Reply to Van Hollen in El Salvador

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Van Hollen in El Salvador "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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).

[/quote]  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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

The person said he was not illegal.  He was and is.
And he got due process.[/quote]

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

Before.[/quote]

9 Supreme court justices disagree but I am sure you know better[/quote]
The Supreme Court said treat him as if you hadn't made the mistake.  They didn't say he required more due process.[/quote]

The supreme court said to facilitate his return and Trump is playing semantics[/quote]The Supreme Court said facilitate his release from custody.
They didn't say return to US.[/quote]

" The order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador[b] and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador[/b]" [/quote]

He would just be deported again. He isn't coming back to Maryland to live.[/quote]

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

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

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 [b]receipts need to be a lot better than "I asked and he said no[/b]!" [/quote]

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? [/quote]

Exactly. Xinis is playing a game here by not stating exactly what she wants Trump to do, because she knows once she does, Trump can immediately appeal as encroaching on presidential powers. That’s why she is refusing to clarify “effectuate” and the appeals court let her get away with it.

You say “receipts need to be a lot better” but even you aren’t saying exactly what you think this district judge has the power to tell Trump to do when it comes to international relations with El Salvador.[/quote]

Sounds like you are the one who is game playing. You want her to define acts which you them say she can’t do.

Xinis doesn’t need to clarify the part of the order that was remanded if she doesn’t plan to hold the government to that part of the order. She can drop it and just look to the part that was upheld.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics