling legal authority, (statute or case law existing at the time of deportation) if any, supports your position that the law used to deport him did not cover him?

Please don't address the whole El Salvador/prison thing; I agree that under the 2019 order, he should not have been sent to E.S. and I have no idea why E.S. has him in their prison system. I am, however, very interested in what you contend prevented him from being removed from the U.S.

TIA,
RW

I don’t understand why some people seem to think some special law is needed to deport someone who is here illegally. The law is simply that they are not authorized to be here.
People seem to view illegal immigration by foot as having a different status than laws governing other means of entry. If someone somehow manages to board a flight to the US from some other country without a passport and arrives at a US airport; the minute that individual approaches customs and is asked for a passport; certain things will immediately happen.
That person will be put back on the next flight back to the country of origin. They do not get to hire an attorney and file suit against the US government. They do not get to demand „due process“ or ask by what law they are being sent back. They are simply sent back.
What makes someone who walks across a border any different?

 

[MontyPython]

This is nothing new, sorry to break it to you. Federal courts have been defied before by administrations, not that it's a good thing, but somehow we survived all those other constitutional crises.

Yeah, so you’re right. I found two instanceswhere courts were ignored. I hope you’re right that nothing will happen but this is certainly bad. Guess we’ll know soon enough what will happen.

 

[OrangeTsar]

Yeah, so you’re right. I found two instanceswhere courts were ignored. I hope you’re right that nothing will happen but this is certainly bad. Guess we’ll know soon enough what will happen.

What will happen? Some snippity judge will get his or her dander up and direct the DOJ to arrest the administration official „in contempt“. AG Bondi will use her discretionary power and simply say „no“. NPR, MSNBC, and Congressional democrats will huff and puff and write tearful editorials; but nothing will come of it.

 

[volbound1700]

I don’t understand why some people seem to think some special law is needed to deport someone who is here illegally. The law is simply that they are not authorized to be here.
People seem to view illegal immigration by foot as having a different status than laws governing other means of entry. If someone somehow manages to board a flight to the US from some other country without a passport and arrives at a US airport; the minute that individual approaches customs and is asked for a passport; certain things will immediately happen.
That person will be put back on the next flight back to the country of origin. They do not get to hire an attorney and file suit against the US government. They do not get to demand „due process“ or ask by what law they are being sent back. They are simply sent back.
What makes someone who walks across a border any different?

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

Read it for reasoning. I think it is just the Federal Government presented 0 evidence to support their case. Even minor evidence might have been enough. As stated, the easiest path is to just have El Salvador communicate something to us as he is their citizen.

 

[whodeycin85]

The AEA act, isn't that not subject to judical review???
Also wasn't the original order to not deport him to a different country???

 

[volbound1700]

The AEA act, isn't that not subject to judical review???
Also wasn't the original order to not deport him to a different country???

It is definitely not the same scrutiny as normal evidence but I think there was 0 evidence provided and a Court already had him on stay. I think if it wasn't for the 2019 ruling on Garcia, the deportation may have been on par with the other ones made. There was a 2019 hold on him and then the Maryland Court also ruled against him. Trump's Administration hasn't provided anything per the Supreme Court ruling. Stuff is starting to surface now but really that should have been shown to counter the case in the Maryland court.

 

[C-south]

No I want the laws of this country to be followed by all. That includes the courts, ice, etc. In this case they were not yet you want to ignore them. Which is more damaging to this country?

Yet just the other day you complained incessantly about traffic laws.

 

[OrangeTsar]

Or... Just say he's their problem and move on to the remaining 5 million illegals here

I WISH it were only 5 million