—> ICE / Immigration Catch-All

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 3K
  • Views: 109K
  • Politics 
Silence Dogood said:
Very telling what you will defend
Click to expand...
What I'm defending is called rule of law. It's very telling that you don't care about it at all, so long as the person has brown skin. If the person is MAGA, you're totally fine with rampant lawbreaking.

Rule of law is what made this country great. Xenophobia has undermined that greatness at various times in our history. This appears to be one of those times.
 
superrific said:
Yes, as a legal matter that is true.

Suppose a person has a green card. When he goes back to his home country, let's say he's arrested, killed and his body cut into pieces with a bone saw. The home country says, "we were just applying our law to our citizen." According to your logic/Trump logic, that's the end of the story -- the US has no interest here, because he's a citizen in the country where his citizenship lies.

Is that how you think the legal system works here?

And think about extradition: when a non-citizen commits a crime on our soil, and then flees back home, can the US extradite him, to try him for his crimes here? The answer is yes. And while the US cannot *compel* that return, the US has every expectation that he will be extradited (per extradition treaties).
Click to expand...
If the US can't compel extradition, even if there are recognized int'l treaties, then it seems unlikely the'll be able to force El Salvador to return a citizen due to a procedural mistake, when Garcia hasn't committed any crimes.
 
Calheel said:
Why do you think Garcia isn’t a good man? If you read the 2019 withholding order, he appears to be quite a good person.
Click to expand...
He may be. He may not be.

His goodness is immaterial to whether or not he is entitled to the protections of due process.
 
ZenMode said:
Not my fault you don't explain your point clearly, dickbag.

On a side note, thanks for making it clear that you're incapable of having an adult conversation.
Click to expand...
I can and have explained my point clearly. Your sources are terrible and your understanding of the facts and history of this case are indefensible given the amount of information available on the topic.

I've made it clear that I'm not interested in having an adult conversationwith you. You're either not intellectually capable of having one, or you're acting in bad faith, and either way, I'm treating you exactly as you deserve. You either need to talk a lot less and listen more, or just talk a lot less.
 
ZenMode said:
If the US can't compel extradition, even if there are recognized int'l treaties, then it seems unlikely the'll be able to force El Salvador to return a citizen due to a procedural mistake, when Garcia hasn't committed any crimes.
Click to expand...
The US cannot ***compel*** his return. However, nobody believes that Bukele would continue to hold him if Trump asked for him back. What the Supreme Court is saying is that they expect the president to 1) ask, gently at first perhaps and 2) cut off the jailing relationship if El Salvador resists a simple step to respond to a US court order.

That's why the Supreme Court upheld "facilitate" while remanding for clarification on "effectuate." But facilitate does not mean what the government is claiming it means. For one thing, it's the district court who decides what it means because the Supreme Court upheld her order and remanded for her to clarify as needed.
 
Silence Dogood said:
Lol can't say you defend rule of law and support illegal immigration. Laughable
Click to expand...
Most of what you think of as illegal immigration is nothing of the sort. I'm not arguing law with you. It would be like Nikola Jokic dunking on a small child. What's the point?
 
Silence Dogood said:
Lol can't say you defend rule of law and support illegal immigration. Laughable
Click to expand...
That's (one of) the odd part(s) about this. Garcia is here illegally. At least one court has ruled that he doesn't qualify for asylum.... but he's allowed to remain here because of the reason he gave for asylum?
 
StrangePackage said:
He may be. He may not be.

His goodness is immaterial to whether or not he is entitled to the protections of due process.
Click to expand...
Right. But TarSpiel affirmatively stated he wasn’t a good guy. I read the withholding opinion word for word and see no evidence to support TarSpiel’s claim. Wearing a Bull’s hat at a HomeDepot parking lot is not evidence of bad guy status. Nor is double hearsay claiming he was in a New York gang, when he had never been to New York. Nor is a throwaway line by a crooked cop who was paying for a whore on the side.
 
ZenMode said:
That's (one of) the odd part(s) about this. Garcia is here illegally. At least one court has ruled that he doesn't qualify for asylum.... but he's allowed to remain here because of the reason he gave for asylum?
Click to expand...
Yes. You got it. And if Trump didn’t like that, he needed to appeal in 2019.
 
Calheel said:
Right. But TarSpiel affirmatively stated he wasn’t a good guy. I read the withholding opinion word for word and see no evidence to support TarSpiel’s claim. Wearing a Bull’s hat at a HomeDepot parking lot is not evidence of bad guy status. Nor is double hearsay claiming he was in a New York gang, when he had never been to New York. Nor is a throwaway line by a crooked cop who was paying for a whore on the side.
Click to expand...
There is a TRO from 2019 which alleges domestic violence, but no follow up there - no indication of any testimony, evidence, or any convictions. And when he was picked up in 2019, despite entering the country 8 years earlier, he had zero criminal history.

I don't know if he's a good guy, or a bad guy. But either way, he's entitled to due process, and the Republicans failed to give it to him.

Honestly I don't even believe that people with criminal histories should be disappeared to Central American concentration camps, but if Trump wants to set that precedent, then I hope he brushes up on his Spanish.
 
ZenMode said:
That's (one of) the odd part(s) about this. Garcia is here illegally. At least one court has ruled that he doesn't qualify for asylum.... but he's allowed to remain here because of the reason he gave for asylum?
Click to expand...
1. No court ruled that he didn't qualify. A court ruled that he hadn't filed in time. Not remotely the same thing, though it is similar in effect. And that wasn't a court in the way you think of it.
2. A withholding order is not the same as asylum. This is a reason why people like you should stop trying to think for yourself and instead read what the judge wrote. Or the Supreme Court. The difference between withholding and asylum is subtle but important.
3. There's nothing odd about a US statute -- living up to a treaty the US pushed -- preventing a person from being sent to a place where he would be tortured. It's a US law, passed by a US Congress overwhelmingly and in a bipartisan fashion, and signed IIRC by a Republican president. Not that the parties make any difference, as it's the law, but it shows that this is not some weird liberal obsession.

Once upon a time, the American government thought it was wrong to send people into circumstances where they will be tortured. If you're pro-torture, you are free to make the case as to why that law shouldn't be there -- but it is, and it has to be followed.
 
StrangePackage said:
There is a TRO from 2019 which alleges domestic violence, but no follow up there - no indication of any testimony, evidence, or any convictions. And when he was picked up in 2019, despite entering the country 8 years earlier, he had zero criminal history.

I don't know if he's a good guy, or a bad guy. But either way, he's entitled to due process, and the Republicans failed to give it to him.

Honestly I don't even believe that people with criminal histories should be disappeared to Central American concentration camps, but if Trump wants to set that precedent, then I hope he brushes up on his Spanish.
Click to expand...
Didn’t know about the TRO. That was actually from 2021 and does shed some light on the situation. Typically you don’t apply for a TRO is if it is a one time situation.

www.cbsnews.com

Wife of man mistakenly deported to El Salvador filed for protective order against him in 2021, documents show

Kilmar Abrego Garcia's wife sought and received a temporary protective order against him in May 2021. The case was dismissed the following month after she failed to appear for a hearing.
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com
 
Calheel said:
Right. But TarSpiel affirmatively stated he wasn’t a good guy. I read the withholding opinion word for word and see no evidence to support TarSpiel’s claim. Wearing a Bull’s hat at a HomeDepot parking lot is not evidence of bad guy status. Nor is double hearsay claiming he was in a New York gang, when he had never been to New York. Nor is a throwaway line by a crooked cop who was paying for a whore on the side.
Click to expand...
I think he might have been referring to the restraining order, but of course we have no real insight about that. Restraining orders sometimes mean something, and sometimes (depending on the circumstances) do not.

The fact that it was not followed up with any further violence is suggestive. He's still a young man. Young men often do not understand how to control themselves in their relationships with women, and sadly Latino culture is bad about this. But in the US, first time domestic offenders are often put in diversion programs that include anti-DV training. I'm not sure those programs are great, but they do sometimes work. And it might have worked in his case (and that's even assuming that the DV incident was what it seems).
 
Calheel said:
Typically you don’t apply for a TRO is if it is a one time situation.
Click to expand...
This is definitely NOT true and I can tell you that from experience. I mean, I guess it depends on what you mean by typically, but to me, the TRO doesn't carry much weight on its own. If there was further violence, it would be different.
 
Silence Dogood said:
Yeah. You didn't watch and see how the ms13 defender walked right into it? The illegal is at risk by a rival gang. Well well well. Also no asylum, a deportation order, and a citizen of the country he was sent too.
Click to expand...
no one is defending ms-13. fuck ms-13 and all of its members.

you are rightfully ridiculed mercilessly around here for the avalanche of dishonest bullshit that you post.

claiming that people who don't want to throw the rule of law and due process out the window are "defenders of ms-13" undermines whatever flimsy points you might make even further.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top