Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
41 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

And none of that is close to an actual remedy for the guy in prison in El Salvador. You're trust that such a remedy will appear is misplaced. That's been my point. It continues to be my point. And it continues to be true. SCOTUS already neutered 1 possible remedy. And it impliedly neutered the second with its most recent decision. 

What do you think the S. Court should have done?  What do you think the district court should do?

Posted
17 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

What do you think the S. Court should have done?  What do you think the district court should do?

I already said this. The Supreme Court should not have taken the case. The judge's original order should have stood. Then we could have teed up what will end up being the actual issue. All this has done is create delay without deciding anything. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
Posted
I already said this. The Supreme Court should not have taken the case. The judge's original order should have stood. Then we could have teed up what will end up being the actual issue. All this has done is create delay without deciding anything. 

Roberts trying to delay to avoid the issue makes the Court weaker, not stronger.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

hey folks, if I get disappeared to an El Salvadoran death camp, will one of you fight a little harder for my release than what is going on here? this is a horror show.

Friends Tv No GIF

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Posted
53 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I already said this. The Supreme Court should not have taken the case. The judge's original order should have stood. Then we could have teed up what will end up being the actual issue. All this has done is create delay without deciding anything. 

This.  It's not hard.  "Administration, you broke the law by shipping someone with legal status to a foreign gulag.  Bring him back."  There.  Done.  Which is pretty much what the trial court's order said and did.  Leave it be.  When a lower court gets it right -- which it did -- the job of appellate courts is to SHUT THE FUCK UP.  THERE IS NO ERROR TO CORRECT, SO SHUT THE FUCK UP.

But nope, SCOTUS has to make sure they fight a rear-guard action to secure -- at all costs (literally... ALL costs) -- Donnie's supreme divine-right-of-kings power to do whatever the fuck he wants to whoever the fuck he wants.

"No remedy" = "you are fucked."  It doesn't matter what else the court says or writes; our posts on this board have as much real-world import as the words SCOTUS writes that are not tied to an actual remedy.  Unless the end of what they say is "therefore the admin is ordered to bring him back," what they wrote is a nothing.  Real-life is not aggy, there are no fucking moral victories.  Either you get a remedy, or you lose.

  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted

shockingly, google returned a fox article from yesterday with the pertinent info which all but guarantees he is an ex-parrot....

+++

https://www.foxnews.com/us/maryland-immigrant-wrongly-deported-to-el-salvador-must-return-to-us-supreme-court-rules

Federal court filings showed Abrego Garcia had fled El Salvador to escape gang violence. Starting around 2006, gang members "stalked, hit, and threatened to kidnap and kill him in order to coerce his parents to succumb to their increasing demands for extortion."

He entered the United States illegally in 2011 and traveled to Maryland, where his older brother, a U.S. citizen, lived.

Around 2016, Abrego Garcia became romantically involved with a female U.S. citizen — Jennifer Vasquez Sura — and her two children, also U.S. citizens. They moved in together and the woman became pregnant with his child. Abrego Garcia worked in the construction industry to support his family, court filings say.

On March 28, 2019, Abrego Garcia went to a Home Depot in Hyattsville, Maryland, to solicit employment and was recruited by three other men. Prince George County Police Department soon arrived at the scene and detained all four men.

"At the police station, the four young men were placed into different rooms and questioned. Plaintiff Abrego Garcia was asked if he was a gang member; when he told police he was not, they said that they did not believe him and repeatedly demanded that he provide information about other gang members," court documents state. "The police told Plaintiff Abrego Garcia that he would be released if he cooperated, but he repeatedly explained that he did not have any information to give because he did not know anything."

A judge later granted his release, and Abrego Garcia married his now-wife in 2019. He did, however, miss the birth of his child while in federal custody, the federal complaint says.

Abrego Garcia was arrested in Baltimore on March 12 after he worked a shift as a sheet metal apprentice in Baltimore and picked up his now-5-year-old son, who has autism and other disabilities, from his grandmother’s house, the complaint says.

 

  • Rage+1 4
Posted

As I mentioned on another thread, there is indeed a very limited range of action for the US to demand another nation hand over another one of its own citizens even if the deportation was done in error. Asking nice is about it (and in this case “asking nice” would have a strong chance of working). 
 

The horror here is how casually the deportation was done and how viciously the administration wants to argue that it was correct to do so and that it doesn’t even have to demonstrate that it asked nicely. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
Posted

I also want to say that while traditionally the president has wide constitutional powers to conduct foreign affairs, the president has traditionally completely refrained from using those powers to override rule of law at home and outsource immigration detention to dictators.  So I am happily persuaded here that a judge should be given a lot more oversight in return and should be able to do things like order the embassy to deliver a demarche demanding this guy be released every day until he is. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
4 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

As I mentioned on another thread, there is indeed a very limited range of action for the US to demand another nation hand over another one of its own citizens even if the deportation was done in error. Asking nice is about it (and in this case “asking nice” would have a strong chance of working). 

Trump could threaten to slap a 200% tariff on El Salvador. He enjoys using that blunt instrument.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Posted
11 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

As I mentioned on another thread, there is indeed a very limited range of action for the US to demand another nation hand over another one of its own citizens even if the deportation was done in error. Asking nice is about it (and in this case “asking nice” would have a strong chance of working). 
 

The horror here is how casually the deportation was done and how viciously the administration wants to argue that it was correct to do so and that it doesn’t even have to demonstrate that it asked nicely. 

Unlike the Venezuelans, there is a level of difficulty here that he has been returned to his home country.  The Venezuelans may have a better case here.

Nevertheless, the "you put him there, you get him back" makes an awful lot of sense.

in the first instance, this is an exercise of executive power over immigration that is not an inherent power, only delegated by Congress.  It is not an initio either a foreign affairs or national security matter.  That is something arbitrarily engrafted onto it by Trump.  And even then, he acts pursuant to an act of Congress, the Alien Enemies Act.

At some point, though, the agreement or treaty with ES to take unlawful immigrants comes into play, and some of that may be covered by executive privilege.  In a criminal prosecution of a citizen, that privilege would yield to the rights of the accused (US v. Nixon).  Here, in a civil or quasi-criminal proceeding against a non-citizen, I'm not so sure.  One would have to think that the agreement itself would have to come into evidence, if not the negotiations that led to it.  And one might think that such an agreement might constitute a treaty, invalid without the advice and consent of the Senate.

It's a messy thing.

  • Like 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

What does El Salvador get out of this?

Good question.  Is it exercising sovereignty over its own citizens?  Is it acting as a contractor to the US Government for incarceration services?

That they are being paid tends to indicate the latter rather than the former.  And the former has no application with respect to non-ES citizens.

 

Posted
22 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Unlike the Venezuelans, there is a level of difficulty here that he has been returned to his home country.  The Venezuelans may have a better case here.

Nevertheless, the "you put him there, you get him back" makes an awful lot of sense.

in the first instance, this is an exercise of executive power over immigration that is not an inherent power, only delegated by Congress.  It is not an initio either a foreign affairs or national security matter.  That is something arbitrarily engrafted onto it by Trump.  And even then, he acts pursuant to an act of Congress, the Alien Enemies Act.

At some point, though, the agreement or treaty with ES to take unlawful immigrants comes into play, and some of that may be covered by executive privilege.  In a criminal prosecution of a citizen, that privilege would yield to the rights of the accused (US v. Nixon).  Here, in a civil or quasi-criminal proceeding against a non-citizen, I'm not so sure.  One would have to think that the agreement itself would have to come into evidence, if not the negotiations that led to it.  And one might think that such an agreement might constitute a treaty, invalid without the advice and consent of the Senate.

It's a messy thing.

The agreement the admin has touted with El Salvador is for them to accept third country nationals. Which, crucially, this person is  not. He’s a citizen of El Salvador.  All countries have a basic requirement to accept their own citizens, no agreement required. And he’s not a citizen of here, which further complicates the extent we could advocate. 
 

I am not aware of any binding agreement anywhere in the world between two counties that would compel the surrender of a citizen to a foreign nation aside from extradition agreements which don’t apply here. 
 

An order to get him back is reasonable, and in this case they likely could just by asking.  But one can imagine a scenario where something like this happened by actual accident and even an admin acting in good faith wouldn’t be able to comply. 

Posted
46 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Unlike the Venezuelans, there is a level of difficulty here that he has been returned to his home country.  The Venezuelans may have a better case here.

Nevertheless, the "you put him there, you get him back" makes an awful lot of sense.

in the first instance, this is an exercise of executive power over immigration that is not an inherent power, only delegated by Congress.  It is not an initio either a foreign affairs or national security matter.  That is something arbitrarily engrafted onto it by Trump.  And even then, he acts pursuant to an act of Congress, the Alien Enemies Act.

At some point, though, the agreement or treaty with ES to take unlawful immigrants comes into play, and some of that may be covered by executive privilege.  In a criminal prosecution of a citizen, that privilege would yield to the rights of the accused (US v. Nixon).  Here, in a civil or quasi-criminal proceeding against a non-citizen, I'm not so sure.  One would have to think that the agreement itself would have to come into evidence, if not the negotiations that led to it.  And one might think that such an agreement might constitute a treaty, invalid without the advice and consent of the Senate.

It's a messy thing.

It's so strange how you type out these long diatribes detailing why trump should be allowed to do whatever the fuck he wants, and the government MUST be constrained at all times. Unless trump is in charge of course, and then damn the torpedos and full speed ahead!

I just don't understand how your analysis ALWAYS lands in this posture. I understand that YOU don't like what trump is doing, but your apologetics for the completely broken and coopted legal system are fuckin exhausting 

Posted
23 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

The agreement the admin has touted with El Salvador is for them to accept third country nationals. Which, crucially, this person is  not. He’s a citizen of El Salvador.  All countries have a basic requirement to accept their own citizens, no agreement required. And he’s not a citizen of here, which further complicates the extent we could advocate. 
 

I am not aware of any binding agreement anywhere in the world between two counties that would compel the surrender of a citizen to a foreign nation aside from extradition agreements which don’t apply here. 
 

An order to get him back is reasonable, and in this case they likely could just by asking.  But one can imagine a scenario where something like this happened by actual accident and even an admin acting in good faith wouldn’t be able to comply

And this is why guys like Ojo will say actually this is ok really and things aren't as bad as we fear, and why Roberts will pretend that his delays and prevarications were what the law compelled. Meanwhile Trump and Miller will see the obvious loophole they've been given and take full advantage of it. 

Most of the worst abuses the nazis committed were legal under their laws at the time, or at least not clearly illegal. It will be the same here. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 4
Posted
An order to get him back is reasonable, and in this case they likely could just by asking.  But one can imagine a scenario where something like this happened by actual accident and even an admin acting in good faith wouldn’t be able to comply. 


It would just be nice to live in a world where leaders could recognize a mistake and make a good faith effort on both sides to reunite this man with his wife and autistic son. I think every presidential administration in history would do that until now.

Trump could get a big PR win out of returning him home but they won’t do that because it undermines their effort to instill fear, which is one of the goals.

If this family ever gets reunited, they need to immediately look for a better country to flee to. Change names 3 times and become cattle ranchers in New Zealand.
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted

ai says these are the top 5 mexican news orgs based on online traffic in '22:

Milenio https://www.milenio.com/

El Heraldo de México https://heraldodemexico.com.mx/

Infobae https://www.infobae.com/mexico/

El Universal https://www.eluniversal.com.mx/

Excelsior https://www.excelsior.com.mx/

a quick scan of the headlines and the mexicans either do not perceive or are self-censoring the blackbagging situation entirely

their trump news is all tariffs or ukraine

it took a few weeks but the laborers and yarderos started reappearing everywhere a month ago throughout big metro texas

it's starting to feel like their is a silent deal here....   connection to central america and northern south america or outspoken muslim seems to be the targets for now

Posted

 The Supreme Court said this week that Trump’s administration must facilitate the return of a Maryland father who a Department of Justice lawyer admitted in court was mistakenly deported. The lawyer who made the admission has been suspended, according to Attorney General Pam Bondi.

“He shouldn’t have argued it, if that’s what he was going to do,” she said on Fox News.

  • Rage+1 5
Posted
36 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

 The Supreme Court said this week that Trump’s administration must facilitate the return of a Maryland father who a Department of Justice lawyer admitted in court was mistakenly deported. The lawyer who made the admission has been suspended, according to Attorney General Pam Bondi.

“He shouldn’t have argued it, if that’s what he was going to do,” she said on Fox News.

I mean, I figured they might wait a little bit to go full on authoritarian death camps, but I guess I lack imagination. 

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, Captainant said:

It's so strange how you type out these long diatribes detailing why trump should be allowed to do whatever the fuck he wants, and the government MUST be constrained at all times. Unless trump is in charge of course, and then damn the torpedos and full speed ahead!

I just don't understand how your analysis ALWAYS lands in this posture. I understand that YOU don't like what trump is doing, but your apologetics for the completely broken and coopted legal system are fuckin exhausting 

Fuck you man.  That's not what that post said at all.

Trump either blindly stumbles or is advised to find interstices in the law.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)

Sunday's status report was, uh, insufficient. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69777799/64/abrego-garcia-v-noem/

Government's response to Abrego Garcia's motion for further relief.  Pretty ludicrous.  https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69777799/65/abrego-garcia-v-noem/

Some notable bullshit.  Claims "facilitate" has a special meaning in immigration law with no citation.  Claims that the agreement between ES and US is subject to attorney-client privilege or state secrets privilege.  Which is going to be hard to do because the agreement was ostensibly reviewed, agreed to and executed by a foreign party.

It does note, however, that Bukele is meeting with Trump today.

It does a lot of saber rattling and jawboning, but falls short of explicitly stating it can't or won't return Abrego Garcia.

Seems like it may be shaping up for Trump to return him but say it was some act of personal graciousness, not something the courts required or could require.

 

 

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
On 4/11/2025 at 7:08 PM, 956 Worldwide said:

As I mentioned on another thread, there is indeed a very limited range of action for the US to demand another nation hand over another one of its own citizens even if the deportation was done in error. Asking nice is about it (and in this case “asking nice” would have a strong chance of working). 
 

The horror here is how casually the deportation was done and how viciously the administration wants to argue that it was correct to do so and that it doesn’t even have to demonstrate that it asked nicely. 

 

trump just has to say return him asap and he's back

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
45 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Sunday's status report was, uh, insufficient. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69777799/64/abrego-garcia-v-noem/

Government's response to Abrego Garcia's motion for further relief.  Pretty ludicrous.  https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69777799/65/abrego-garcia-v-noem/

Some notable bullshit.  Claims "facilitate" has a special meaning in immigration law with no citation.  Claims that the agreement between ES and US is subject to attorney-client privilege or state secrets privilege.  Which is going to be hard to do because the agreement was ostensibly reviewed, agreed to and executed by a foreign party.

It does note, however, that Bukele is meeting with Trump today.

It does a lot of saber rattling and jawboning, but falls short of explicitly stating it can't or won't return Abrego Garcia.

Seems like it may be shaping up for Trump to return him but say it was some act of personal graciousness, not something the courts required or could require.

I don't know about that. In the update on Sunday the government's witness said: "However, I also understand that Abrego Garcia is no longer eligible for withholding of removal because of his membership in MS-13 which is now a designated foreign terrorist organization." That sounds like they plan to say he can't come back anymore or to deport him again the moment he returns (if he ever returns). 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
51 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Sunday's status report was, uh, insufficient. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69777799/64/abrego-garcia-v-noem/

Government's response to Abrego Garcia's motion for further relief.  Pretty ludicrous.  https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69777799/65/abrego-garcia-v-noem/

Some notable bullshit.  Claims "facilitate" has a special meaning in immigration law with no citation.  Claims that the agreement between ES and US is subject to attorney-client privilege or state secrets privilege.  Which is going to be hard to do because the agreement was ostensibly reviewed, agreed to and executed by a foreign party.

It does note, however, that Bukele is meeting with Trump today.

It does a lot of saber rattling and jawboning, but falls short of explicitly stating it can't or won't return Abrego Garcia.

Seems like it may be shaping up for Trump to return him but say it was some act of personal graciousness, not something the courts required or could require.

 

 

It is absolutely unacceptable for the government to claim that an agreement it signed to get people off the streets of America and sent to another country is a state secret and/or classified. There are some agreements that have classified annexes releasable to the counter-party, usually these would be in the military or intelligence sharing realm. Completely horrendous to allege that the whole agreement can’t be shown to a federal judge. 
 

There are also plenty of judges who have classified access and can review in  camera.  Its far past time for HFAC Dems to demand the government produce this for them as well. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
On 4/12/2025 at 8:11 AM, TwiceHorn said:

Unlike the Venezuelans, there is a level of difficulty here that he has been returned to his home country.  The Venezuelans may have a better case here.

Does Garcia have any criminal record in El Salvador? If not then why would they have any cause to keep him in prison if the U.S. stopped paying them to do so? Would they have any cause to prevent his return to his wife and kids if they released him?

Posted
15 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Does Garcia have any criminal record in El Salvador? If not then why would they have any cause to keep him in prison if the U.S. stopped paying them to do so? Would they have any cause to prevent his return to his wife and kids if they released him?

In recent news story I watched, El Salvador said they do have evidence of him being a gang member while in El Salvador. Of course, when asked, they wouldn't show this evidence.

Posted
24 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Does Garcia have any criminal record in El Salvador? If not then why would they have any cause to keep him in prison if the U.S. stopped paying them to do so? Would they have any cause to prevent his return to his wife and kids if they released him?

They will do it because Bukele is getting an Oval meeting.  He’ll do whatever is asked of him. 

Posted
16 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

They will do it because Bukele is getting an Oval meeting.  He’ll do whatever is asked of him. 

So, what do you think?  Trump urges him to make some kind of stand holding Abrego Garcia, or gets him released and returned out of the "goodness of his heart"?

Posted
1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't know about that. In the update on Sunday the government's witness said: "However, I also understand that Abrego Garcia is no longer eligible for withholding of removal because of his membership in MS-13 which is now a designated foreign terrorist organization." That sounds like they plan to say he can't come back anymore or to deport him again the moment he returns (if he ever returns). 

Yeah, I dunno.  I read that as an attempt to backtrack from their previous judicial admission that he was removed in error.

Certainly seems like a setup to try to sidestep the due process issue.

Posted
17 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

So, what do you think?  Trump urges him to make some kind of stand holding Abrego Garcia, or gets him released and returned out of the "goodness of his heart"?

He will tell him to keep holding him. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Sunday's status report was, uh, insufficient. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69777799/64/abrego-garcia-v-noem/

Government's response to Abrego Garcia's motion for further relief.  Pretty ludicrous.  https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69777799/65/abrego-garcia-v-noem/

Some notable bullshit.  Claims "facilitate" has a special meaning in immigration law with no citation.  Claims that the agreement between ES and US is subject to attorney-client privilege or state secrets privilege.  Which is going to be hard to do because the agreement was ostensibly reviewed, agreed to and executed by a foreign party.

It does note, however, that Bukele is meeting with Trump today.

It does a lot of saber rattling and jawboning, but falls short of explicitly stating it can't or won't return Abrego Garcia.

Seems like it may be shaping up for Trump to return him but say it was some act of personal graciousness, not something the courts required or could require.

 

 

It's a good idea for anyone having to argue Trump's position to never state anything to clearly and explicitly because you don't know what position he's going to impulsively or rage post on Truth Social.

Any return will surely be "I did it because I wanted to, not because you told me to" defiance.

The whole thing is very Trumpian. They screwed up, tacitly admit the screw up, but act like it's just a technicality because "he's a really bad guy, trust us." Legally and common sense response is, "okay, prove he's a bad guy". Which of course circles back the Administration just repeating "he's a really bad guy, trust us."   

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

It is absolutely unacceptable for the government to claim that an agreement it signed to get people off the streets of America and sent to another country is a state secret and/or classified. There are some agreements that have classified annexes releasable to the counter-party, usually these would be in the military or intelligence sharing realm. Completely horrendous to allege that the whole agreement can’t be shown to a federal judge. 
 

There are also plenty of judges who have classified access and can review in  camera.  Its far past time for HFAC Dems to demand the government produce this for them as well. 

Here's a thought: there is no written agreement.  It was entirely verbal, we shipped Bukele cash and prisoners, he agreed to take them.  There, those are the entire terms of the agreement.  I genuinely think that may be the case.

And yes, an agreement to ship people detained in the US to a foreign power is not and cannot be "classified," because of its inherent due process/constitutional implications.  Again, that same "agreement" could be utilized (and will be -- the admin has said as much) to snatch you, me, or anyone else off the street and have us in a foreign prison before anyone even knows we're missing.  Hell fucking no -- that agreement cannot be deemed classified.  

Posted (edited)

Cruelty is used to address a person's insecurity about his own manly manfulness.

Doubling down on an injustice for the same reason.

I lament the lost value of reason in this new world. Those opposed to the tyranny keep applying it as though it will return some sort of favorable result. It's like clapping to keep Tinkerbell alive. Clap harder and harder, that's the only solution! 

spacer.png

Edited by RomaVicta
Posted
Fuck you man.  That's not what that post said at all.
Trump either blindly stumbles or is advised to find interstices in the law.

This is the shortest TwiceHorn post I have ever seen.
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 3
Posted
2 minutes ago, Firemans4Horn said:

 

@Ojo Rojo, please share with us how we're reading this all wrong, and how we aren't now a full-on authoritarian state that allows the Regime to ship anyone they want to a foreign prison with no due process and no recourse once they are imprisoned there.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, Firemans4Horn said:

 

If we manage to get through this, the next lib president is going to have to drop a Raytheon knife missile on that motherfucker.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
Posted

Klansman #2, miller, was on fox this morning arguing that returning the Maryland dad who’s as wrongfully deported would be “kidnapping.”

 

Excuse Me Wow GIF by Mashable

  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 6


×
×
  • Create New...