Trump refuses to return an immigrant he illegally deported to El Salvador

[smb3802]

So the Dem playbook seems to be, Garcia needs due process, so let's somehow bring him back to an American court for a hearing. However, since he's not a citizen, the state does not have to furnish him with a lawyer. My info is that all he gets to do is what he did at his bond hearing: he can deny being a gang member. And then, suppose the judge in the case looks at the evidence, circumstantial though it may be, and denies Garcia refugee status and orders him sent back to his native country. Further suppose that no higher court reverses that verdict, so Garcia goes back. Do you think that will satisfy the Democrat demand for due process, or not?

First off it is clear you don't know s**t about the law. Garcia has a right to counsel just not one provided for him. Second, the judge has already found the evidence of his "gang affiliation" to be BS. That was a finding of fact by a judge in an actual hearing and not a bond hearing where facts are decided on. Again another Trumpist working themselves into pretzels trying to defend the indefensible. Imprisoning people without trial and then refusing to produce said person.

 

[Ouroboros]

"The law acknowledges that individuals fleeing persecution may only sometimes be in a position to enter the U.S. through official ports of entry."

there is no evidence Garcia was involved in gang activity


the issue is NOT that illegals cant be deported. It is that the constitution says they must get due process....and the Trump adnin is acting unconstitutionally and in defiance of court orders

childish name calling?

No the constitution. Due process IS THE ISSUE.

(1) How hard did Garcia try to apply for asylum? Didn't he just enter illegally in 2012 and only begin applying for asylum after getting arrested by Maryland cops in 2019? Sounds like he was willing to remain illegal as long as he could get away with it, so your citation, which assumes an illegal hoping to become legal. does not apply. (2) He was denied bond by two separate judges because the evidence, however circumstantial, proved persuasive. (3) Deflection from my refutation of your position, which was that all the people championing Garcia care about Constitutional issues. Again, you can only speak for yourself. (4) Sue me, I hate hypocrites. (5) See (3).

 

[NolanVoyd]

(1) How hard did Garcia try to apply for asylum?

I dont know, its irrelevant. He still gets due process.

he can be deported after due process if that is what the outcome is.

 

[Ouroboros]

First off it is clear you don't know s**t about the law. Garcia has a right to counsel just not one provided for him. Second, the judge has already found the evidence of his "gang affiliation" to be BS. That was a finding of fact by a judge in an actual hearing and not a bond hearing where facts are decided on. Again another Trumpist working themselves into pretzels trying to defend the indefensible. Imprisoning people without trial and then refusing to produce said person.

(1) He got counsel for his 2019 hearing but as I said the state didn't provide it. You apparently don't know how to read. (2) As I said before, two judges denied him bond status because they were persuaded by the circumstantial evidence of his gang membership, so what makes you think whichever judge you're validating was correct? Just because you want the accusation to be BS? (3) Regardless as to what shakes out regarding his current imprisonment in El Salvador, Garcia lived here illegally for roughly seven years off the grid, so even if he was not involved in MS-13 activities, he's not any sort of innocent victim. It's quite possible that Trump will eventually allow Garcia to come back and have his hearing, but as I said to Nolan Voyd, there's no reason to assume he will be granted asylum status. He'll probably just be shipped off to whatever country will accept him. HE HAD NO RIGHT TO BE HERE, do you get that?

 

[NolanVoyd]

Garcia lived here illegally for roughly seven years off the grid, so even if he was not involved in MS-13 activities, he's not any sort of innocent victim.

Lots of innocent people live here off the grid for decades

It's quite possible that Trump will eventually allow Garcia to come back

he better, he is unconstitutionally defying a court order to facilitate his return.

and have his hearing, but as I said to Nolan Voyd, there's no reason to assume he will be granted asylum status.

Who cares?

he is not entitled to asylum status. He is entitled to due process, which is how we determine if he is entitled to asylum status.

He'll probably just be shipped off to whatever country will accept him. HE HAD NO RIGHT TO BE HERE, do you get that?

HE HAD A RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS.

THE TRUMP ADMIN ACTED UNCONSTITUTIONALLY.

Do you get that?

 

[Ouroboros]

I dont know, its irrelevant. He still gets due process.

he can be deported after due process if that is what the outcome is.

The fact that he didn't apply for asylum status before being forced to do so should be relevant as to whether he can successfully petition for it now. The principle you quoted earlier may apply to people who have made actual attempts to seek asylum status. I don't necessarily take your word for it that the principle applies to people deliberately living off the grid. If he is brought back for a hearing that will almost certainly result in deportation, he'll still end up being someone else's problem, and that's a good thing.

 

[smb3802]

(1) He got counsel for his 2019 hearing but as I said the state didn't provide it. You apparently don't know how to read. (2) As I said before, two judges denied him bond status because they were persuaded by the circumstantial evidence of his gang membership, so what makes you think whichever judge you're validating was correct? Just because you want the accusation to be BS? (3) Regardless as to what shakes out regarding his current imprisonment in El Salvador, Garcia lived here illegally for roughly seven years off the grid, so even if he was not involved in MS-13 activities, he's not any sort of innocent victim. It's quite possible that Trump will eventually allow Garcia to come back and have his hearing, but as I said to Nolan Voyd, there's no reason to assume he will be granted asylum status. He'll probably just be shipped off to whatever country will accept him. HE HAD NO RIGHT TO BE HERE, do you get that?

Talk about not knowing how to read. Bond hearings do not try facts...They have no bearing on the facts of the case. They are judgement call by the judge in the bond hearing to determine a. if the person is a flight risk and b. if there is a chance they are dangerous to society. THE DO NOT TRY FACTS. The evidentiary hearing in 2019 was a finding of fact on the evidence. The evidence was BS. Not because I want it to be but because it was. He dressed a certain way, may or may not have hung out with other gang members and had tattoos. All "evidence" given by an unnamed CI of police officer later fired because he was dirty. So the judge that was an actual tryer of fact determined it was BS. That is FACT. It doesn't matter if Garcia is completely innocent of anything or not. The FACT is he was imprisoned without any due process. You either support that, which means you support the tyranny of ad hoc law, or stand up against it in support of the Constitution and our basic civil rights. There is no in between or grey area here. Support ad hoc law imprisoning people without any due process or support the Constitution. It is apparent where you stand.

 

[Ouroboros]

Lots of innocent people live here off the grid for decades

he better, he is unconstitutionally defying a court order to facilitate his return.

Who cares?

he is not entitled to asylum status. He is entitled to due process, which is how we determine if he is entitled to asylum status.

HE HAD A RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS.

THE TRUMP ADMIN ACTED UNCONSTITUTIONALLY.

Do you get that?

(1) And all of those people are guilty of committing a federal crime, even if they're not gang members. (2) Your deep concern for the supposed unconstitutionality of Trump's actions impresses me not at all. (3) Have you a precedent in mind? Not for someone who applied for asylum status legally, even if the process was much delayed. For someone who lived off the grid here, got caught, and was given due process, whether they were deported or not? So far you seem to be conflating the two types, so you should be to lay out the exact legality that protects the rights of illegals off the grid.

 

[NolanVoyd]

The fact that he didn't apply for asylum status before being forced to do so should be relevant as to whether he can successfully petition for it now.

it may well be. The point of due process is to determine all that.

The principle you quoted earlier may apply to people who have made actual attempts to seek asylum status. I don't necessarily take your word for it that the principle applies to people deliberately living off the grid. If he is brought back for a hearing that will almost certainly result in deportation, he'll still end up being someone else's problem, and that's a good thing.

Due process applies regardless.

This isn't in question. The Supreme Court has ruled.

 

[Ouroboros]

Talk about not knowing how to read. Bond hearings do not try facts...They have no bearing on the facts of the case. They are judgement call by the judge in the bond hearing to determine a. if the person is a flight risk and b. if there is a chance they are dangerous to society. THE DO NOT TRY FACTS. The evidentiary hearing in 2019 was a finding of fact on the evidence. The evidence was BS. Not because I want it to be but because it was. He dressed a certain way, may or may not have hung out with other gang members and had tattoos. All "evidence" given by an unnamed CI of police officer later fired because he was dirty. So the judge that was an actual tryer of fact determined it was BS. That is FACT. It doesn't matter if Garcia is completely innocent of anything or not. The FACT is he was imprisoned without any due process. You either support that, which means you support the tyranny of ad hoc law, or stand up against it in support of the Constitution and our basic civil rights. There is no in between or grey area here. Support ad hoc law imprisoning people without any due process or support the Constitution. It is apparent where you stand.

Yes, I see you still aren't showing any ability to read. Yes, the bail judge makes a judgment call, and it is based on whatever FACTS he is presented with, just like a judge deciding on asylum status. You dismiss the bail judge's finding because you want it to be irrelevant-- and you still have not named whatever judge you think demonstrated that the accusation of gang membership was BS. By the bye, Garcia's attire was not the main reason he was accused of gang membership according to DHS, but I'll let you do your own research there. I'll ask you the same question as NV: show me that the Constitution protects not just asylum seekers but those seeking to elude any legal proceedings.

 

[Ouroboros]

it may well be. The point of due process is to determine all that.

Due process applies regardless.

This isn't in question. The Supreme Court has ruled.

Sure, the Supreme Court has ruled. But do you support every one of their verdicts? I bet not. That's why you ought to be able to state why even illegals trying to avoid adjudication have the right to due process just like legit asylum seekers.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Sure, the Supreme Court has ruled. But do you support every one of their verdicts?

I dont agree with every one of their verdicts but i support everyone of them because i support the constitution of the United States of America.

I bet not. That's why you ought to be able to state why even illegals trying to avoid adjudication have the right to due process just like legit asylum seekers.

They have a right to due process because the constitution says they do and the purpose of due process is to determine if they are "legit assylum seekers".

You keep putting the cart before the horse and saying they shouldn't get due process because their claim isn't legit.

But you can't know if the claim Is legit until they get due process.

 

[Ouroboros]

I dont agree with every one of their verdicts but i support everyone of them because i support the constitution of the United States of America.

They have a right to due process because the constitution says they do and the purpose of due process is to determine if they are "legit assylum seekers".

You keep putting the cart before the horse and saying they shouldn't get due process because their claim isn't legit.

But you can't know if the claim Is legit until they get due process.

The only reason that SCOTUS validated due process in its 7-2 decision is because the relevant passage in the Constitution spoke of "persons" rather than "citizens." Nevertheless, Judge Scalia touched on the problematic nature of extending that privilege to non-citizens, and that's not unlike the problem I see with extending the privilege to an illegal who sought to live off the grid. I believe that genuine asylum seekers have the right to due process, and your statement that I believe "they shouldn't get due process because their claim isn't legit" is correct only as my personal opinion of what should apply to fake seekers. I too accept that SCOTUS has the final authority in its interpretation, though I was pointing out that the interpretations of the Constitution's content change according to the judges involved. The Trump regime asserts that Garcia was sent to El Salvador in error, which may or may not be the full truth. But it's also been asserted that in the Age of Zoom Garcia doesn't necessarily need to be brought back to these shores to have his day in court. I predict that Trump's lawyers will eventually convince the Prez that they can litigate the matter in that matter, that Garcia will get his day in some court and will be released from confinement, assuming that no further charges are leveled in the interim. But I just don't view Garcia's getting caught up in the system as a violation of Constitutional principles as you do, since I doubt that the framers meant to protect illegals living off the grid.

 

[ncguy]

The only reason that SCOTUS validated due process in its 7-2 decision is because the relevant passage in the Constitution spoke of "persons" rather than "citizens." Nevertheless, Judge Scalia touched on the problematic nature of extending that privilege to non-citizens, and that's not unlike the problem I see with extending the privilege to an illegal who sought to live off the grid. I believe that genuine asylum seekers have the right to due process, and your statement that I believe "they shouldn't get due process because their claim isn't legit" is correct only as my personal opinion of what should apply to fake seekers. I too accept that SCOTUS has the final authority in its interpretation, though I was pointing out that the interpretations of the Constitution's content change according to the judges involved. The Trump regime asserts that Garcia was sent to El Salvador in error, which may or may not be the full truth. But it's also been asserted that in the Age of Zoom Garcia doesn't necessarily need to be brought back to these shores to have his day in court. I predict that Trump's lawyers will eventually convince the Prez that they can litigate the matter in that matter, that Garcia will get his day in some court and will be released from confinement, assuming that no further charges are leveled in the interim. But I just don't view Garcia's getting caught up in the system as a violation of Constitutional principles as you do, since I doubt that the framers meant to protect illegals living off the grid.

yeah, scotus ruled how they did because of how the constitution was written. duh
and good for you that you dont interpret the constitution the way conservative scotus did.

 

[NolanVoyd]

The only reason that SCOTUS validated due process in its 7-2 decision is because the relevant passage in the Constitution spoke of "persons" rather than "citizens."

Yep. What the constitution says matters.

I dont think the framers had modern weapons in mind when they wrote the 2nd. But here we are. It says what it says.

But I just don't view Garcia's getting caught up in the system as a violation of Constitutional principles as you do, since I doubt that the framers meant to protect illegals living off the grid.

Who cares whether you view it that way?

His constitutional rights were in fact violated. The courts have ruled that Trump acted unconstitutionally. Trump is currently unvonstitutionally violating court orders.

If you have a patriotic bone in your body you will defend the constitution.

 

[smb3802]

Yes, I see you still aren't showing any ability to read. Yes, the bail judge makes a judgment call, and it is based on whatever FACTS he is presented with, just like a judge deciding on asylum status. You dismiss the bail judge's finding because you want it to be irrelevant-- and you still have not named whatever judge you think demonstrated that the accusation of gang membership was BS. By the bye, Garcia's attire was not the main reason he was accused of gang membership according to DHS, but I'll let you do your own research there. I'll ask you the same question as NV: show me that the Constitution protects not just asylum seekers but those seeking to elude any legal proceedings.

Again for the terminally incompetent reader. The bond judge does determine the validity or facts of evidence presented to them besides a determination of if that makes the person a danger to society or flight risk. Most bond hearings that includes reviewing any evidence and deciding right then and their. If the defense appeals then a hearing on the evidence is scheduled. In this case the evidence was found to be 100% BS by a trier of fact in actual evidence hearing. To say anything else is to lie. So you are either completely ignorant or a liar. Either way it doesn't bode well for you.

 

[Rogue Valley]

@Ouroboros isn't a fan of facts.

If facts don't suit his political agenda, out the window they go. Indistinguishable from the SOP of Pam Bondi.

​

 

[smb3802]

Yes, I see you still aren't showing any ability to read. Yes, the bail judge makes a judgment call, and it is based on whatever FACTS he is presented with, just like a judge deciding on asylum status. You dismiss the bail judge's finding because you want it to be irrelevant-- and you still have not named whatever judge you think demonstrated that the accusation of gang membership was BS. By the bye, Garcia's attire was not the main reason he was accused of gang membership according to DHS, but I'll let you do your own research there. I'll ask you the same question as NV: show me that the Constitution protects not just asylum seekers but those seeking to elude any legal proceedings.

Not to mention that is 100% beside the point. The fact is the Trump administration arrested Garcia and sent him to prison without ANY due process. What he is or may be, father and innocent or gang banger doesn't matter. Everything else is just BS rationalizations to make Trump supporters feel ok with throwing away Constitutional rights. You better hope none of your rights or next. I am sure if they are your whining about Constitutional rights will hit an 11 on the Richter scale.

 

[Ouroboros]

yeah, scotus ruled how they did because of how the constitution was written. duh
and good for you that you dont interpret the constitution the way conservative scotus did.

Duh, way for you to misread the situation. And your last sentence makes no sense at all.

 

[Ouroboros]

Yep. What the constitution says matters.

I dont think the framers had modern weapons in mind when they wrote the 2nd. But here we are. It says what it says.


Who cares whether you view it that way?

His constitutional rights were in fact violated. The courts have ruled that Trump acted unconstitutionally. Trump is currently unvonstitutionally violating court orders.

If you have a patriotic bone in your body you will defend the constitution.

(1) "It says what it says?" The Constitution actually does not literally cover the contingency of non-citizens living in the country illegally; it's only a particular interpretation that "persons" must be viewed as including such illegals, and that they are granted the rights of citizens and of other persons in the country legally. (2) I am equally indifferent to your opinion and to Dems' fake concern for human rights.

 

[Ouroboros]

Again for the terminally incompetent reader. The bond judge does determine the validity or facts of evidence presented to them besides a determination of if that makes the person a danger to society or flight risk. Most bond hearings that includes reviewing any evidence and deciding right then and their. If the defense appeals then a hearing on the evidence is scheduled. In this case the evidence was found to be 100% BS by a trier of fact in actual evidence hearing. To say anything else is to lie. So you are either completely ignorant or a liar. Either way it doesn't bode well for you.

What makes you think that an immigration judge is any more a "trier of fact" than the two judges who denied Garcia bond on the basis of the evidence? You lack any ability to logically prove your dogma and that doesn't "bode well" for you.

 

[Ouroboros]

@Ouroboros isn't a fan of facts.

If facts don't suit his political agenda, out the window they go. Indistinguishable from the SOP of Pam Bondi.

​

More remarks from the Peanut Gallery. In this case the reference means that said remarks aren't even worth peanuts.

 

[Ouroboros]

Not to mention that is 100% beside the point. The fact is the Trump administration arrested Garcia and sent him to prison without ANY due process. What he is or may be, father and innocent or gang banger doesn't matter. Everything else is just BS rationalizations to make Trump supporters feel ok with throwing away Constitutional rights. You better hope none of your rights or next. I am sure if they are your whining about Constitutional rights will hit an 11 on the Richter scale.

My only worry about my Constitutional rights is the possibility that lawfare-crazed Dems might get back in power somehow. Their cavalier encouragement of illegals, some of whom have proved dangerous, speaks to their complete disregard for the protection of citizens' rights.

 

[Buster Keaton]

 

[Rogue Valley]