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

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 1K
  • Views: 23K
  • Politics 
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.
 
Calheel said:
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
Click to expand...
Good catch. I was wrong about the date.

I wouldn't agree with you about the TRO application, though. They're designed to have a very low threshold, and there's not really much rhyme or reason to when a survivor of domestic violence takes them out.

Of course, it has nothing to do with the facts and history of his extraordinary rendition. And lest our paid Russian agitator want to make anything of it, Trump's second wife alleged domestic violence far more serious than this.
 
Anyone find it ironic that this administration is arguing that we could send US citizens to El Salvador but simultaneously arguing that once they are in El Salvador we have no ability to retrieve them if needed.

Seems to be they destroyed their ability to make a future argument about sending US citizens there, especially for anyone who isn't serving a life sentence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top