Reply to Supreme Court Sides With Wrongly Deported Migrant

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Supreme Court Sides With Wrongly Deported Migrant"

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]So if a judge determines him to be a MS 13 gang member, it’s good enough for me to get his ass out of the US, conviction or not…[/quote]

A judge did as did the appeals board.[/quote]

The judge did not determine him to be in MS-13. She deemed the allegation credible. That is not the same thing and I believe you know that.[/quote]

That’s good enough for me to have him deported! And he is here illegally anyways.[/quote]

That’s fine, but say you’re good with people being deported on allegations. Don’t spread easily debunked lies.[/quote]

He can be deported because he was an illegal immigrant who didn’t apply for asylum for years. It didn’t hang on gang membership.[/quote]

Correct. He can legally be deported to any country other than El Salvador. But his alleged gang membership has been flung around by members of the administration trying to obfuscate their disregard for the law, and then here by those trying to argue in bad faith.

Why not just admit there was a mistake a fix it?[/quote]

Because he is a citizen of El Salvador and in a jail in El Salvador.  It’s up to their government to handle their own citizen.[/quote]

And it’s up to our government to follow the law, which prohibited his deportation to El Salvador. Now they will need to correct that mistake. Why does that trigger you so badly? Don’t you want the government and law enforcement to admit mistakes and correct them? If you get pulled over and can prove you’re not drunk, do you want to be issued a DUI and thrown in jail anyway?[/quote]

Up to the president how to handle this once the man was improperly sent to El Salvador. V[b]oters can respond accordingly. Not up to a district court to make demands of international relations for our commander in chief. [/b]

This ruling isn’t requiring anything of Trump other than to “facilitate” (definition unclear) his release out of jail IN that country but at the end of the day, that’s for the president of THAT country to handle and it’s presumptuous of America to assume otherwise.
[/quote]

Voters have responded accordingly for generations and have elected officials who agree to this longstanding Constitutional interpretation - that a ruling from a Federal judge confirmed by the US Senate must be followed unless it's stayed or overturned by a higher court.

Trump is the outlier here, bucking hundreds of years of judicial precedent. If he wants to change judicial review he can seek to do so via Constitutional amendment or legislation.[/quote]

Nationwide injunctions are a more recent phenomenon, and not described in the Constitution.  The Constitutional interpretation is that the President is responsible for foreign policy, not federal judges.  The ruling by the Supreme Court tells the district judge to reissue the order with due respect for the President's powers.[/quote]

This case has nothing at all to do with nationwide injunctions.  The order applies to one specific person.  You are an idiot.[/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