Supreme Court Sides With Wrongly Deported Migrant
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
I understand but I still hope you still hit send. Otherwise, your Senator will never know. |
Anonymous
NP. I just read entire article and, obviously, you either did not read entire article on your reading comprehension skills are lacking |
Anonymous
MS-13 is a designated terrorist group. |
Anonymous
Stop using my analogy. |
Anonymous
| He WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS!!!!!!!!! SEE IF THIS CAN SINK THROUGH YOUR PEANUT SIZE BRAINS! |
Anonymous
Yes, it's true that the government has designated MS-13 as a "terrorist group." But let's face it--at this point, Trump can designate any group he wants as "terrorists." But technically a terrorist is someone who "uses violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." No doubt MS-13 uses violence, but what are their "political aims"? They're no more political than the Mafia. They're just criminals. Which other group will Trump designate as "terrorists" next? |
Anonymous
Gosh. Maybe the Supreme Court missed this when they decided his deportation was illegal. |
Anonymous
The only thing you were in danger of was being put on a list and getting e-mails and regular mails from Republicans around the country wanting money. |
Anonymous
The government lawyer said the deportation was a mistake. Now some people in the administration are saying it was not a mistake. |
Anonymous
The administrative error reality was not working for them so they came up with alternative facts. That is Maga 101. |
Anonymous
He had 2 hearings and lost both, how much due process do you want? |
Anonymous
DP. Not sure which two hearings you're referring to but the SPECIFIC hearing that caused the Trump administration to admit they wrongly deported him and to which the SC ruled on was the October 2019 hearing where he applied for asylum and withholding of removal. While his asylum request was denied due to a late filing, an immigration judge granted him "withholding of removal" status, recognizing the danger he faced from gang violence if returned to El Salvador. This status allowed him to live and work legally in the U.S. To your question of "how much due process do you want?" I would answer--whatever the law and the constitution allow. |
Anonymous
Sorry to be a nit, but the Constitution does not "allow" due process. It is not optional. It is required. |
Anonymous
Intimidation worked for Hitler. Do not let it work for you! Respond. |
Anonymous
|
Fourth Circuit denies the Government's attempt to appeal the district court's order (which essentially just repeated the SCOTUS order). Judge Wilkinson, a famously conservative judge who is a feeder judge for the conservatives on SCOTUS, lambasted the Trump regime:
"It is difficult in some cases to get to the very heart of the matter. But in this case, it is not hard at all. The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order. Further, it claims in essence that because it has rid itself of custody that there is nothing that can be done. This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear. .... “Facilitation” does not permit the admittedly erroneous deportation of an individual to the one country’s prisons that the withholding order forbids and, further, to do so in disregard of a court order that the government not so subtly spurns. “Facilitation” does not sanction the abrogation of habeas corpus through the transfer of custody to foreign detention centers in the manner attempted here. Allowing all this would “facilitate” foreign detention more than it would domestic return. It would reduce the rule of law to lawlessness and tarnish the very values for which Americans of diverse views and persuasions have always stood. .... The basic differences between the branches mandate a serious effort at mutual respect. The respect that courts must accord the Executive must be reciprocated by the Executive’s respect for the courts. Too often today this has not been the case, as calls for impeachment of judges for decisions the Executive disfavors and exhortations to disregard court orders sadly illustrate." https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca4.178400/gov.uscourts.ca4.178400.8.0.pdf |