Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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…

A judge did as did the appeals board.

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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…

A judge did as did the appeals board.

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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?

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

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.

Trump is presumptuous. With respect to all manner of things. To put it simply, he presumes that all people, presidents, legislators in every country of the world ought to bend the knee to him. That is MORE than presumptuous. That is megalomania.

Actually, to quote Trump, what he wants is for all people, presidents, and legislator in every country of the world to be "kissing my a$$"

I hope you Trump supporters know that the rest of the world has made non-stop jokes about this remark. Once again, Trump makes a laughing stock of America.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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…

A judge did as did the appeals board.

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

lol that’s some spin there!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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…

A judge did as did the appeals board.

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump is going to look pretty weak when he "can't" get this guy back from El Salvador.

The guy is most likely dead.

If that happens, this administration should be charged with his murder. What they have done is reprehensible.

Anonymous wrote:Trump is going to look pretty weak when he "can't" get this guy back from El Salvador.

The guy is most likely dead.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does the USA have the authority to remove a citizen from El Salvador and dump him in another country? Wouldn’t the government of El Salvador have an issue with that?

Imagine El Salvador issuing an order to take this guys wife from the US and send her to Mexico. How is this different?

Seems like something the Trump administration should have taken into account before they knowingly deported him to a location they had been barred from sending him. El Salvador is accepting U.S. tax dollars for his detention I assume they will accept more for his release.

The deal was to hold US deportees for one year or until the US informs El Salvador of the final disposition of the individual.

Seems easy enough for Marco to call up his counter-part and let him know that final disposition of this individual means putting him on a plane back to the US where he will be afforded the due process rights every person facing deportation has. Should Marco not do that, he isn't really "facilitating" the release of this guy, is he?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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…

A judge did as did the appeals board.

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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?

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

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.

Trump is presumptuous. With respect to all manner of things. To put it simply, he presumes that all people, presidents, legislators in every country of the world ought to bend the knee to him. That is MORE than presumptuous. That is megalomania.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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…

A judge did as did the appeals board.

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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?

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

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.

He’s only in CECOT because we paid El Salvador to incarcerate him. He’s there on our say so. He was not arrested by Salvadoran authorities. If we’re the ones who put him there, we need to correct the mistake. All El Salvador has to do is release him. I have a feeling he’ll take care of fleeing El Salvador on his own if he’s still alive and is freed from prison.

He fled El Salvador because of fear that a gang would require him to be a member. That is not in dispute by the US. In 2019 the Trump administration agreed that he must not be sent to El Salvador. He has applied for citizenship. He has no criminal record in El Salvador or the US. He is currently being held in an El Salvador prison at the request and expense of the Trump administration. Again, he has not committed any crime in El Salvador. He is only in a prison now because the Trump Administration said he illegally came to the US and they lied about him (and obviously many others) having committed some crime.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Supreme Court said handle his case as you would if you hadn't mistakenly deported him to El Salvador. So they will then get him out of prison and send him to Panama.

FYI, this isn't something we normally do. Withholding of removal generally means they stay here. We don't usually remove someone to some other random country. Only Trump's vindictive brain thinks that's the correct next step.

Because there wasn't a system to do so before. This person was denied asylum, and is an illegal immigrant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump is going to look pretty weak when he "can't" get this guy back from El Salvador.

You’re ok with us grabbing someone from their own country?

No one's biting, ok? Try something less silly.

DP. Why not just answer it? Is that ok?

No one would be grabbing anyone.

All it will take is message exchange. He can use Signal
Trump: Yo, buddy. Send one of the guys back
Bukele: which one?
Trump: the mistake
Bukele: which one?
Trump: the fake MS13 guy
Bukele: No problem. Do you need a refund?
Trump: Nah, it's not my money.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does the USA have the authority to remove a citizen from El Salvador and dump him in another country? Wouldn’t the government of El Salvador have an issue with that?

Imagine El Salvador issuing an order to take this guys wife from the US and send her to Mexico. How is this different?

Seems like something the Trump administration should have taken into account before they knowingly deported him to a location they had been barred from sending him. El Salvador is accepting U.S. tax dollars for his detention I assume they will accept more for his release.

Ok, but it’s already done. Do we have the right to grab one of their people? Would you be ok if El Salvador came and grabbed his Wife?

Is your argument really “oopsie no backsies?”

I’d you’re truly worried about “grabbing” him, we could engage with his legal representation here in the United States to ascertain his wishes. He has not been tried or convicted of any crime in El Salvador so this isn’t an issue of extradition.

It seems you were fine with us grabbing him off the street in Maryland but now very concerned we not do so from a deadly prison in El Salvador.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump is going to look pretty weak when he "can't" get this guy back from El Salvador.

You’re ok with us grabbing someone from their own country?

No one's biting, ok? Try something less silly.

DP. Why not just answer it? Is that ok?

Anonymous wrote:Supreme Court said handle his case as you would if you hadn't mistakenly deported him to El Salvador. So they will then get him out of prison and send him to Panama.

FYI, this isn't something we normally do. Withholding of removal generally means they stay here. We don't usually remove someone to some other random country. Only Trump's vindictive brain thinks that's the correct next step.