Kilmar Abrego Garcia will not be returned to the US

You do not see the difference.

Good to know.

 

Yes I do, don't project..it is a very unbecoming trait, and a very cheap attempt on your part to try to deflect that you are ok with lying when your party does it. I know what perjury is... that doesn't mean lying while not under oath is a good thing. Remember you started this dialogue by citing Trump's statements about Mexico paying for the wall. Were those statements under oath? No, but you still used it as a talking point.

You're not very good at this kid.

 

Then they should present that information in court after giving the defendant their due process. . . . . . . Constitution or something, Bill of Rights or something. . . . . . It even applies to asylum seekers. Otherwise, everyone is open to losing their due process, here legally or illegally.

 

An Order for Deportation was already entered. "Due process" gets thrown around a lot and people like to use it as a catch all gripe when something happens they don't like. Federal procedure and protocol was followed leading up to his deportation.

This is equivalent to someone violating parole...once the Order is issued that they violated their parole they go back to prison, "due process" does not mean that get to try their case all over again.

 

If they have such credible evidence, why are they avoiding the courts? A legitimate case would withstand legal scrutiny.

What's happening is they're rushing to deport people with alleged MS-13 ties as quickly as possible, deliberately sidestepping due process - even after SCOTUS explicitly ruled that deportation requires proper legal proceedings.

The irony here is that those of us who respect the Constitution and SCOTUS rulings are simply asking for evidence (the information you are referring to) to be presented through proper legal channels. This exactly the opposite of throwing it away, but to fully consider it. You're arguing that accusations alone should be sufficient without any burden of proof or judicial review. Funny how distrust of government was noble when the last administration was in power, but now blind faith is suddenly patriotic?

Since when did "innocent until proven guilty" become a radical position?

 

I'm going to cross reference what I explained in a different immigration related thread:

SCOTUS reaffirmed back in 2012 (when Obama was President) that immigration policy is solely within the purview of the Federal Gov't, which is what is happening now, and why ICE and the DOJ are able to pre-empt courts in this situation. So while libs are quick to shout "no due process!!" in reality this is following long-standing procedures and interplay as it relates to the gov't branches, and state and federal governments.

 

You're conflating two entirely different legal concepts. The 2012 SCOTUS case you're referencing (likely Arizona v. United States) addressed whether states could create their own immigration enforcement policies - not whether the federal government can bypass due process when deporting people.

And why are you ignoring the SCOTUS ruling that specifically addressed this situation? The Court clearly stated that even those alleged to have MS-13 ties must be given advance notice and an opportunity to challenge the allegations in court before deportation.

Why are you so afraid of presenting evidence? Why are you suddenly against "innocent until proven guilty" , a bedrock principle of the United States?

 

It doesn't matter if Trump wants him back.

The Supreme Court instructed him to arrange for him to come back.

Once he is back, he can then be deported if they jump through the proper hoops.

This isn't about Garcia - this is about the President of the United States defying the Supreme Court and usurping powers that are not part of his office.

 

This is all nice and wonderful - but irrelevant.

The SCOTUS was unanimous that the President is to facilitate the return of Garcia.

You can argue it is inconsistent with other rulings or that Garcia is a monster - and that may be true, but it is irrelevant.

The issue is the Executive overstepping his Constitutional powers and failing to respect the orders of the United States Supreme Court - which IS a big deal and why most lawyers and scholars are concerned.

 

because a deportation order had already been issued, he wasn't deported without authorization

 

To a country he specifically could not be deported to

 

What power does the court really have? They already decided Trump can't be prosecuted for official acts. Trump has the power of the pardon for anyone in his admin that is held in contempt. The only way for him to be held accountable is by Congress, and how on Earth do you get 2/3 of the Senate to vote on a conviction?

This is how numerous Democracies have failed. We pretend that we have some perfect system of checks and balances, but it has always been dependent on enough morality within the institutions to keep it together.

 

lol, his home country....ok.

 

Yes. His home country. That is how it works. Can't have a credible fear of returning to a place you haven't been.

 

Supreme court does not have executive authority. SC ruled in favor of the lower court. Further, the ruling is vague and has not be clarified. It stated to facilitate the return of Garcia which could simply mean to provide the passage if the opportunity existed.

Do you believe the US justice system has authority over all countries in the world?

 

Too many people believe the courts have executive authority. All the courts can do is make a ruling. its up to the executive branch to execute. And if the executive branch does not perform properly, the legislative branch can step in to enforce. Its a very simple rocks-paper-scissors concept in which a child even understands.

And for the life of me I don't understand why people keep stating the US government has supreme authority of other countries sovereignty. El Salvador's sovereignty supersedes everything in this silly saga.

 

Actually, a lower court ordered them to turn two flights around, and they ignored it. They directly defied the Court then.

And since then, they’ve continued to ignore the Court, even after the SCOTUS ruling.

So what about these cases and the ones still to come? Why are you so afraid of them presenting evidence to make their case? Aren’t these supposed to be slam dunk cases they can easily win in court? Or are they deporting innocent people, and that’s why they don’t want legal scrutiny? Why are you so suddenly against "innocent until proven guilty," a bedrock principle of the United States?

 

Do you respect other countries sovereignty?

 

Irrelevant and strawman.

 

Irrelevant? Bukele said no.
What should we do in your opinion?