—> US Sends More Immigrants to Salvadoran Prison | SCOTUS vs POTUS

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 1K
  • Views: 23K
  • Politics 
superrific said:
You're trying to talk law again, after the shellacking you received yesterday?

The man remains in US custody. El Salvador is just the jailer. El Salvador is under no "obligation" in that there was very likely no formal contract signed, but at no point did the US say, "here, he's all yours" nor could the government have said that. And the fact that we've brought back other detainees from there completely undermines Trump's position.
Click to expand...
He's a citizen of El Salvador. Are you saying that US custody overrides the fact that he's literally in the country for which he is a citizen?
 
ZenMode said:
He's a citizen of El Salvador. Are you saying that US custody overrides the fact that he's literally in the country for which he is a citizen?
Click to expand...
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).
 
superrific said:
Ah, yes. Some bad person did something bad to an American and now all migrants must suffer. Why is she speaking? What does she have to do with this case? Nothing.
Click to expand...
And what percentage of crime is done in the country by illegals compared to those committed by American citizens? The whole thing is simply racism and a way to trick idiots to fear a big bad boogeyman so they will support Trump. Pubs are great for creating a boogeyman to deflect from issues that actually affect people. Trump and MAGA would love to deport citizens, too, as long as they aren't straight white Christians.
 
TarSpiel said:
The issue isn't whether or not Garcia was a good man (he isn't), the issue is whether Republicans need to obey the law or not.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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...
1. Nobody was defending MS-13.
2. He's not "an illegal," you deplorable.
3. It doesn't matter if he's at risk from a rival gang, a pack of hungry alligators or an aggressive telemarketer. The legal standard is whether the person will face harm upon return (to simplify for present purposes). Neither the statute nor the treaties make any exception for torture by gangs. It's very difficult to get a withholding order. That he got one means his evidence was highly persuasive.
4. No asylum only because he missed the filing deadline, probably because he didn't know about it, probably because he was fleeing persecution by gangs. But whether he has asylum or not is irrelevant. The person on that panel who kept getting rudely interrupted by the chauvinist pig, was trying to explain that in simple terms because non-experts don't understand what a withholding order is.
 
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top