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.