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:

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!"

Why? How far would the government need to go to satisfy this requirement? Send in Seal Team 6? Declare war? How far should this go just so he can be deported again?

Thus far, whatever has been produced is unsatisfactory per the unanimous Appeals court ruling (which I will continue to emphasize was written by an ultra conservative justice).

How far they need to go is unclear. Obviously this will return to the Supreme court, so anyone indicating the case has been appropriately litigated and closed is providing a premature opinion.

So it's unclear what the courts want the administration to do but some here are having a fit over the fact that the administration hasn't done enough based on vague wording. Got it.

This man will likely be deported even if released and returned to the US.

Downstream, when this "whoops!" happens to a US citizen or even a citizen of an ally (e.g.European citizens have been mistakenly detained by ICE), what then? As there is no clarity for "how far" the government needs to, this case opens the door for many "whoops it's too late now!" occurrences.

Well for one thing, he is a citizen of El Salvador IN El Salvador. What right does the US have to demand anything of their government regarding their citizen? We can ask, sure. That is a very different scenario than a US citizen being held in a foreign country. We would have very right to demand our own citizen back.

And this doesn't necessarily have any bearing on what will or won't happen downstream in the future.

[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:

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!"

Why? How far would the government need to go to satisfy this requirement? Send in Seal Team 6? Declare war? How far should this go just so he can be deported again?

Thus far, whatever has been produced is unsatisfactory per the unanimous Appeals court ruling (which I will continue to emphasize was written by an ultra conservative justice).

How far they need to go is unclear. Obviously this will return to the Supreme court, so anyone indicating the case has been appropriately litigated and closed is providing a premature opinion.

So it's unclear what the courts want the administration to do but some here are having a fit over the fact that the administration hasn't done enough based on vague wording. Got it.

This man will likely be deported even if released and returned to the US.

Downstream, when this "whoops!" happens to a US citizen or even a citizen of an ally (e.g.European citizens have been mistakenly detained by ICE), what then? As there is no clarity for "how far" the government needs to, this case opens the door for many "whoops it's too late now!" occurrences.

Well for one thing, he is a citizen of El Salvador IN El Salvador. What right does the US have to demand anything of their government regarding their citizen? We can ask, sure. That is a very different scenario than a US citizen being held in a foreign country. We would have very right to demand our own citizen back.

And this doesn't necessarily have any bearing on what will or won't happen downstream in the future.

That’s fine, but then can we punish everybody in the chain who deported 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:

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!"

Why? How far would the government need to go to satisfy this requirement? Send in Seal Team 6? Declare war? How far should this go just so he can be deported again?

Thus far, whatever has been produced is unsatisfactory per the unanimous Appeals court ruling (which I will continue to emphasize was written by an ultra conservative justice).

How far they need to go is unclear. Obviously this will return to the Supreme court, so anyone indicating the case has been appropriately litigated and closed is providing a premature opinion.

So it's unclear what the courts want the administration to do but some here are having a fit over the fact that the administration hasn't done enough based on vague wording. Got it.

This man will likely be deported even if released and returned to the US.

Downstream, when this "whoops!" happens to a US citizen or even a citizen of an ally (e.g.European citizens have been mistakenly detained by ICE), what then? As there is no clarity for "how far" the government needs to, this case opens the door for many "whoops it's too late now!" occurrences.

As well as intentional "whoops" for political rivals

Concerned this established a permanent way for the current administration to disappear whoever they want.

+1 yep

[Anonymous]

Van Hollen is a special politicians with with actual morals. He's one of only a handful of people not brought out by AIPAC so it doesn't surprise me that he's trying to do something like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/16/politics/kilmar-abrego-garcia-maryland-senator-el-salvador/index.html

I live in MD and voted for him but dont know much about him or is career.

I feel like we have all been saying "do something democrats" and for the first time in a while I feel a little bit of hope seeing someone fight back. That and Harvard.

Funny that he never traveled to facilitate the release of hostages held in Gaza or Americans imprisoned in Russia.

I'll be happy to explain that. We didn't cause them to be imprisoned in Gaza or Russia.

Hope that helps!

[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. 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!"

Why? How far would the government need to go to satisfy this requirement? Send in Seal Team 6? Declare war? How far should this go just so he can be deported again?

Because it is about Constitutional law, not really about this guy. It's about all the people disappearing illegally.

[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:

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!"

Why? How far would the government need to go to satisfy this requirement? Send in Seal Team 6? Declare war? How far should this go just so he can be deported again?

Because it is about Constitutional law, not really about this guy. It's about all the people disappearing illegally.

Politically, it's about both. Removing violent criminals here illegally is broadly supported in the polls by people in both parties. While they need to reprocess Kilmar (hopefully in abstentia) to have everything in order to kick him out properly, make no mistake, this issue is a loser. The public will not rally around this guy.

[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:

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!"

Why?

Yeah agreed. In fact, I hope he doesnt work too hard at it. I voted for these gang members to be deported.

The point that you can’t seem to grasp is that there is no proof that all of these men are actually gang members. Maybe YOU are a gang member. Maybe we should put you on a flight without dues process?

[Anonymous]

This happened overnight. While it doesn’t apply to Abrego Garcia, it does show that the Trump administration can’t do anything it wants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This happened overnight. While it doesn’t apply to Abrego Garcia, it does show that the Trump administration can’t do anything it wants.

Good.

[Anonymous]

Interesting story. Rachel Morin's mom was trotted out by the Trump admin during an impromptu press conference this week to make Van Hollen look bad. Turns out the mom is being sued for withholding GoFundMe money from her murdered daughter's kids.

[twitter]https://www.wmar2news.com/local/rachel-morin-family-battles-each-other-in-court-over-gofundme-proceeds[/twitter]

More info:
https://www.wmar2news.com/local/rachel-morin-family-battles-each-other-in-court-over-gofundme-proceeds

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting story. Rachel Morin's mom was trotted out by the Trump admin during an impromptu press conference this week to make Van Hollen look bad. Turns out the mom is being sued for withholding GoFundMe money from her murdered daughter's kids.

More info:
https://www.wmar2news.com/local/rachel-morin-family-battles-each-other-in-court-over-gofundme-proceeds

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting story. Rachel Morin's mom was trotted out by the Trump admin during an impromptu press conference this week to make Van Hollen look bad. Turns out the mom is being sued for withholding GoFundMe money from her murdered daughter's kids.

More info:
https://www.wmar2news.com/local/rachel-morin-family-battles-each-other-in-court-over-gofundme-proceeds

She put it in a trust for the kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting story. Rachel Morin's mom was trotted out by the Trump admin during an impromptu press conference this week to make Van Hollen look bad. Turns out the mom is being sued for withholding GoFundMe money from her murdered daughter's kids.

[twitter]https://www.wmar2news.com/local/rachel-morin-family-battles-each-other-in-court-over-gofundme-proceeds[/twitter]

More info:
https://www.wmar2news.com/local/rachel-morin-family-battles-each-other-in-court-over-gofundme-proceeds

So? An illegal immigrant raped and murdered her daughter in Maryland. What are your thoughts on that? Her murderer is far closer to the subject of this thread than this grandmother.

Why is it okay to bring up this lady's bad morals but no one can mention that the man who was deported is gang member, beat his wife, and was likely dabbling in human trafficking? Let me guess: his gang tattoos were photoshopped and doesn't everyone carry rolls of cash???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting story. Rachel Morin's mom was trotted out by the Trump admin during an impromptu press conference this week to make Van Hollen look bad. Turns out the mom is being sued for withholding GoFundMe money from her murdered daughter's kids.

[twitter]https://www.wmar2news.com/local/rachel-morin-family-battles-each-other-in-court-over-gofundme-proceeds[/twitter]

More info:
https://www.wmar2news.com/local/rachel-morin-family-battles-each-other-in-court-over-gofundme-proceeds

The article states she put it in a trust for the kids. The lawsuit is because the Fathers of the kids want the money. Sounds like the Mother did the right thing.