cambion

"Are you a wife beating MS13 terrorist" - Nope. "too?" - Too strong. For reasons I've already posted about I'd argue that this is unproven in Garcia's case. Which is the point - even if I'm not one, if someone makes a false accusation against me, I might be gone before I get the chance to clear my name (in court or elsewhere). "If not, sleep easy." - Can't. See above.

Actually I think the main reason is because a lot of US citizens (including myself) wonder if we will be next, if Garcia loses on the due process bit. https://www.npr.org/2025/04/16/nx-s1-5366178/trump-deport-jail-u-s-citizens-homegrowns-el-salvador "the US courts have no jurisdiction" - worth noting that the Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you, in the sense that they upheld the order for the US government to facilitate Garcia's return.

"We do not know that he did not get due process, we only know what is reported." - Actually we do know this, as the Honorable Judge Paula Xinis has ruled in her order, https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.31.0.pdf "He can be deported to El Salvador if the threat to him no longer exists, which (as I understand it) does not." - Remember the Supreme Court's ruling. There's a process that must be followed to allow this (specifically an IJ has to rule as such to overturn the withholding of removal order with a reinstatement of removal order first). I think we're agreed that your own personal judgement wouldn't be enough to just ignore the withholding, right? But yes, once the IJ has confirmed that the threat no longer exists under the limited due process that even aliens such as Garcia are entitled to under US law .. then yes, he can be re-deported to El Salvador. "I don't think that "Refugees and asylum seekers who have valid claims upheld by a judge..." are in the country illegally." - Good point. They may enter illegally (i.e. sneak across the border without inspection) but perhaps the law explicitly forgives this retroactively once the judge upholds their claim. "Will he be able to clear his name that he is in the county illegally? He would not be tried as a criminal, if he were, he would be entitled to the same due process as a citizen." - Actually the Maryland filing for domestic violence is exactly that - a forum for him to be tried in a criminal court. Also, his right to due process doesn't end outside of criminal court. One can easily forsee a civil lawsuit that involves these allegations, for which Garcia would still be afforded the same due process as a US citizen. As a bonus - in a civil lawsuit, Garcia can show up remotely over video while being represented by an in-person attorney. So he doesn't even need to be in the country of the United States - let alone illegally - to clear his name. "He has no right to "clear his name". That ship has sailed. In immigration court, the burden of proof is on him to show he has legal status." - Exactly why "immigration court" is the wrong forum for this. That's for deciding if he gets to stay or leave, not for clearing his name. Also note the different burden and standard of proof required between that court and others that I had described in previous posts.

I'll address each point in turn. "As an illegal alien, his due process is extremely limited." - True. But the problem is that Garcia did not get even this much. See below. "The court determined he was a gang member and ordered him deported." - Mostly true. An exception was made that he could not be deported to El Salvador. This can be overcome though by a new hearing in front of a new Immigration Judge who can make a new ruling and allow Garcia to be deported to El Salvador. Again though, the problem is that Garica did not get even this limited due process when he was sent to El Salvador that such aliens are entitled to by the laws of the United States. "Bring him back. Unless he can show that he has legal status, even if brought back he can just be deported again. " - True. He could be deported elsewhere (e.g. to Panama if they'll take him, or perhaps a deal can be worked out with Venezuela, or some other place) or else he could be deported to El Salvador (legally this time) once a new IJ allows it as per the above. The Supreme Court agrees with you btw: I.e. get permission from a new IJ before deporting back to El Salvador - or deporting to a third country with required due process would be a-okay with the SC. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf "If he is in the country illegally, and cannot show a judge otherwise, he can be deported." - Already addressed above as it applied to Garcia. False as a blanket statement. Refugees and asylum seekers who have valid claims upheld by a judge can't be deported even if they cannot show a judge otherwise that they were not in the country illegally (Garcia tried this but had an IJ rule against him). It's also generally very difficult to deport people who are stateless (which doesn't apply to Garcia). "The left loves them some wife-beating gang-bangers. " - This is more nuanced. Here's what the wife said, https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/apr/17/wife-deported-ms-13-suspect-responds-former-protection-order-accusing/ Regardless, an accusation of domestic violence is a serious one. On one hand, if there's a serious case to be made that Sura or the children may be in danger then I'm certainly in favor of taking preventative and protective measures while due process is applied. On the other hand, before Garcia is painted in such a light he should be given due process and a chance to clear his name.

It's certainly a "legal due process" (I guess you mean that due process was provided as required by law) in the context that it was launched in (to determine if, back in 2019, Garcia should qualify for bail). But it ends there. In any case, it's not necessary to speculate if Article 3 Judges would uphold this under the higher burden of proof standards. The Honorable Paula Xinis has already spoked on this point in her order. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.31.0.pdf

How is it bizarre? The point is certainly worth arguing - while the determinations and decisions from the immigration judges were correct in the context that they were made, it should not be seen as carrying the full weight of a ruling from an Article 3 Judge (in part because of the different level and nature of burden of proof that the Politifact article mentioned earlier). Regarding someone saying the government is the source, That's from the Politifact article, and is a quote from David Bier of the Cato Institute. But I think you misunderstand here - the government provides evidence in the hearing before the Immigration Judge - that doesn't mean the government is the source. It's more like the prosecutor in a criminal trial who submits written affidavits representing expert testimony - the prosecutor provides the affidavits to the court but is not the source of the affidavits (the experts are).

I don't recall anyone arguing that the government was the source. That wouldn't make sense on a lot of levels. The closest I can find is this (which incidentally seems to have been revealed only after the BBC Verify article was first published) https://baltimorebeat.com/governments-case-against-abrego-garcia-is-based-on-pg-county-cop-who-was-on-the-sas-do-not-call-list/

The BBC Verify article that you mention so much links to the decision of the judges. E.g. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.11.2_3.pdf From their source, it's clear that these are immigration judges. Quote from BBC Verify's source above is: "Consequently, we need not address the Immigration Judge's flight risk determination" You mention legal system. You are aware that Immigration Judges are not part of the Judicial Branch of the United States, but officers of the Executive Branch under the U.S. Attorney General? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_judge_(United_States)

It turns out that the Al Jazeera article is just a repost of https://www.politifact.com/article/2025/apr/14/fact-checking-nayib-bukele-and-trump-officials-on/ The Politifact article agrees with the BBC Verify one, so the facts are the same. However, Politifact goes on to explain what happened in more detail. Is there something in the Politifact article that you wish to call out as wrong or inaccurate? Such as, "The immigration judge is only taking at face value any evidence that the government provides, It is not assessing its underlying validity at that stage." "The immigration judges’ decision to deny bond is not equivalent to ruling that Abrego Garcia was a gang member," "In immigration bond hearings, detainees have the burden of proof" (unlike in a true criminal trial)

I'm not sure where the light at the end of the tunnel is here, but I fear that we are well on the way to proving your prediction accurate. Today, we found out that ICE is holding at least one US citizen - despite not being able to legally do so afaik. https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/5255137-us-citizen-held-by-ice-despite-judge-seeing-birth-certificate/

I'd say that it's not disputed on the one hand, but on the other hand it's a bit misleading. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/4/15/did-us-courts-back-kilmar-abrego-garcias-el-salvador-deportation Basically the rulings of the two immigration judges meant they found that the allegations of gang membership were strong enough to find that Abrego Garcia failed to meet his burden of of proof that he was not a danger. But this is a much weaker standard than in a civil trial. Garcia was the defendant before the immigration judge and had to meet the burden of proof, in a civil trial it is the plantiff who has to meet the burden of proof by the preponderance of evidence standard. Most supports of Garcia would want an even higher standard - that of a criminal trial, where the prosecutor has to meet the burden of proof with the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Meanwhile Garcia was found by two immigration judges - where he had to face the burden of proof - meaning if he does nothing in his defense in that court then he's found dangerous by default. That's not an unreasonable standard when the issue is just about whether or not to deny bail - since these have to be done very quickly and presumably the person gets a speedy trial even if bail is denied (and where a higher standard applies).

Marylander & US citizen here. Yes to getting Garcia back, no to Victor Martinez-Hernandez. In fact I find myself wondering why so much money and effort was spent to get rid of someone like Garcia instead of focusing on those actually dangerous like Martinez-Hernandez.

Actually, the most recent example that I can think of is Mike Gogulski, who did this in Dec 2008 (so almost 2009). But he married a Slovak and obtained permanent residence in Slovakia before he did that, and has a travel document issued by them afterwards (though he mostly travels throughout Schengen, which doesn't require a passport or similar travel document like a Document/Certificate of Identity to move around). Obviously, if you have permanent residence in a country, then you probably are not in violation of its immigration law. Or, perhaps you meant folks who renounced without getting permanent residence somewhere else first - i.e. folks who renounce in the most insecure way possible. That leads me to the below. This is an interesting point. I only know of two examples of this, where renouncement of U.S. citizenship occurred without residence being secured in another country first: Garry Davis (see below) and Davis's inspiration, Henry Martyn Noel. And I'm not sure that Noel counts: from his Wikipedia page it seems like he was able to legally work in Germany at the time he renounced, so maybe he stayed on a work permit (already had residence secured) and was able to maintain that somehow. (Noel eventually married a EU citizen which would allow him to make his residency status in Europe more permanent.) In any case, both renounced in the late 1940s, shortly after the end of WWII. That's not quite a full century away yet - but it certainly feels that way. No question that the international environment and understanding of borders was very different back then. In fact we know exactly what might happen in this case because of two, maybe three, famous examples: Garry Davis of the World Service Authority, Joel Laverne Slater (b. April 30, 1960), and maybe Thomas Glenn Jolley (b. January 26, 1944). Jolley is a maybe because he actually had permanent residence in Canada when he renounced, but later left Canada long enough to lost it. Canada refused to accept Jolley back because of this, and stayed in the US for the rest of his life. Slater is similar - he thought he had locked in permanent residence in Australia via a marriage but ended up either not formally getting it (or else he had it briefly before losing it). Australia deported him back to the US, which accepted him. Garry Davis tried to travel all over the world without the citizenship of any nation, and even wrote a book about it (My Country is the World). Spoilers; most of the time he ended up back in the US in the end, either being granted an immigrant visa or being accepted under humanitarian parole. It's worth noting that in all these cases, the person was born in the US and never had any other citizenship, so if this doesn't apply then one might speculate that the US might try to shove responsibility to some other country (the other one you were a former citizen of, or the one you were born in, whichever applies). If you somehow ended up stateless in the USA but on an immigrant visa (as Garry Davis wrote in his book, this happened to him multiple times), you qualify for a U.S. re-entry permit. This will allow you to apply for visas to travel. The main thing here is that the country you travel to wants to know that the country you came in from originally will take you back, and pay your way back if you refuse to go. Stateless refugees (and in fact probably almost all refugees) don't have this, but if you are a stateless person who has permanent residence in a country, you can usually obtain an Alien's Passport or Certificate/Document of Identity which will allow you to try to apply for visas and travel. Even if you were a stateless person who didn't have permanent residence in the country that you lived in, most countries - specifically those who signed onto the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons - would obey Article 27 and issue you the above kind of travel document. So getting the travel document might not be the hard part - getting visas to travel elsewhere would be. That said, it's worth nothing that the USA never signed onto this convention. On the other hand, in the most recent case I can find of a stateless former US citizen getting deported back to the US - Slater - US citizenship was restored. (Garry Davis actually got this offer multiple times as well - which he wrote about - but unlike Slater he always declined.) Honourable mention also goes to Vincent Cate (b. 1963) who renounced US citizenship in 1998. Obviously though he thinking along the same lines as you - that he'd need some other passport to travel around. Supposedly he got a passport from Mozambique for $5,000 USD. It's hard to research this because Mozambique had a new constitution promulgated in 2004, which basically changed up all the rules, but it's hard for me to understand how Cate's new passport would have been legitimate. So I figure that it wasn't, and he was in fact actually stateless, but able to pretend otherwise and use that passport for travel and things (as long no one took too close of a good look at his situation). Also worth nothing that I don't see that he ever tried to renew that passport, instead arranging to naturalize in Anguilla about 10 years later - which is the validity of most adult passports.)