Van Hollen in El Salvador

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's just cut through all the bullshit about whether or not he was illegal (he wasn't, and was under an order of protection).

Not illegal? He is not a citizen. He is not a permanent legal resident. What visa did he have that let him stay in the US?
The order of protection did not make him legal.

A person can have no legal status in the US and still have legal rights to due process of the law. This isn't that difficult of a concept for people to understand.

The person said he was not illegal. He was and is.
And he got due process.

Oh, did the due process happen before or after the "clerical" error that caused him to be deported?

Before.

9 Supreme court justices disagree but I am sure you know better

The Supreme Court said treat him as if you hadn't made the mistake. They didn't say he required more due process.

The supreme court said to facilitate his return and Trump is playing semantics

The Supreme Court said facilitate his release from custody.
They didn't say return to US.

" 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"

Which means they can deport him to another country. Or they can reopen his case and get rid of the block on El Salvador.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's just cut through all the bullshit about whether or not he was illegal (he wasn't, and was under an order of protection).

Not illegal? He is not a citizen. He is not a permanent legal resident. What visa did he have that let him stay in the US?
The order of protection did not make him legal.

A person can have no legal status in the US and still have legal rights to due process of the law. This isn't that difficult of a concept for people to understand.

The person said he was not illegal. He was and is.
And he got due process.

Oh, did the due process happen before or after the "clerical" error that caused him to be deported?

Before.

9 Supreme court justices disagree but I am sure you know better

The Supreme Court said treat him as if you hadn't made the mistake. They didn't say he required more due process.

The supreme court said to facilitate his return and Trump is playing semantics

The Supreme Court said facilitate his release from custody.
They didn't say return to US.

" 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"

He would just be deported again. He isn't coming back to Maryland to live.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's just cut through all the bullshit about whether or not he was illegal (he wasn't, and was under an order of protection).

Not illegal? He is not a citizen. He is not a permanent legal resident. What visa did he have that let him stay in the US?
The order of protection did not make him legal.

A person can have no legal status in the US and still have legal rights to due process of the law. This isn't that difficult of a concept for people to understand.

The person said he was not illegal. He was and is.
And he got due process.

Oh, did the due process happen before or after the "clerical" error that caused him to be deported?

Before.

9 Supreme court justices disagree but I am sure you know better

The Supreme Court said treat him as if you hadn't made the mistake. They didn't say he required more due process.

The supreme court said to facilitate his return and Trump is playing semantics

The Supreme Court said facilitate his release from custody.
They didn't say return to US.

" 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"

He would just be deported again. He isn't coming back to Maryland to live.

Fine but at least we will have a president who complies with the judiciary, which is frankly my biggest concern (and clearly a concern for Judge Wilkerson). That concept is the MOST important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's just cut through all the bullshit about whether or not he was illegal (he wasn't, and was under an order of protection).

Not illegal? He is not a citizen. He is not a permanent legal resident. What visa did he have that let him stay in the US?
The order of protection did not make him legal.

A person can have no legal status in the US and still have legal rights to due process of the law. This isn't that difficult of a concept for people to understand.

The person said he was not illegal. He was and is.
And he got due process.

Oh, did the due process happen before or after the "clerical" error that caused him to be deported?

Before.

9 Supreme court justices disagree but I am sure you know better

The Supreme Court said treat him as if you hadn't made the mistake. They didn't say he required more due process.

The supreme court said to facilitate his return and Trump is playing semantics

The Supreme Court said facilitate his release from custody.
They didn't say return to US.

" 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"

He would just be deported again. He isn't coming back to Maryland to live.

The facilitation part needs to happen or there are far larger and long term concerns if it does not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's just cut through all the bullshit about whether or not he was illegal (he wasn't, and was under an order of protection).

Not illegal? He is not a citizen. He is not a permanent legal resident. What visa did he have that let him stay in the US?
The order of protection did not make him legal.

A person can have no legal status in the US and still have legal rights to due process of the law. This isn't that difficult of a concept for people to understand.

The person said he was not illegal. He was and is.
And he got due process.

Oh, did the due process happen before or after the "clerical" error that caused him to be deported?

Before.

9 Supreme court justices disagree but I am sure you know better

The Supreme Court said treat him as if you hadn't made the mistake. They didn't say he required more due process.

The supreme court said to facilitate his return and Trump is playing semantics

The Supreme Court said facilitate his release from custody.
They didn't say return to US.

" 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"

He would just be deported again. He isn't coming back to Maryland to live.

The facilitation part needs to happen or there are far larger and long term concerns if it does not.

Forget it, Jake - it's MAGA town

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a former Marylander, Van Hollen is way off base here. MS-13 is inside the schools, girls are being kidnapped and trafficked, rival teens are being lured into the woods and stabbed to death. A poor kid was murdered at Lake Forest mall for the crime of wearing a shirt the wrong color. This gang has gutted the once thriving communities of Montgomery Village, Germantown, and much of Gaithersburg. Who exactly is Van Hollen appealing to or protecting? The vast majority of the victims of MS-13 are Hispanic teens. This isn't a white vs POC thing. This is a criminal vs peaceful person thing. He needs to get a clue and talk to Maryland parents who've had pieces of their children returned to them in bags.

A girl's body was found along the C&O Canal in the vicinity of Chain Bridge a few years ago. She was Hispanic. Her body had been cut up into pieces. A young man was also found murdered and dismembered along the C&O Canal a few years ago. Law enforcement found MS-13 insignia in the woods close to where this young man's body was found. Any reasonable person with their head screwed on straight understands the animals who committed these crimes do not belong in our communities.

MS-13 is a murderous gang known for drug dealing and human trafficking. The manner in which the two above young people were murdered indicates at the very least extreme psychopathy. They are a public menace.

I am not happy with a lot of Trump's actions, but deporting brutal gang members should not disturb anyone.

Person dominating thread with a hundred silly arguments is likely an MS-13 member tasked with defending this man.

DP. For the 100th time (excuse the shouting), NO ONE IS AGAINST DEPORTING ACTUAL GANG MEMBERS!

Uhh, yes I'm 100% against deporting actual gang members without due process to a country that will imprison them in cruel and unusual conditions for life, also without any due process.

If you're not I don't want to share a country with you.

To clarify, do you mean deporting illegal alien gang members whose membership and criminal activities in such gangs would make them ineligible to stay in the U.S.?

It's called common sense. Of course criminal gang members who don't have legal status in the US should be deported but there has to be a legal due process followed so that we don't wind up deporting people in a swift manner and then days later saying "oops, that was a clerical error". No American is against deporting people on our soil with no legal status who have committed crimes. Common sense.

This doesn’t pass the common sense test. You are suggesting that if 100,000 military age males from Russia flew from Ukraine to Cuba and then individually crossed into the USA at the same time then each and every single one of them must be given Due Process (which can take years, if the feds choose to diligently pursue it, if at all) to make sure not one single Russian is improperly removed. If that is your position, and the prevailing position of the law, don’t be surprised if support for Due Process is eroding.

The reality is that we have 20 million people in this country without legal status. Those individuals have changed communities, labor markets, congressional apportionment, and allocation of government resources. While the country has benefited from their presence in many ways, their presence has been to the detriment of many Americans. The idea that 20 million people who disregarded our national sovereignty and clearly overwhelm the government's ability to process them now are entitled to remain until a cumbersome legal process runs its course also doesn’t pass the common sense test (even if that’s what the law requires).

Your post doesn't pass the common sense test.

"But what if it's not convenient to follow the law" is not an argument against the law.

If 100,000 people arrive in the US then we initiate 100,000 reviews and give them their due process.

The fact that you think this is a counterargument shows how deeply unamerican you are. The ideals of our nation and the rights afforded to people on our soil by our laws are not negotiable depending on how much work they might be to uphold. America is where all men are created equal. Sorry you don't agree, but since you don't maybe you'd be better suited for El Salvador, Iran, or 1930s Germany.

Don't let my beautiful American door hit your disgusting fascist ass on your way out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a former Marylander, Van Hollen is way off base here. MS-13 is inside the schools, girls are being kidnapped and trafficked, rival teens are being lured into the woods and stabbed to death. A poor kid was murdered at Lake Forest mall for the crime of wearing a shirt the wrong color. This gang has gutted the once thriving communities of Montgomery Village, Germantown, and much of Gaithersburg. Who exactly is Van Hollen appealing to or protecting? The vast majority of the victims of MS-13 are Hispanic teens. This isn't a white vs POC thing. This is a criminal vs peaceful person thing. He needs to get a clue and talk to Maryland parents who've had pieces of their children returned to them in bags.

A girl's body was found along the C&O Canal in the vicinity of Chain Bridge a few years ago. She was Hispanic. Her body had been cut up into pieces. A young man was also found murdered and dismembered along the C&O Canal a few years ago. Law enforcement found MS-13 insignia in the woods close to where this young man's body was found. Any reasonable person with their head screwed on straight understands the animals who committed these crimes do not belong in our communities.

MS-13 is a murderous gang known for drug dealing and human trafficking. The manner in which the two above young people were murdered indicates at the very least extreme psychopathy. They are a public menace.

I am not happy with a lot of Trump's actions, but deporting brutal gang members should not disturb anyone.

Person dominating thread with a hundred silly arguments is likely an MS-13 member tasked with defending this man.

DP. For the 100th time (excuse the shouting), NO ONE IS AGAINST DEPORTING ACTUAL GANG MEMBERS!

Uhh, yes I'm 100% against deporting actual gang members without due process to a country that will imprison them in cruel and unusual conditions for life, also without any due process.

If you're not I don't want to share a country with you.

To clarify, do you mean deporting illegal alien gang members whose membership and criminal activities in such gangs would make them ineligible to stay in the U.S.?

It's called common sense. Of course criminal gang members who don't have legal status in the US should be deported but there has to be a legal due process followed so that we don't wind up deporting people in a swift manner and then days later saying "oops, that was a clerical error". No American is against deporting people on our soil with no legal status who have committed crimes. Common sense.

This doesn’t pass the common sense test. You are suggesting that if 100,000 military age males from Russia flew from Ukraine to Cuba and then individually crossed into the USA at the same time then each and every single one of them must be given Due Process (which can take years, if the feds choose to diligently pursue it, if at all) to make sure not one single Russian is improperly removed. If that is your position, and the prevailing position of the law, don’t be surprised if support for Due Process is eroding.

The reality is that we have 20 million people in this country without legal status. Those individuals have changed communities, labor markets, congressional apportionment, and allocation of government resources. While the country has benefited from their presence in many ways, their presence has been to the detriment of many Americans. The idea that 20 million people who disregarded our national sovereignty and clearly overwhelm the government's ability to process them now are entitled to remain until a cumbersome legal process runs its course also doesn’t pass the common sense test (even if that’s what the law requires).

Your post doesn't pass the common sense test.

"But what if it's not convenient to follow the law" is not an argument against the law.

If 100,000 people arrive in the US then we initiate 100,000 reviews and give them their due process.

The fact that you think this is a counterargument shows how deeply unamerican you are. The ideals of our nation and the rights afforded to people on our soil by our laws are not negotiable depending on how much work they might be to uphold. America is where all men are created equal. Sorry you don't agree, but since you don't maybe you'd be better suited for El Salvador, Iran, or 1930s Germany.

Don't let my beautiful American door hit your disgusting fascist ass on your way out.

Yes. Thank you. The PP is suggesting it is ok for the current government to violate the constitution because it's too difficult to uphold it.

No thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's just cut through all the bullshit about whether or not he was illegal (he wasn't, and was under an order of protection).

Not illegal? He is not a citizen. He is not a permanent legal resident. What visa did he have that let him stay in the US?
The order of protection did not make him legal.

A person can have no legal status in the US and still have legal rights to due process of the law. This isn't that difficult of a concept for people to understand.

The person said he was not illegal. He was and is.
And he got due process.

Oh, did the due process happen before or after the "clerical" error that caused him to be deported?

Before.

9 Supreme court justices disagree but I am sure you know better

The Supreme Court said treat him as if you hadn't made the mistake. They didn't say he required more due process.

The supreme court said to facilitate his return and Trump is playing semantics

The Supreme Court said facilitate his release from custody.
They didn't say return to US.

" 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"

He would just be deported again. He isn't coming back to Maryland to live.

The facilitation part needs to happen or there are far larger and long term concerns if it does not.

The facilitation part implies that his country will first agree to release him. It doesn't sound like his president will release him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's just cut through all the bullshit about whether or not he was illegal (he wasn't, and was under an order of protection).

Not illegal? He is not a citizen. He is not a permanent legal resident. What visa did he have that let him stay in the US?
The order of protection did not make him legal.

A person can have no legal status in the US and still have legal rights to due process of the law. This isn't that difficult of a concept for people to understand.

The person said he was not illegal. He was and is.
And he got due process.

Oh, did the due process happen before or after the "clerical" error that caused him to be deported?

Before.

9 Supreme court justices disagree but I am sure you know better

The Supreme Court said treat him as if you hadn't made the mistake. They didn't say he required more due process.

The supreme court said to facilitate his return and Trump is playing semantics

The Supreme Court said facilitate his release from custody.
They didn't say return to US.

" 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"

He would just be deported again. He isn't coming back to Maryland to live.

The facilitation part needs to happen or there are far larger and long term concerns if it does not.

The facilitation part implies that his country will first agree to release him. It doesn't sound like his president will release him.

It doesn't sound like our own country is, thus far, providing any evidence it complied attempting to facilitate, per the Appeals court ruling. You may argue that they do not feel they need to bother because of xyz about his past. I (and the Appeals court) argue our government needs to show its cards and receipts or else we have a constitutional crisis which puts US citizens at risk moving forward. Also receipts need to be a lot better than "I asked and he said no!"

[Anonymous]

https://x.com/JesseKellyDC/status/1912624469111197970

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's just cut through all the bullshit about whether or not he was illegal (he wasn't, and was under an order of protection).

Not illegal? He is not a citizen. He is not a permanent legal resident. What visa did he have that let him stay in the US?
The order of protection did not make him legal.

A person can have no legal status in the US and still have legal rights to due process of the law. This isn't that difficult of a concept for people to understand.

The person said he was not illegal. He was and is.
And he got due process.

Oh, did the due process happen before or after the "clerical" error that caused him to be deported?

Before.

9 Supreme court justices disagree but I am sure you know better

The Supreme Court said treat him as if you hadn't made the mistake. They didn't say he required more due process.

The supreme court said to facilitate his return and Trump is playing semantics

The Supreme Court said facilitate his release from custody.
They didn't say return to US.

" 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"

Right. So nothing in that order is telling Trump he has to return Garcia to the US.Thats why the word return isn’t found there. Trump said if he appears at a port of entry, Trump facilitate from that point forward (into a new deportation hearing, as he is illegal).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's just cut through all the bullshit about whether or not he was illegal (he wasn't, and was under an order of protection).

Not illegal? He is not a citizen. He is not a permanent legal resident. What visa did he have that let him stay in the US?
The order of protection did not make him legal.

A person can have no legal status in the US and still have legal rights to due process of the law. This isn't that difficult of a concept for people to understand.

The person said he was not illegal. He was and is.
And he got due process.

Oh, did the due process happen before or after the "clerical" error that caused him to be deported?

Before.

9 Supreme court justices disagree but I am sure you know better

The Supreme Court said treat him as if you hadn't made the mistake. They didn't say he required more due process.

The supreme court said to facilitate his return and Trump is playing semantics

The Supreme Court said facilitate his release from custody.
They didn't say return to US.

" 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"

He would just be deported again. He isn't coming back to Maryland to live.

The facilitation part needs to happen or there are far larger and long term concerns if it does not.

The facilitation part implies that his country will first agree to release him. It doesn't sound like his president will release him.

It doesn't sound like our own country is, thus far, providing any evidence it complied attempting to facilitate, per the Appeals court ruling.

Wrong. Read the DOJ’s filing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

https://x.com/JesseKellyDC/status/1912624469111197970

Who cares? Our president is thus far, defying a Supreme court order and failing to provide evidence it has attempted to "facilitate"

Does the Trump administration pay people or PR companies with astroturfers to post irrelevant comments to distract while they violate judiciary rulings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's just cut through all the bullshit about whether or not he was illegal (he wasn't, and was under an order of protection).

Not illegal? He is not a citizen. He is not a permanent legal resident. What visa did he have that let him stay in the US?
The order of protection did not make him legal.

A person can have no legal status in the US and still have legal rights to due process of the law. This isn't that difficult of a concept for people to understand.

The person said he was not illegal. He was and is.
And he got due process.

Oh, did the due process happen before or after the "clerical" error that caused him to be deported?

Before.

9 Supreme court justices disagree but I am sure you know better

The Supreme Court said treat him as if you hadn't made the mistake. They didn't say he required more due process.

The supreme court said to facilitate his return and Trump is playing semantics

The Supreme Court said facilitate his release from custody.
They didn't say return to US.

" 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"

He would just be deported again. He isn't coming back to Maryland to live.

The facilitation part needs to happen or there are far larger and long term concerns if it does not.

The facilitation part implies that his country will first agree to release him. It doesn't sound like his president will release him.

It doesn't sound like our own country is, thus far, providing any evidence it complied attempting to facilitate, per the Appeals court ruling.

Wrong. Read the DOJ’s filing.

I did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's just cut through all the bullshit about whether or not he was illegal (he wasn't, and was under an order of protection).

Not illegal? He is not a citizen. He is not a permanent legal resident. What visa did he have that let him stay in the US?
The order of protection did not make him legal.

A person can have no legal status in the US and still have legal rights to due process of the law. This isn't that difficult of a concept for people to understand.

The person said he was not illegal. He was and is.
And he got due process.

Oh, did the due process happen before or after the "clerical" error that caused him to be deported?

Before.

9 Supreme court justices disagree but I am sure you know better

The Supreme Court said treat him as if you hadn't made the mistake. They didn't say he required more due process.

The supreme court said to facilitate his return and Trump is playing semantics

The Supreme Court said facilitate his release from custody.
They didn't say return to US.

" 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"

He would just be deported again. He isn't coming back to Maryland to live.

The facilitation part needs to happen or there are far larger and long term concerns if it does not.

The facilitation part implies that his country will first agree to release him. It doesn't sound like his president will release him.

Agree. SCOTUS simply said “hey district judge, please clarify what you mean by effectuate, keeping in mind you can’t trod all over the powers of the executive.” Xinis ignored SCOTUS, dropping the word effectuate and using the word facilitate in her follow up order, without clarifying what exactly she wants Trump to do.