The Deportation of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia

#1,226
#1,226
volbound1700 said:
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.
Click to expand...
The Supreme Court is a legislative branch in an administrative govt. The congress and the executive branch could disappear and the federal govt wouldn’t miss a beat. We are ruled by administrators.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volbound1700
#1,227
#1,227
OrangeTsar said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's one potential scenario. There are many.

Being in contempt of court is nothing to sneeze at. I'm sure you know that.

We'll see what happens.
 
#1,228
#1,228
Ritzwatch said:
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
Click to expand...
Trump instituted the American Enemies Act again Venezuela's TdA gang. As part of this act, Trump worked with El Salvador's president to have the TdA deportees housed in his specialty prison.

Abrego Garcia is not a TdA gang member and is not from Venezuela.

Yet, he was deported to the ES prison.

There is no provision under US standard immigration law to have a deportee thrown into an El Salvadoran prison.

So, the admin needs to rectify that. They somehow thought it OK to impose the outcome of one law (the Alien Enemies Act) with another (standard immigration law/process). Outside of the AeA (which does not apply to Abrego Garcia), how in the hell did he end up in ES's prison, as opposed to just shipping his *** back to where he came from?
 
  • Like
Reactions: volbound1700
#1,229
#1,229
Thank you for your response. I appreciate a thoughtful answer.

Orange_Crush said:
Trump instituted the American Enemies Act again Venezuela's TdA gang. As part of this act, Trump worked with El Salvador's president to have the TdA deportees housed in his specialty prison.

Abrego Garcia is not a TdA gang member and is not from Venezuela.
Click to expand...

I thought Trump was using the AEA against a series of gangs he has labelled "foreign terrorist organizations (FTO)," including MS-13 (who received that designation in February.)

A judge found evidence in 2019 of A-G being MS-13, and that another judge on appeal/review agreed with that conclusion. If the AEA can be used to deport members of FTOs, and a judge had found A-G to be a member of an FTO, was the deportation (as opposed to the destination) illegal at the time of Abrego Garcia's removal?

Granted, the AEA may someday be held to be an inappropriate method to deport someone, but it hasn't yet. The Supreme Court had a chance in early April to say that, but they didn't. The Court did say that, going forward, alleged gang members needed to be given notice of a hearing and an opportunity to contest the deportation, but that opinion wasn't entered until 3 weeks after Garcia's deportation.

I don't like the idea of deporting someone to a country that is not their own, but apparently that is legal, too. (I sure wouldn't like it if Germany sent our citizens to, say, Iran.) We have agreements with a number of nations that allow for deportation of non-citizens. I don't think I particularly like that process, but it exists.
Orange_Crush said:
Yet, he was deported to the ES prison.
Click to expand...
He should not have been. It doesn't surprise me in the least that .Gov screwed this up. Screw ups are not unique to this Administration, though that does not in any way excuse this Administration's lack of interest in righting their wrongs.
Orange_Crush said:
There is no provision under US standard immigration law to have a deportee thrown into an El Salvadoran prison.
Click to expand...
I have no idea why he is in an ES prison. I don't know if they have him imprisoned for other reasons, or simply because we deported him. My suspicion is that he is locked up, in part, because his choice to display upon his person certain visual cues associated with MS-13 would be adverse to his future prospects of productive life in El Salvador.

Thanks again for some productive dialogue. I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something I hadn't considered, but I think that you have helped confirm that.

Cheers,

RW
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Crush
#1,230
#1,230
Ritzwatch said:
Thank you for your response. I appreciate a thoughtful answer.



I thought Trump was using the AEA against a series of gangs he has labelled "foreign terrorist organizations (FTO)," including MS-13 (who received that designation in February.)

A judge found evidence in 2019 of A-G being MS-13, and that another judge on appeal/review agreed with that conclusion. If the AEA can be used to deport members of FTOs, and a judge had found A-G to be a member of an FTO, was the deportation (as opposed to the destination) illegal at the time of Abrego Garcia's removal?

Granted, the AEA may someday be held to be an inappropriate method to deport someone, but it hasn't yet. The Supreme Court had a chance in early April to say that, but they didn't. The Court did say that, going forward, alleged gang members needed to be given notice of a hearing and an opportunity to contest the deportation, but that opinion wasn't entered until 3 weeks after Garcia's deportation.

I don't like the idea of deporting someone to a country that is not their own, but apparently that is legal, too. (I sure wouldn't like it if Germany sent our citizens to, say, Iran.) We have agreements with a number of nations that allow for deportation of non-citizens. I don't think I particularly like that process, but it exists.

He should not have been. It doesn't surprise me in the least that .Gov screwed this up. Screw ups are not unique to this Administration, though that does not in any way excuse this Administration's lack of interest in righting their wrongs.

I have no idea why he is in an ES prison. I don't know if they have him imprisoned for other reasons, or simply because we deported him. My suspicion is that he is locked up, in part, because his choice to display upon his person certain visual cues associated with MS-13 would be adverse to his future prospects of productive life in El Salvador.

Thanks again for some productive dialogue. I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something I hadn't considered, but I think that you have helped confirm that.

Cheers,

RW
Click to expand...
I can find no evidence that the admin deported him under AEA, and IMHO, it would be inappropriate to try. It's not MERELY whether they are a part of an officially designated terrorist org. That's secondary and unneeded, as I read the law. The AEA is specific that the incursion is the activities (or results of activities?) by foreign nations/gov't. There is evidence that Venezuela positively encouraged/caused the TdA problem here by emptying their prisons and expelling them into the migration groups that were heading here, and then refused to take them back.

There is no evidence that MS-13 immigration was nation-caused or nation-sponsored.

He is in the ES prison because we chose to deport him in that way, to that prison, with the TdA gang members.

The least we could do is tell ES, "Hey, our bad. Please let him out of prison to live in his mom's basement unless you have charges/convictions that would keep him there. Thanks in advance!"
 
#1,233
#1,233
OrangeTsar said:
The biggest danger the judiciary faces under our constitution isn’t external from congress or the executive; it is the danger of self inflicted loss of prestige through absurd rulings. As it has no enforcement mechanism, the court’s legitimacy is based almost entirety on its reputation for reasoned and well thought out decisions. Rulings such as the ones coming out lately at the district level attempt to nonsensically prohibit the executive branch form pursuing purely executive actions clearly granted under the constitution; and are rightly seen as silly.
A judge who rules that the earth is flat would be a judge that shouldn’t be shocked when his or her decision is questioned.
Click to expand...
"No enforcement mechanisms". That's rich bro.

Next time your in court, tell the judge to go **** himself.

You can thank me later for your Judicial Branch Enforcement 101 lesson.
 
#1,236
#1,236
OrangeTsar said:
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.
Click to expand...
And what does ignoring law and court rulings create?

Wouldn't you have to prove the money was illegally obtained before worrying about how the lawyer was paid? That's how the laws work (or should)
 
#1,237
#1,237
hog88 said:
What's the judge going to do if the chief law enforcement officer in that jurisdiction refuses to enforce the judges order?
Click to expand...
Fire him and replace him with an employee who will abide by the Rule of Law.

Gosh that was hard. Next!
 
#1,238
#1,238
utvolpj said:
No I simply called them what they are - revenue collection for the state. I sincerely hope your vn persona is an act
Click to expand...

So maybe they should do away with just fines and make it more about safety and the law. Add some jail time and community service to all offenses. I’m sure you would be in agreement with that.
 
#1,240
#1,240
C-south said:
So maybe they should do away with just fines and make it more about safety and the law. Add some jail time and community service to all offenses. I’m sure you would be in agreement with that.
Click to expand...
Jail time for traffic offenses? Guess it's not an act. Wear your helmet
 
#1,242
#1,242
utvolpj said:
Jail time for traffic offenses? Guess it's not an act
Click to expand...

You crying about the rule of law then cry about some being a money grab and not what they’re intended for. I suggest making them more about what they’re intended for and not just a “money grab” and you still cry. Good to know you’re the self proclaimed arbiter of what laws matter and which ones don’t.
 
#1,248
#1,248
OrangeTsar said:
The biggest danger the judiciary faces under our constitution isn’t external from congress or the executive; it is the danger of self inflicted loss of prestige through absurd rulings. As it has no enforcement mechanism, the court’s legitimacy is based almost entirety on its reputation for reasoned and well thought out decisions. Rulings such as the ones coming out lately at the district level attempt to nonsensically prohibit the executive branch form pursuing purely executive actions clearly granted under the constitution; and are rightly seen as silly.
A judge who rules that the earth is flat would be a judge that shouldn’t be shocked when his or her decision is questioned.
Click to expand...

Let me introduce you to the U.S. Marshals Service.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MontyPython
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top