Dem immigration talking points fizzle as dark picture of Abrego Garcia emerges (1 Viewer)

[eohrnberger]

Two immigration judges said he was, and they hadn't even seen the photo.

Two immigration judges in two immigration hearings, so what's with the bogus not receiving due process claims?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Not being omniscient, I don't know.

You’re the one that asserted SCOTUS “can”. Surely, you must have some idea, otherwise you wouldn’t have made the assertion.

The term, "illegal alien" is the most used, according to your source, and the term used by the Supreme Court. Clearly, it is the correct term, with some others used for various reasons of bias.

You made a broad brush claim.

A false broad brush claim.

I'm not confused at all. The nice lady in your video merely describes the difference between "hearing" and "trial" within the context of a trial. When a hearing is a complete act by a court, as in immigration, it is the same as a trial. That is, all of the pertinent evidence is presented to a judge and a final, though appealable, decision is reached.

No, you’re definitely confused.

Stubbornly so.

Being supercilious isn't correct.

I didn’t assert otherwise.

Try paying better attention.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

No he wasn’t right. This guy isn’t an MS 13 member and you and Trump were fooled by Photoshop

Glaringly obvious photoshop.

 

[Jack2aTee]

Absolute proof that Trump has an MS13 tattoo!!!

he looks like my Afghan hound on a bad hair day.

 

[RetiredAtLast]

No, it's not just my opinion. Due process is recognized internationally as a human right, twice by the Constitution, and the SCOTUS already ruled that this applies to aliens.

No, it is recognized as a requirement on government. Remember, the Constitution is primarily a set of limitations on government (except for qualifications of President, Congress, etc.). It says what the government cannot do. It doesn't grant rights, or even confirm them.

By your logic, there is no "basic human right" to:
• Property
• Speech
• Religion
• Association

Not in the Constitution, It just says that the government can't take property without "due process" (which it doesn't define) or prevent the free exercise of religion, speech or association (which, of course, it does, on all three, to some extent).

James Madison and others didn't want a Bill of Rights in the first place, because they didn't want federal protections of rights to be limited to a short enumerated list. He acquiesced because of pressure from too many colleagues. Surprise! Madison was right.

That's correct, but there is no official document called "The Bill of Rights." It's merely a name of convenience for the first ten amendments.

But now, we seem to have you saying that a right protected by an amendment doesn't matter?

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that to take life, freedom or property the government is required to go through a standard process, or set of steps. I think that if it were considered a "right," the Constitution would say something like, "The right to due process shall not be abridged...", or "Congress shall pass no law concerning the right of due process."

No "maybe." It's an internationally recognized human right, and the US agreed to respect that right when it signed the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.

No, it isn't. It's not even mentioned in either the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Human rights do not "expire." Neither did his legal right to remain in the US... which is why he wasn't deported in 2019.

The privilege to apply for asylum in the United States does expire.
"(B) Time limit
Subject to subparagraph (D), paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien unless the alien demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the application has been filed within 1 year after the date of the alien's arrival in the United States." Garcia didn't apply for seven years.
(Paragraph 1 is the right to apply for asylum and subparagraph D is a claim that circumstances have changed sometime after the one year period.)

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1158&num=0&edition=prelim#:~:text=(B)%20Time%20limit,arrival%20in%20the%20United%20States.

He was granted withholding of removal status in 2019. He was allowed to live and work legally in the US. It was flat-out illegal to deport him without further due process.

No, it was prohibited to deport him to El Salvador..

Correct. And Garcia didn't get it before he was deported.

He had it in 2019.

 

[RetiredAtLast]

No, it's not just my opinion.

(Sorry, I had to do this response in two posts. Post size limit)

If you believed in law and order, you'd be outraged that the federal government violated Garcia's rights

I don't get "outraged" by events that I can do nothing about. I know he should not have been sent to El Salvador. I think he should have been sent to any other "free" country. Now I think he should be brought back, held in jail and given an expedited trial for illegal immigration (of which he admits guilt), with a sentence of deportation or 6 months in jail followed by deportation.

It's a misdemeanor.

It has a first-time sentence of 6 months or a fine.

You are literally denigrating Constitutionally protected rights

Wrong again. I'm just trying to explain to you what the Constitution says.

No. He didn't. The result of the 2019 hearing was, again, withholding of renewal status. That means he isn't supposed to be removed from the US until a court determines that he can be deported.

"In October 2019 he was granted a "withholding of removal" order, court documents show - a status different from asylum, but one which prevented the US government from sending him back to El Salvador on the grounds that he could face harm."

Kilmar Abrego Garcia and MS-13: What is alleged and what we know

BBC Verify looks at the evidence behind allegations that the Salvadoran mistakenly deported to a mega-prison was a dangerous gang member.

www.bbc.com

Not from being deported, just not to El Salvador.

It's painfully obvious that you don't understand the Constitution, or rights, or immigration law, or the rule of law in general. Let us know when you've caught up on those subjects.

I'm well "caught up," thanks. But I tend to read what the Constitution and laws actually say, not the very loose terms that folks use when just talking to each other.

 

[RetiredAtLast]

Not a judge ruling he was a member. Fail 1

It was confirmed by a Judge. No fail.

Not a judge ruling he is a gang member. Fail 2

An opinion of the Judge. No fail.
And that's all you get on the subject.

 

[RetiredAtLast]

Two immigration judges in two immigration hearings, so what's with the bogus not receiving due process claims?

I guess that, since Van Hallen said it, the left believes it's Gospel.

 

[RetiredAtLast]

No, you’re definitely confused.

I'm not confused. You just can't consider a word in two different contexts.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

I'm not confused. You just can't consider a word in two different contexts.

Yeah, you’re definitely confused. Stubbornly so.

 

[Variant]

Two immigration judges in two immigration hearings, so what's with the bogus not receiving due process claims?

The supreme court says (unanimously) that shipping people to gulags in Central America without a criminal trial for suspicion of being gang members isn't due process.

It's not even a discussion among legal professionals, just idiots on the internet being wrong as hard as possible.

 

[rahl]

It was confirmed by a Judge. No fail.

No it wasn’t.

An opinion of the Judge. No fail.

Complete fail

And that's all you get on the subject.

A complete face plant from you? Ok lol

 

[Variant]

This isn’t an argument. Every single person on US soil is constitutionally guaranteed due process. Their immigration status, crimes, political leanings etc are completely irrelevant.

In order to even say that someone has committed a crime you have to give them due process.

So, criminality can't bar people from getting due process as it is the basis for how we determine who criminals are.

 

[RetiredAtLast]

The supreme court says (unanimously) that shipping people to gulags in Central America without a criminal trial for suspicion of being gang members isn't due process

I'm sure you'd like to believe that, but I don't think it's correct. Do you have a credible source for it?

 

[RetiredAtLast]

A complete face plant from you?

No. I guess you don't understand those little squiggly marks (") at the beginning and end of a comment. They're called quotation marks, and they let you know that the stuff in between is what someone actually said. In this case, two judges confirmed that Garcia was a member of MS-13. You might think they were wrong, but that's what they said.

 

[Variant]

I'm sure you'd like to believe that, but I don't think it's correct. Do you have a credible source for it?

You can read the decision yourself:

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

 

[rahl]

No. I guess you don't understand those little squiggly marks (") at the beginning and end of a comment. They're called quotation marks, and they let you know that the stuff in between is what someone actually said. In this case, two judges confirmed that Garcia was a member of MS-13. You might think they were wrong, but that's what they said.

Neither judge “confirmed” he is a gang member

 

[RetiredAtLast]

You can read the decision yourself:

That's not "the decision." It's the comments of Justice Sotomayor and two of her concurring colleagues. The following is the Court's order:

"[April 10, 2025]
On March 15, 2025, the United States removed Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia from the United States to El Sal-
vador, where he is currently detained in the Center for Terrorism Confinement (CECOT). The United States acknowl-
edges 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. The United States represents that the removal to El Salvador was the
result of an “administrative error.” The United States alleges, however, that Abrego Garcia has been found to be a
member of the gang MS–13, a designated foreign terrorist organization, and that his return to the United States
would pose a threat to the public. Abrego Garcia responds that he is not a member of MS–13, and that he has lived
safely in the United States with his family for a decade and has never been charged with a crime.
On Friday, April 4, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland entered an order directing the Gov -
ernment to “facilitate and effectuate the return of [Abrego Garcia] to the United States by no later than 11:59 PM on
Monday, April 7.” On the morning of April 7, the United States filed this application to vacate the District Court’s
order. THE CHIEF JUSTICE entered an administrative stay and subsequently referred the application to the Court.

"The application is granted in part and denied in part, subject to the direction of this order. Due to the administrative stay issued by The Chief Justice, the deadline imposed by the District Court has now passed. To that extent, the Government’s emergency application is effectively granted in part and the deadline in the challenged order is no longer effective. The rest of the District Court’s order remains in effect but requires clarification on remand. The order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority. The District Court should clarify its directive,with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs. For its part, the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps. The order heretofore entered by The Chief Justice is vacated."

Noem v. Abrego Garcia

www.scotusblog.com

Note that the phrase, "due process" does not appear in the order.

 

[ClaraD]

The order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.

It means he should return to the US due process is something that should be clear since the order is he be released and allowed to return

 

[Aurora]

No matter how good or bad the person, no matter what crimes the person has or hasn't committed, all people, by law, are entitled to due process. Citizenship status doesn't matter. Entering the country illegally doesn't matter. Under the laws of the United States, all people are entitled to due process.

If we don't follow our own laws, we're no better than the illegals we wish to banish.

I can't believe I have to feed these facts to Americans. Some of you self-professed patriots have no idea what our constitution says, our how our government functions.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18:

[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The Supreme Court extended these constitutional protections to all aliens within the United States, including those who entered unlawfully, declaring that aliens who have once passed through our gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness encompassed in due process of law.3 The Court reasoned that aliens physically present in the United States, regardless of their legal status, are recognized as persons guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.4 Thus, the Court determined, [e]ven one whose presence in this country is unlawful, involuntary, or transitory is entitled to that constitutional protection.5 Accordingly, notwithstanding Congress’s indisputably broad power to regulate immigration, fundamental due process requirements notably constrained that power with respect to aliens within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.6

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8-7-2/ALDE_00001262/

Many of you here should be ashamed you don't know this. Deeply ashamed. Go read the constitution if you wish to maintain even a little self-respect.

What level of due process is required? When a fool for a president intentionally allows in millions of bodies, gives a date way into the future to appear, how do you expect to process this tidal wave of asylum people? biden / mayorkas created a means to crush the system. Is asylum meant for small numbers of people fleeing a despotic situation or is the world invited to come? Claim an unproveable fear and get into the country. Again what level of due process is required for non citizens who have broken our laws?

We have immigration law codified in Title 8 USC. It is very specific.

Even Obama threw out a lot of aliens . Under Trump you all lose your minds.


What is traditional standards of fairness?

 

[RetiredAtLast]

The order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.

It means he should return to the US due process is something that should be clear since the order is he be released and allowed to return

It means what it says. The USSC doesn't write in code.

 

[dockside]

Oh, I see.....it's okay for you to avoid, ignore and disregard due process, and when it's questioned or pushed against you have the right to scream "foul". What is your intention here?......the guy is on video human trafficking a van load of illegals, even adding another bench seat so he could haul more per load.....are you in support of human trafficking, illegal immigration and MS-13?

Oh, I see. . . because you saw it on the internet (or FOX) it must be true. Ever hear of photo-shopping? Due process would have revealed if this stuff actually happened. We don't throw people in gulags just because someone put a dubious video on the internet.

 

[ElChupacabra]

The only observation that I'd add is that the Dems weren't forced or coerced to defend MS13.
They did that all on their own.

They never did. The administration trying to change the narrative in order to cover up their own idiocy are the ones pitching this so their loyal parrots can repeat it.

 

[Variant]

Note that the phrase, "due process" does not appear in the order.

Yeah they just told the government to recover the person that was deported without any due process to recover them to try them properly.

I'll let you see if you can rub your two IQ points together to figure out what that means.

Don't hurt yourself.

 

[RetiredAtLast]

Yeah they just told the government

What you had said was that, "The supreme court says (unanimously) that shipping people to gulags in Central America without a criminal trial for suspicion of being gang members isn't due process."

That's wrong. But you need it to be right, so I won't shake your faith.