—> US Sends More Immigrants to Salvadoran Prison | SCOTUS orders Admin to “facilitate” return of Abrego Garcia

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 766
  • Views: 16K
  • Politics 
nycfan said:
WSJ Poll:

“… Asked about deporting illegal gang members to El Salvador, 62% said they were in favor while 32% were opposed. A majority supported the deportations even when the question asked whether suspected foreign gang members should be removed without a court hearing to prove their gang affiliation. …”

Click to expand...
I'm guessing that is one of those surveys in which word choice very much affects the results. By including the phrase "suspected foreign gang members" in the poll question, it is going to skew the results because the responder is already primed to think that you are talking about gang members.

If the question were phrased "Do you believe persons lawfully in the United States should have an opportunity to present their case to a judge before being deported?" I suspect the results would be a bit different.
 
JCTarheel82 said:

"Trump asks Supreme Court to block order requiring US to bring back man mistakenly deported to El Salvador"

Deplorable.
Click to expand...
In our "Flood the Zone" world, I'm deeply afraid all of this is being missed. The MASSIVELY unconstitutional positions this administration is advancing include, but are certainly not limited to, --

1. Non-citizens have no due process rights.
2. Once a person incarcerated in the US is shipped to a prison in a foreign country, the US has no ability to remedy any due process concerns regarding that person.
3. Even US citizens can be shipped to foreign countries for incarceration.

This is an absolute mockery of our constitution, and if anyone (i.e., Zen) wants to try to defend it, I'll offer this now as my permanent response: Go. Fuck. Yourself.
 
ChileG said:
This is who many voters believed would save Christianity in the USA.
I just have no words for a person like this.
Click to expand...
American Christianity is dead. There's a remnant, like the people living in the Cappadocian catacombs in CE 300, but it will be centuries, if we survive that long, before authentic Christianity can be relevant again. The golden calf was just too appealing.
 
ChileG said:
What have we become?
Click to expand...
Who we've always been.

It's just a matter of how long institutions, norms, and shame can keep the worst of us in-line, for periods of time. A large portion of Americans today are the same fundamental people that fought so wealthy oligarchs could keep black people in chains; who murdered millions of indigenous people; who expressed color superiority through Jim Crow; who've argued a husband is incapable of raping his wife and a woman in a mini skirt is "asking for it"; who gleefully interned Japanese citizens; and who round up innocent brown people because ... brown.
 
nycfan said:


“… During the hearing, Justice Department lawyer Erez Reuveni conceded that the U.S. government should not have deported Abrego García but said he was unable to answer the judge’s questions about the government’s legal authority to do so.

“On what authority was he seized?” Xinis asked.

“My answer to a lot of these questions is going to be frustrating,” Reuveni said. “And I’m frustrated that I don’t have answers to a lot of these questions.”

Xinis noted that the government lacked an arrest warrant or other documents to support his detention, a sign that “from the moment he was seized, it was unconstitutional.”

“That is not in the record and the government has not put that in the record,” Reuveni responded, “and that’s the best I can do.”

“Why can’t the United States get Mr. Abrego García back?” Xinis later asked.

“When this case landed on my desk, I asked my clients that very question,” Reuveni said.

“To date, I have not received an answer that is satisfactory.” …”
Click to expand...
Justice Dept. suspends lawyer who acknowledged deportation was a mistake
 
Calheel said:
I'm guessing that is one of those surveys in which word choice very much affects the results. By including the phrase "suspected foreign gang members" in the poll question, it is going to skew the results because the responder is already primed to think that you are talking about gang members.

If the question were phrased "Do you believe persons lawfully in the United States should have an opportunity to present their case to a judge before being deported?" I suspect the results would be a bit different.
Click to expand...
Absolutely.
 
nycfan said:
Wilkinson got to the same result - stay denied — via a different approach that was more sympathetic to the government’s separation of powers arguments:

IMG_6200.jpeg
Click to expand...
The problem here is that the separation of powers argument isn't exactly wrong. Suppose a judge ordered the administration to get all the people back. Then El Salvador says, "we had a deal, now the US is backing out, and this shows us that the US can't be trusted." This is, of course, a hypothetical with no application to today, but anyway the law deals in hypotheticals. And that would be an intrusion on foreign policy.

On the other hand, obviously it was an executive branch fuckup, and if rights mean anything, there have to be remedies. "Oops, sorry I did that but I can't help you now," is actually not a principle of constitutional law, no matter how hard certain Justices push it.

Ideally, the guy would sue Bondi etc. under the Alien Tort Statute but I doubt he will. There should be personal consequences for the decision makers. Immunity should never extend to "shocks the conscience" level disregard of law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top