• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Kilmar a bad man or just a patsy ?

Xilnik said:
The only country listed is Venezuela, and the only gang mentioned is Tren de Aragua. The President is overreaching by lumping other gangs and other nations into his proclamation. At some point, I hope the Judiciary will do the right thing and nail him on it. That you think his AEA proclamation includes other gangs and other nations only magnifies the dangers that are occurring in our country with misinformation and disinformation.

www.whitehouse.gov

Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of The United States by Tren De Aragua

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A PROCLAMATION Tren de Aragua (TdA) is a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization with thousands of
www.whitehouse.gov www.whitehouse.gov
Click to expand...

Xilnik said:
It no longer applies only to males, as of 1918.



The proclamation provided for Japanese internment was less specific and only applied to people carrying identification cards, "requiring non-U.S. citizens from World War II-enemy countries—Italy, Germany and Japan—to register with the United States Department of Justice."

Proclamation 2537—Regulations Pertaining to Alien Enemies | The American Presidency Project

www.presidency.ucsb.edu www.presidency.ucsb.edu

FDR orders “alien enemies” to register | January 14, 1942 | HISTORY

On January 14, 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issues Presidential Proclamation No. 2537, requiring non-U.S. citizens from World War II-enemy countries—Italy, Germany and Japan—to register with the United States Department of Justice. Registered persons were then issued a Certificate of...
www.history.com www.history.com
Click to expand...

I know you think that trying to argue technicalities invalidates the actual point but it doesn't.

You can enjoy trying though.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The only thing requiring proof is that he’s an illegal alien. The theory that illegal immigration is OK unless some (other) ‘serious’ law is violated makes no sense.



US immigration law is useless without adequate enforcement. Just because other countries are deemed worse (to live in) than the US doesn’t obligate the US to accept their citizens who choose to illegally enter (or remain in) the US.
Click to expand...
More hateful rightwing bullshit.
 
trumptman said:
I know you think that trying to argue technicalities invalidates the actual point but it doesn't.

You can enjoy trying though.
Click to expand...
The second point wasn't trying to invalidate anything. I was merely providing additional information.

The first point invalidates the President's proclamation since the AEA explicitly states that the law must be invoked and applied based on that proclamation. By trying to broaden his AEA proclamation instead of providing an amended proclamation, he is violating the letter and spirit of that law. See Ludecke v. Watkins (1948) for the precedent that the proclamation must be followed as written, which was used to uphold that deportation.
 
Last edited:
Xilnik said:
The second point wasn't trying to invalidate anything. I was merely providing additional information.

The first point invalidates the President's proclamation since the AEA explicitly states that the law must be invoked and applied based on that proclamation. By trying to broaden his AEA proclamation instead of providing an amended proclamation, he is violating the letter and spirit of that law. See Ludecke v. Watkins (1948) for the precedent that the proclamation must be followed as written, which was used to uphold that deportation.
Click to expand...

More rationalizations about your technicalities is just a boring point and doesn't really add anything.

Is the President allowed to use the AEA and does he need to prove someone is in a cartel to do so.

The former is yes and the latter is no.
 
trumptman said:
More rationalizations about your technicalities is just a boring point and doesn't really add anything.

Is the President allowed to use the AEA and does he need to prove someone is in a cartel to do so.

The former is yes and the latter is no.
Click to expand...
The President can invoke AEA, but enforcement must follow the specific wording of the proclamation. While AEA does not explicitly require proof of cartel membership, due process protections apply, meaning individuals must be given the opportunity to challenge their designation before deportation. Courts have already ruled against broad enforcement beyond the proclamation’s scope without providing people with the opportunity to contest detainment and CECOT expulsion.

I am not sure why you are arguing against constitutional protections.
 
trumptman said:
More rationalizations about your technicalities is just a boring point and doesn't really add anything.

Is the President allowed to use the AEA and does he need to prove someone is in a cartel to do so.

The former is yes and the latter is no.
Click to expand...
The law is "technicalities". It protects the individual against the despots. Or should do. Thats a good thing.
 
Xilnik said:
The President can invoke AEA, but enforcement must follow the specific wording of the proclamation. While AEA does not explicitly require proof of cartel membership, due process protections apply, meaning individuals must be given the opportunity to challenge their designation before deportation. Courts have already ruled against broad enforcement beyond the proclamation’s scope without providing people with the opportunity to contest detainment and CECOT expulsion.

I am not sure why you are arguing against constitutional protections.
Click to expand...

There's several matters being sorted out related to this.

The biggest misrepresented point on this though is the belief there hasn't been due process. In most cases the folks have deportation orders and so on but are basically operating out in the open while they wait for that order to be acted on. They know given the prior administration they can wait YEARS.

In the example of this man he had a deportation order. That order had a hold because of the status of his home country. Trump changed the designation of the country and now those deportation orders can be acted on.
 
panic buyer said:
The law is "technicalities". It protects the individual against the despots. Or should do. Thats a good thing.
Click to expand...

No that isn't what is happening there. Try again. The point isn't even being addressed.
 
trumptman said:
There's several matters being sorted out related to this.

The biggest misrepresented point on this though is the belief there hasn't been due process. In most cases the folks have deportation orders and so on but are basically operating out in the open while they wait for that order to be acted on. They know given the prior administration they can wait YEARS.
Click to expand...
That's partially correct. Some individuals did have prior deportation orders, but those orders were on hold due to humanitarian protections, meaning they could not be acted upon until legal conditions changed. Finding a third country is the typical route but rarely occurs.

trumptman said:
In the example of this man he had a deportation order. That order had a hold because of the status of his home country. Trump changed the designation of the country and now those deportation orders can be acted on.
Click to expand...
Your argument is misleading. Trump did not change Venezuela’s, nor El Salvador's, designation in a way that automatically activated all deportation orders (it's unclear which country you were referring to). Instead, he invoked the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to justify expedited removals and incarceration of TdA members in a foreign prison, which courts have challenged as unconstitutional when applied more broadly. None of that applies to Abrego Garcia since he was not removed through the AEA but through the INA. His CECOT expulsion was an administrative error, and the Supreme Court ruled that this administration facilitate his release and return to the U.S.
 
Last edited:
trumptman said:
AEA does not require them to be a proven gang member.
Click to expand...

So, the police can just have some vague accusations that you're a gang member and that's enough for them to bung you in prison and threaten to deport you?

What if I made such an accusation without any proof, is that enough?
 
Peter said:
So, the police can just have some vague accusations that you're a gang member and that's enough for them to bung you in prison and threaten to deport you?

What if I made such an accusation without any proof, is that enough?
Click to expand...

Your questions show you are not informed about that matter.

That responsibility is not mine to resolve. Go do your reading and answer your own questions.

Sounding like a teenager throwing a tantrum about having to wash the dishes isn't discussion.
 
Xilnik said:
That's partially correct. Some individuals did have prior deportation orders, but those orders were on hold due to humanitarian protections, meaning they could not be acted upon until legal conditions changed. Finding a third country is the typical route but rarely occurs.
Click to expand...

You've got this half right. The humanitarians protections were determined and given and removed by the Executive Branch. There are no "legal conditions" changing with regard to the state of another country.


Xilnik said:
Your argument is misleading. Trump did not change Venezuela’s, nor El Salvador's, designation in a way that automatically activated all deportation orders (it's unclear which country you were referring to). Instead, he invoked the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to justify expedited removals and incarceration of TdA members in a foreign prison, which courts have challenged as unconstitutional when applied more broadly. None of that applies to Abrego Garcia since he was not removed through the AEA but through the INA. His CECOT expulsion was an administrative error, and the Supreme Court ruled that this administration facilitate his release and return to the U.S.
Click to expand...

You make it an OR matter when it can be an AND matter.

Trump does not need only one rationale to justify what he does. In fact the more rationales the better.


Perhaps you missed that since you seemed to imply it didn't happen.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The only thing requiring proof is that he’s an illegal alien. The theory that illegal immigration is OK unless some (other) ‘serious’ law is violated makes no sense.
Click to expand...
Should those found to be here illegally be shipped off to foreign prisons?
 
trumptman said:
You've got this half right. The humanitarians protections were determined and given and removed by the Executive Branch. There are no "legal conditions" changing with regard to the state of another country.




You make it an OR matter when it can be an AND matter.

Trump does not need only one rationale to justify what he does. In fact the more rationales the better.


Perhaps you missed that since you seemed to imply it didn't happen.
Click to expand...
Ah, you were speaking of Temporary Protected Status (TPS). That wasn't originally clear. Yes, revoking TPS is within a president's power, but it does not activate all deportation orders. Deportations still must occur on a case-by-case basis that is specific to each individual.

Again, your statements are misleading by disregarding protections present in the Constitution and immigration statutes. Whether the Executive Branch revokes TPS is irrelevant in that regard. Even with those protections removed, there is still a process in place that each deportation must follow. The law requires that immigration officials provide notice, allow for a hearing, allow for an appeal, and review any requests for asylum within that process.

You also said there are no "'legal conditions' changing with regard to the state of another country," which may or may not be true. Legal conditions may change based on court rulings and international agreements. Court rulings impact immigration policy, international agreements redefine asylum pathways, and new legislation reshapes enforcement mechanisms. There is also the potential that new risks exist in the country itself that did not exist prior to a TPS.
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
Their fate is up to the foreign nation once they accept them back.
Click to expand...
That makes some sense.

But wasn't there some Trump deal about funding housing for the deportees, which ended up funding a prison or two? Did the immigrants break some El Salvadorian law that they should be housed in prisons...very harsh prisons to boot. Do we not shoulder any responsibility..? At what point was it known that our funding was building prisons for the not very nice leader of El Salvador?
 
trumptman said:
Your questions show you are not informed about that matter.

That responsibility is not mine to resolve. Go do your reading and answer your own questions.

Sounding like a teenager throwing a tantrum about having to wash the dishes isn't discussion.
Click to expand...

Or you could just explain why I'm so wrong and not be a dick about it.
But you do you I suppose.
 
Xilnik said:
Ah, you were speaking of Temporary Protected Status (TPS). That wasn't originally clear. Yes, revoking TPS is within a president's power, but it does not activate all deportation orders. Deportations still must occur on a case-by-case basis that is specific to each individual.

Again, your statements are misleading by disregarding protections present in the Constitution and immigration statutes. Whether the Executive Branch revokes TPS is irrelevant in that regard. Even with those protections removed, there is still a process in place that each deportation must follow. The law requires that immigration officials provide notice, allow for a hearing, allow for an appeal, and review any requests for asylum within that process.

You also said there are no "'legal conditions' changing with regard to the state of another country," which may or may not be true. Legal conditions may change based on court rulings and international agreements. Court rulings impact immigration policy, international agreements redefine asylum pathways, and new legislation reshapes enforcement mechanisms. There is also the potential that new risks exist in the country itself that did not exist prior to a TPS.
Click to expand...

So this is why from step one I said you were more interested in trying argue about technicalities and not at all interested in the actual discussion point of the thread.

However let's press you using your own formula.

Deportation orders are not "all activated". The deportation orders in this case were active but the hold up was the government failing to act. The government has a policy whereby the person being deported basically checks in rather than being held in a cell. The TPS was, as you noted, making it so the government had to seek a third party country to deport to and obviously the Biden admin had zero interest in seeking that out so folks like the person here had active deportation orders since, I believe it was 2019 but the government had not acted to find a third party country to deport to and likewise did not deport them to their home country.

Trump changes the nature of the TPS and the orders are not ACTIVATED. They were never changed. So Trump can immediately deport anyone which is why as the article noted, it would be hundreds of thousands of people.

However to the actual original point. They've all had due process. They've all been through the courts and have deportation orders. The last second appeals, the ACLU lawyers trying to throw up last minute nonsense to prevent what should have happened years ago is not the point. When a judge says no to them that isn't lack of due process.
 
Trump should have to testify against him since he had him sent to a foreign prison illegally.
 
trumptman said:
Your questions show you are not informed about that matter.

That responsibility is not mine to resolve. Go do your reading and answer your own questions.

Sounding like a teenager throwing a tantrum about having to wash the dishes isn't discussion.
Click to expand...
hmm. that sounds like it translates to "I Don't Know"
 
trumptman said:
So this is why from step one I said you were more interested in trying argue about technicalities and not at all interested in the actual discussion point of the thread.

However let's press you using your own formula.

Deportation orders are not "all activated". The deportation orders in this case were active but the hold up was the government failing to act. The government has a policy whereby the person being deported basically checks in rather than being held in a cell. The TPS was, as you noted, making it so the government had to seek a third party country to deport to and obviously the Biden admin had zero interest in seeking that out so folks like the person here had active deportation orders since, I believe it was 2019 but the government had not acted to find a third party country to deport to and likewise did not deport them to their home country.

Trump changes the nature of the TPS and the orders are not ACTIVATED. They were never changed. So Trump can immediately deport anyone which is why as the article noted, it would be hundreds of thousands of people.

However to the actual original point. They've all had due process. They've all been through the courts and have deportation orders. The last second appeals, the ACLU lawyers trying to throw up last minute nonsense to prevent what should have happened years ago is not the point. When a judge says no to them that isn't lack of due process.
Click to expand...
It's interesting that you are putting the blame on me for this thread going astray when it was you incorrectly making assertions that were either misleading or untrue which you continue to do. Let me first address that, and then I'll weigh in on the topic.

  • Deportation orders were already active, but the government failed to act.
    Partially correct: Some deportation orders were active, but TPS legally prevented their execution, meaning the government was not failing to act but rather complying with legal restrictions.
  • TPS prevented deportation to home countries, forcing the government to seek third-party countries.
    Correct: TPS prevented deportation to home countries, requiring the government to find third-party countries for removal. In this case, it won't matter since Venezuela has already refused to take back people we deport due to diplomatic tensions. That leaves us still searching for a third country or attempting to deport them through the AEA and the restrictions that exist there.
  • Trump’s revocation of TPS did not activate deportation orders, but allowed immediate deportations.
    Misleading: Revoking TPS does not bypass due process. Each deportation must still follow legal procedures, including notice, hearings, appeals, and asylum review.
  • Trump can immediately deport anyone, which is why it affects hundreds of thousands of people.
    Incorrect: If that were true, it would have happened already since he removed a similar set of protections months ago. Trump cannot immediately deport anyone who falls outside expedited removal statutes. Even with TPS revoked, each individual must still go through legal proceedings before removal. Courts have blocked mass deportations that bypass due process.
  • Due process was already provided, and last-minute appeals are just obstruction.
    Incorrect: Due process was not universally provided. Courts have ruled that many deportations lacked proper legal review, particularly expedited removals under AEA. Last-minute appeals are legitimate legal challenges, not obstruction.

Now, to the topic of this thread: Is Kilmar a bad man or just a patsy?

I would argue Kilmar Abrego Garcia is both a bad man and a patsy. His wife’s ambiguous response about feelings of fear surrounding their altercations raises concerns. Does that mean he deserves to be in a foreign prison? Not unless other crimes exist and/or his wife comes forward with allegations and evidence of abuse.

That said, the current charges are obviously politically motivated and should be looked at in that context. Whether evidence of his human smuggling/trafficking exists, it will be tainted by the political atmosphere and questions of its validity. Even if disproven, he has already been convicted in the eyes of those who believe there is an invasion occurring in our country and illegal aliens are violent criminals hiding under every stone. I see no positive outcome for him or for our country as a result of the propaganda surrounding his case.
 
JMR said:
That makes some sense.

But wasn't there some Trump deal about funding housing for the deportees, which ended up funding a prison or two? Did the immigrants break some El Salvadorian law that they should be housed in prisons...very harsh prisons to boot. Do we not shoulder any responsibility..? At what point was it known that our funding was building prisons for the not very nice leader of El Salvador?
Click to expand...

IIRC, the US is paying El Salvador to take illegal aliens deported from the US who aren’t citizens of El Salvador. ‘Maryland man’ was supposedly sent there as a ‘mistake’, but was believed to be a MS-13 gang member.
 
Mycroft said:

Is Kilmar a bad man or just a patsy ?​

He's both.

Illegal alien, human trafficker, wife abuser...he's a criminal and a bad man.

The guy who hired him to transport illegal aliens across the country threw him under the bus...he's a patsy.
Click to expand...

ttwtt78640 said:
IIRC, the US is paying El Salvador to take illegal aliens deported from the US who aren’t citizens of El Salvador. ‘Maryland man’ was supposedly sent there as a ‘mistake’, but was believed to be a MS-13 gang member.
Click to expand...
Well, claimed to be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom