Anonymous
04/18/2025 22:01
Subject: Van Hollen in El Salvador
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court said facilitate his release from custody.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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?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).
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
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.
Anonymous
04/18/2025 21:59
Subject: Van Hollen in El Salvador
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court said facilitate his release from custody.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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?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).
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
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.
Anonymous
04/18/2025 21:51
Subject: Van Hollen in El Salvador
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court said facilitate his release from custody.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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?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).
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
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.
Anonymous
04/18/2025 21:46
Subject: Van Hollen in El Salvador
The government has facilitated his return as the district judge ordered. However, the Supreme Court ordered that they facilitate his release from custody, which they have not done.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court said facilitate his release from custody.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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?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).
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
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
04/18/2025 21:45
Subject: Van Hollen in El Salvador
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court said facilitate his release from custody.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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?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).
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
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?
Anonymous
04/18/2025 21:37
Subject: Van Hollen in El Salvador
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court said facilitate his release from custody.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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?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).
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
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?
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.
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.
Anonymous
04/18/2025 21:33
Subject: Van Hollen in El Salvador
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court said facilitate his release from custody.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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?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).
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
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.
Anonymous
04/18/2025 21:31
Subject: Van Hollen in El Salvador
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court said facilitate his release from custody.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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?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).
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
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?
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.
You keep referring to Xinis, but the latest ruling was by the Court of Appeals and sided with her. It returns to her courtroom but obviously will end up back in the Supreme court.
Because Xinis is who the Supreme Court directed.
The court of appeals has been overturned very recently, so I’m not sure why you think that’s such a big deal.
Anonymous
04/18/2025 21:30
Subject: Van Hollen in El Salvador
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court said facilitate his release from custody.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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?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).
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
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.
I think most of us have understood this is heading back to SCOTUS for the simple reason that the lower court didn’t do what SCOTUS directed - clarify. The reason you are saying “how far they need to go is unclear” is the entire point. If you don’t know, then how should DOJ know?
That’s why the idea that this appeals court decision was so definitive and important was rather silly.
Anonymous
04/18/2025 21:28
Subject: Van Hollen in El Salvador
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court said facilitate his release from custody.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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?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).
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
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?
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.
You keep referring to Xinis, but the latest ruling was by the Court of Appeals and sided with her. It returns to her courtroom but obviously will end up back in the Supreme court.
Anonymous
04/18/2025 21:26
Subject: Van Hollen in El Salvador
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court said facilitate his release from custody.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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?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).
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
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.
Anonymous
04/18/2025 21:25
Subject: Van Hollen in El Salvador
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court said facilitate his release from custody.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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?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).
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
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?
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.
Anonymous
04/18/2025 21:18
Subject: Van Hollen in El Salvador
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court said facilitate his release from custody.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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?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).
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
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?
Anonymous
04/18/2025 21:16
Subject: Re:Van Hollen in El Salvador
Anonymous wrote:
Who cares? Our president is thus far, defying a Supreme court order and failing to provide evidence it has attempted to "facilitate"
That’s not true. Name a specific act Xinis said Trump has to do that he has not. You won’t find it.
All she has done is require daily updates (given) and now opened up for further discovery.
Anonymous
04/18/2025 21:15
Subject: Van Hollen in El Salvador
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court said facilitate his release from custody.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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?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).
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
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.
Then you would have seen that the read facilitate in terms of the understanding in immigration court, and streamlined the process on the US side for example if he arrived at a port of entry. So stop saying they didn’t “provide evidence it complied.” They outlined the exact steps they took.