Trump administration concedes Maryland father from El Salvador was mistakenly deported

The government is saying that he won't be returned. So it appears that you are now relying on a hypothetical to explain away how they are ignoring the court with one theory of how they could avoid doing so (a theory that, it should be noted, has already been rejected by a Court of Appeals).

 

Didn't want this to get lost in the thread, and you to overlook it. Thanks for your response.

You said this individual being held in El Salvador is a criminal. Is there factual basis for that, or are you just saying something that is untrue?

 

El Salvador is saying they won’t return him so facilitating his return by providing an airplane doesn’t matter

 

And the Court of Appeals has already rejected the notion of passive "facilitation."

Again, very simple solution here: stop paying El Salvador to hold him. Why are we paying a foreign government to do something that violates our Supreme Court's ruling?

 

This part is interesting. You are correct that part of this is out of the US’ hands, but I think most administrations would have at least then asked for the person back. So far, we haven’t heard that the Trump admin has even done that. In fact, they’ve said over and over that he’s never coming back, which seems like something you couldn’t know to be true unless you are the one stopping it. The judge ruled that the admin must at least detail the steps they’ve taken to facilitate his return. If they have taken none, then this should be a pretty obvious example of defying a ruling.

 

Indeed it was.

 

So how can the president have ignored the USCC ruling if the ruling occurred after the incident?

 

The ruling ordered them to take steps to bring him back to the US. As of yet, they have been unable to demonstrate a single thing that they have done and are, in fact, actively saying that he will not be returned to the US and demonstrating that they don't want him returned to the US. As such, they are ignoring the ruling.

 

They said they’d provide a plane if he were released so they met the directive to “facilitate” Shame on USCc for providing vague directives.

 

And the court of appeals ruled that this was not an accurate reading of the decision. As such, the government needs to outline active steps they have taken, not hypothetical ones. Shame on you and the government for playing bad faith games to try to ignore the supreme court.

 

md is precisely correct that the 4th circuit ruled that the administration must take an active role in attempting to facilitate his return:

The Supreme Court's decision does not, however, allow the government to do essentially nothing. It requires the government "to 'facilitate' Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador." ... "Facilitate" is an active verb. It requires that steps be taken as the SupremeCourt has made perfectly clear. … ("[T]he Government should beprepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of furthersteps."). The plain and active meaning of the word cannot be diluted by its constriction, as the government would have it, to a narrow term of art. We are not bound in this context by a definition crafted by an administrative agency and contained in a mere policy directive. … Thus, the government's argument that all it must do is "remove any domestic barriers to [Abrego Garcia's] return," … is not well taken in light of the Supreme Court's command that the government facilitate Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador.​

 

What is wrong with these people? The guy was here legally. Trump admin kidnapped him and sent him to a prison in El Salvador. Now Trump says there's nothing they can do. And we have people defending that?

 

Again, it is the most extreme example of the truth of this statement:




They took care of the first part by electing a guy with tons of felony convictions and remaining outstanding felony charges. He then pardoned all the people that tried to illegally keep him in power and started appointing other criminals to major posts in his administration. Now, they want to take care of the last part, by demonstrating that the law can't stop the government from binding out-groups.

 

I personally think a conservative is a great thing to be, but whatever Trump and his group are is not a great thing to be.

And you know makes this even more maddening? If they just said, hey we respect the decisions and are doing everything we can to bring him back, it would be a pretty normal political action, even if they actually did next to nothing. But they for some reason need to advertise out loud that they are indeed completely defying the court.

 

Yeah, you could make the argument that the word "Conservative" isn't really correct there, although that is the self-identification. We run a bit into the "how do you define groups" question. Is it self-identification or more of a static criteria and observations?

But I came across that quote a few years ago and it is amazing how that lens seems to explain a lot of unexplainable behavior, such as "Conservatives" trying to completely ignore the Supreme Court that they largely installed themselves.

 

I don't use the word 'conservative' with regards to Trump. I use MAGA, which has become its own word, or 'right-wing' instead. There are plenty of conservatives who I respect, even if I disagree with them on specific issues, because we are on the same side when it comes to the fundamentals of freedom and democracy. I have no such respect for Trump or his followers.

 

Looks a lot to me like they're defending unlawful and/or criminal conduct. What do we call people who do that?

 

Stop it... stop pointing out the Leftists' hypocrisy.

 

Not a lawyer but here's what I think. There's a decent chance SCOTUS will eventually support Trump's position on deporting illegals. Trump has a century and a half of precedents in his favor. SCOTUS is now violating its own precedents to keep illegals in America.

Trump needs 3 more justices to come around. Thomas + Alito + Gorsuch + Kavanaugh + ? = 5. So it will come down to Roberts and ACB. ACB is untrustworthy and dumb as a dog's biscuit. Roberts hates Trump but sees the blowback that has already occurred and what will be coming so hopefully he'll wise up.

Simple question: If 20M illegals enter our country do we need 20M trials to get them out?

There are ~700 immigration judges. They are part of the executive branch. They work ~250 days per year. If they all hold 1 trial per day they can handle 175,000 cases per year. If they could hold 2 trials per day that's 350,000 cases/yr.

Should the executive branch be forced to hire and train another 15,000 immigration judges? Otherwise it will take almost 30 years to deport 10M illegals

Abrego Garcia and the other illegals are not entitled to due process. They're not American citizens. The process they are due is an executive hearing (not a trial). Congress made the law (Alien Enemies Act) and the president is elected by the people to execute and carry out their wishes. Judges can't be allowed to usurp power, thwart the will of the people and essentially overturn the 2024 election.

The Judiciary, the Deep State and gov't bureaucrats make up the unelected managerial class. At this point they have way too much power and that's very bad for American democracy

 

Exactly... two different judges from two different courtrooms ORDERED him to be deported.