3 hours ago, BKKBike09 said:

 

You should make clear that this all relates to deportation of alleged Central American gang members, especially those from San Salvador, using the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. I suspect there are many who would think that deporting gang members is not a bad thing. 

 

https://www.npr.org/2025/04/07/nx-s1-5345601/supreme-court-alien-enemies-act

 

 

just to keep you updated on Trump's damaged brain.... and I do provide links to support the post

Donald Trump Says He Loves Idea of Sending Americans to El Salvador Prison

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-sending-americans-el-salvador-prison-2056122

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

39 minutes ago, BKKBike09 said:

 

Let's not gloss over the facts that the 'Legal Alien' to whom you and the OP's article refer wasn't some person who got randomly picked up a few weeks ago and shipped off to a max security prison in El Salvador.

 

Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia is a native and citizen of El Salvador who entered the US illegally 'sometime around 2011'. In March 2019 he was arrested in Maryland with three other men. "Ensuing proceedings established that Abrego Garcia was a ranking member of the deadly MS-13 gang and thus presented a danger to the community". At an immigration hearing in 2019, DHS presented evidence that Abrego Garcia had been “arrested in the company of other ranking gang members”  and the Immigration Judge specifically cited “the fact that a ‘past, proven, and reliable source of information’ [had] verified [Abrego Garcia’s] gang membership, rank, and gang name.” In October 2019, after Abrego Garcia had “conceded his removability as charged”, an immigration judge ordered Abrego Garcia’s removal from the United States ...

 

So this guy should really have been sent back years ago and has been living on borrowed time. The complication was that the immigration judge also said he could not be sent back to El Salvador because he might be persecuted by a rival gang - the judge did not say he could not be deported.

 

It's all in the court docket.

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A949/354843/20250407103341248_Kristi Noem application.pdf

 

Nice try at presenting slightly distorted information. He was granted legal status in 2019 so yeah he was here legally after that ruling. DOJ already admitted he was deported in error so not sure what your on about other than you want to gloss over whats happening now.   You go with that though

Call me when the Trump Regime© begins to rendition random citizens anywhere in the world for transport to black sites in vassal countries for extraordinary broom handle anal rapes.

 

Better yet, do give me a call when the Leader of the Free World© orders execution by drone strike of American citizens without trial, and gets a noble peas price for his efforts.

6 hours ago, Dan O said:

The OP is about Trump and America not China or Russia. Nice try at gaslighting the conversation. Try staying on topic even if the facts show the truth you refuse to admit.

 

Will you be moseying over to one of them "Trump Winning" threads to reprimand the neighsayers bringing up China or Russia, and gaslighting the conversation with references to the Austrian painter?

4 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

Will you be moseying over to one of them "Trump Winning" threads to reprimand the neighsayers bringing up China or Russia, and gaslighting the conversation with references to the Austrian painter?

Thats just a load of mumbo jumbo bs so you can feel good that you contributed something even if its meaningless. The topic isn't about Russia or China but Trump and the US

According to this 60 Minutes documentary, of the 238 alleged Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang members that were sent to one of the worst prisons in the world, in El Salvador, 75% have no criminal records either in the US or Venezuela and no discernible gang affiliation.

 

https://youtu.be/_QmW99SqBuw?si=PVgdIGxE5Yujp3oo

 

For those, as if just being there when there's no evidence they're actually criminals or gang members wasn't bad enough, as the piece points out, they could be there for the rest of their lives.

 

According to El Salvador's president Bukele, the only way anyone ever gets out of this particular prison is in a coffin.

5 minutes ago, Dan O said:

Thats just a load of mumbo jumbo bs so you can feel good that you contributed something even if its meaningless. The topic isn't about Russia or China but Trump and the US

 

You could simply have written "No, I just hate Trump!" and left it at that.

 

Parsimony on the innertubes can be a virtue.

5 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

According to this 60 Minutes documentary, of the 238 alleged Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang members that were sent to one of the worst prisons in the world, in El Salvador, 75% have no criminal records either in the US or Venezuela and no discernible gang affiliation.

 

https://youtu.be/_QmW99SqBuw?si=PVgdIGxE5Yujp3oo

 

For those, as if just being there when there's no evidence they're actually criminals or gang members wasn't bad enough, as the piece points out, they could be there for the rest of their lives.

 

According to El Salvador's president Bukele, the only way anyone ever gets out of this particular prison is in a coffin.

 

Capone's FBI criminal record in 1932, showing most of his criminal charges were discharged or dismissed

 

26 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

Capone's FBI criminal record in 1932, showing most of his criminal charges were discharged or dismissed

 

Do you think most = all? Actually, in this case, the deportee has never even put on trial. 

1 hour ago, Dan O said:

You don't know what I've done, you 're just a loudmouth behind a keyboard crying like a 4 year old that isn't getting his way. Cry on 

Thats fine, but you still havent read any US Law and if you had, you dont understand it.

1 minute ago, Yagoda said:

Thats fine, but you still havent read any US Law and if you had, you dont understand it.

Today you have given us no evidence that you do. Does that just if I'm making a similar assertion about you?

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Do you think most = all?

I believe his only two criminal convictions were Income Tax Evasion and the famous Concealed Weapon case in Pa. Both of with occured after he rose to power.

 

He did get a crap deal on the Tax Charges.

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Do you think most = all?

 

Of course not!

I'm not a registered democrat!

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Today you have given us no evidence that you do. Does that just if I'm making a similar assertion about you?

You can make any assertion you like, they are all equally stupid.

1 minute ago, Yagoda said:

You can make any assertion you like, they are all equally stupid.

There's a saying that the best defense is a good offense. In your case I guess the best defense you can come up with is a bad offense. You've got nothing.

2 hours ago, Dan O said:

Nice try at presenting slightly distorted information. He was granted legal status in 2019 so yeah he was here legally after that ruling. DOJ already admitted he was deported in error so not sure what your on about other than you want to gloss over whats happening now.   You go with that though

 

I'll stick with the facts. No need to distort anything. He was not granted legal status in 2019; he was subject to ICE Supervision:

 

 

in 2019, an Immigration Court agreed that he had entered the US illegally at an unknown date and time and thus should be deported. However the judge in 2019 also ruled that he could not be deported back to El Salvador. The "administrative error" in his case is that he was sent back to El Salvador, 

 

 

 

 

Just now, Dan O said:

You appear to be mentally challenged. Trump is an a-hole POS, so yes but that wasn't what I wrote now was it? I wrote that this thread has nothing to do with Russia, China or leftist. The thread is about what trump is doing specific to deportation and his case in front of the Supreme Court. Try to keep up

Because NoDisplayName had no evidence or argument  to offer on the issue, he resorted to making it personal.

6 minutes ago, BKKBike09 said:

 

I'll stick with the facts. No need to distort anything. He was not granted legal status in 2019; he was subject to ICE Supervision:

 

 

in 2019, an Immigration Court agreed that he had entered the US illegally at an unknown date and time and thus should be deported. However the judge in 2019 also ruled that he could not be deported back to El Salvador. The "administrative error" in his case is that he was sent back to El Salvador, 

 

 

 

 

 

18 minutes ago, BKKBike09 said:

 

I'll stick with the facts. No need to distort anything. He was not granted legal status in 2019; he was subject to ICE Supervision:

 

 

in 2019, an Immigration Court agreed that he had entered the US illegally at an unknown date and time and thus should be deported. However the judge in 2019 also ruled that he could not be deported back to El Salvador. The "administrative error" in his case is that he was sent back to El Salvador, 

 

 

 

 

You really are special arent you. He had legal status to stay in the US per the presiding judge in his case. The judge also ruled he could not be deported. That did not grant him citizenship nor did I say it did. He was legally allowed to be in the US until ruled otherwise. That never happened now did it?

 

The ICE Order of Supervision is a tracking document like being on probation and having to report routinely. It does not mean he was here illegally.

 

The deportation is being characterized as an "administration error" but in actuality it was illegal deportation and the lawyers for the admin admitted that in court. They are arguing that they dont want to agree to taking back anyone deported legally or otherwise. If they agree to return him it sets a precedence for all future cases and may create a loop hole the trump admin cant close.

 

The Supreme Court agreed and put a stay on his return will they debate the issue of what to do LEGALLY. That does not mean they agree he was in the US without a legal standing. Check you google law degree as it might have expired

43 minutes ago, Dan O said:

You really are special arent you. He had legal status to stay in the US per the presiding judge in his case. The judge also ruled he could not be deported. That did not grant him citizenship nor did I say it did. He was legally allowed to be in the US until ruled otherwise. That never happened now did it?

Thanks buddy. I always like to be told I'm special.

 

Nonetheless, this dude did not have the legal right to be in the US: the judge in his case only granted him 'withholding of removal to El Salvador', which - as per the recent Supreme Court ruling - does not confer any lawful status within the United States while DHS remains free to remove the person to a third country other than the country to which removal has been withheld. The guy himself also accepted back in 2019 that he could be deported.

 

Book him, Dan O.

 

In October 2019, after Abrego Garcia had “conceded his removability as charged,” an IJ ordered Abrego Garcia’s removal from the United States under Title 8. App., infra, 7a; see id. at 60a. The IJ determined, however, that it was more likely than not that, if Abrego Garcia returned to El Salvador, he would be subject to persecution on account of his affiliation with his mother, whose “earnings from the pupusa business” had been allegedly targeted by “the Barrio 18 gang.” Id. at 15a.2 The IJ therefore granted Abrego Garcia withholding of removal to El Salvador under 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3). App., infra, 11a-15a. Withholding of removal “only bars deporting an alien to a particular country or countries,” INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415, 419 (1999)—in Abrego Garcia’s case, to El Salvador. Because “withholding of removal is a form of ‘ “country specific” ’ relief ” but does not confer any lawful status within the United States, DHS remains free to “remov[e] the alien to a third country other than the country to which removal has been withheld.” Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. 523, 531-532 (2021) (brackets and citations omitted). 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A949/354843/20250407103341248_Kristi Noem application.pdf

 

 

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

. Deporting gang members is only to be applauded. Never letting them come back even more so.

 But in general it would be better to be able to prove that they are gang members, rather than just picking them up because they are brown, speak Spanish and have a Real Madrid football team tattoo; oh, and have a legal right to live in the US, are married to a US citizen and have a (handicapped) child who is a US citizen. 

 

Now I am sure that as the "woghunter general" Honan and his goons would claim you cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs (actually let's not get onto the price of eggs!) but it's not a very good image, not when you are the land of the free, leader in democracy and human rights etcetera!

9 minutes ago, BKKBike09 said:

Thanks buddy. I always like to be told I'm special.

 

Nonetheless, this dude did not have the legal right to be in the US: the judge in his case only granted him 'withholding of removal to El Salvador', which - as per the recent Supreme Court ruling - does not confer any lawful status within the United States while DHS remains free to remove the person to a third country other than the country to which removal has been withheld. The guy himself also accepted back in 2019 that he could be deported.

 

Book him, Dan O.

 

 

In October 2019, after Abrego Garcia had “conceded his removability as charged,” an IJ ordered Abrego Garcia’s removal from the United States under Title 8. App., infra, 7a; see id. at 60a. The IJ determined, however, that it was more likely than not that, if Abrego Garcia returned to El Salvador, he would be subject to persecution on account of his affiliation with his mother, whose “earnings from the pupusa business” had been allegedly targeted by “the Barrio 18 gang.” Id. at 15a.2 The IJ therefore granted Abrego Garcia withholding of removal to El Salvador under 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3). App., infra, 11a-15a. Withholding of removal “only bars deporting an alien to a particular country or countries,” INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415, 419 (1999)—in Abrego Garcia’s case, to El Salvador. Because “withholding of removal is a form of ‘ “country specific” ’ relief ” but does not confer any lawful status within the United States, DHS remains free to “remov[e] the alien to a third country other than the country to which removal has been withheld.” Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. 523, 531-532 (2021) (brackets and citations omitted). 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A949/354843/20250407103341248_Kristi Noem application.pdf

 

 

That was a really nice try Perry Mason but you failed.  Copy and pasting from Kristi Noem's filing is not a court ruling but I give you credit for at least attempting to make your argument.

 

He was given the right to stay and not to be deported to El Salvador in his case in 2019. That is a legal right as he was not removed to a 3rd country or held in detention. He was released with an Ice Supervision Notice. No other court case was heard before he was deported revoking that right granted in 2019, correct?

 

He was in fact illegally deported to El Salvador by the trump admin and they admitted such in the court case before the Supreme Court which was against the judges ruling in Oct 2019 was he not?

 

You can claim "admin error" but in fact it was illegal until ruled otherwise in court not in your head or with your word salad. Again the admins own lawyers admitted that in the Supreme Court Case!

 

You can claim DHS could deport him to a 3rd country after a hearing but he was not now was he?

 

Did the Supreme Court rule yesterday it was a legal deportation and to leave him there without redress or put a stay in place on the return date while they rule LEGALLY what is the correct action.

 

End of story. You have a nice day

 

 

3 hours ago, Dan O said:

That was a really nice try Perry Mason but you failed.  Copy and pasting from Kristi Noem's filing is not a court ruling but I give you credit for at least attempting to make your argument.

 

He was given the right to stay and not to be deported to El Salvador in his case in 2019. That is a legal right as he was not removed to a 3rd country or held in detention. He was released with an Ice Supervision Notice. No other court case was heard before he was deported revoking that right granted in 2019, correct?

 

He was in fact illegally deported to El Salvador by the trump admin and they admitted such in the court case before the Supreme Court which was against the judges ruling in Oct 2019 was he not?

 

You can claim "admin error" but in fact it was illegal until ruled otherwise in court not in your head or with your word salad. Again the admins own lawyers admitted that in the Supreme Court Case!

 

You can claim DHS could deport him to a 3rd country after a hearing but he was not now was he?

 

Did the Supreme Court rule yesterday it was a legal deportation and to leave him there without redress or put a stay in place on the return date while they rule LEGALLY what is the correct action.

 

End of story. You have a nice day

 

 

 

Ah, but I cut and pasted from the SUPREME COURT ruling which poked more holes in the earlier court orders than can be found in a hunk of Swiss cheese. No sad sack lower court piffle required.

 

The SUPREME COURT ruling also gets to the heart of this whole sorry saga:

 

While respondents challenge Abrego Garcia’s “removal to El Salvador,” they acknowledge that the “government could have chosen to remove [him] to any other country on earth,” thereby separating him from his family. Id. at 46a. Because respondents take issue only with where, not whether Abrego Garcia was removed, the harm that they claim from family separa-

tion is not implicated or properly redressable here.

 

Post 2019 DHS did not need a hearing to deport him to anywhere, they just couldn't send him back home to mom and her pupusa stall in San Salvador. Of course, if you were to argue that the hands of DHS were, in fact, effectively tied by that prohibition, I'd agree with you. If this guy was only a national of San Salvador, what other country would accept him as a deportee from the USA? 

 

Once again, book 'em, Dan O.

 

 

1 hour ago, BKKBike09 said:

 

Ah, but I cut and pasted from the SUPREME COURT ruling which poked more holes in the earlier court orders than can be found in a hunk of Swiss cheese. No sad sack lower court piffle required.

 

The SUPREME COURT ruling also gets to the heart of this whole sorry saga:

 

 

While respondents challenge Abrego Garcia’s “removal to El Salvador,” they acknowledge that the “government could have chosen to remove [him] to any other country on earth,” thereby separating him from his family. Id. at 46a. Because respondents take issue only with where, not whether Abrego Garcia was removed, the harm that they claim from family separa-

tion is not implicated or properly redressable here.

 

Post 2019 DHS did not need a hearing to deport him to anywhere, they just couldn't send him back home to mom and her pupusa stall in San Salvador. Of course, if you were to argue that the hands of DHS were, in fact, effectively tied by that prohibition, I'd agree with you. If this guy was only a national of San Salvador, what other country would accept him as a deportee from the USA? 

 

Once again, book 'em, Dan O.

 

 

Again nice try at twisting the situation to support your flawed thinking 

Trump should have been in jail according to the losers on the left who failed to jail, bankrupt and assassinate him. Sucks to be a loser liberal. LOL

 

Ha ha ha.....how ya doin....

 

 

16 hours ago, placeholder said:

The Trump administration believes it has the legal authority to abduct any individual—citizen or immigrant, documented or not—and illegally deport them to another country without due process. It further claims that it can extinguish all of that person’s constitutional rights by imprisoning them in a foreign nation. And it asserts that once that person has been locked away abroad, the U.S. government has no power or responsibility to bring them home, even if they were indisputably deported in error

https://archive.ph/761pv

Cry a little harder ....lol

 

 

This has been going on since George Bush in the 90s or earlier. 

 

How is this news?

18 hours ago, BKKBike09 said:

This all reminds me of the bleeding hearts in UK who bemoaned the fatal police shooting of Chris Kaba, portrayed by them as an innocent victim of police brutality as opposed to a gang member who'd recently shot another person in a crowded nightclub (caught on CCTV), amongst other crimes and misdemeanours.

One has to wonder what passes for brains in those people that they want to keep evil thugs in their own country, not that they will ever be in proximity to the scum they apparently support.

13 hours ago, JAG said:

 

 

Now I am sure that as the "woghunter general" Honan and his goons would claim you cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs (actually let's not get onto the price of eggs!) but it's not a very good image, not when you are the land of the free, leader in democracy and human rights etcetera!

I lived in a military dictatorship for years. The next stage is to " pursue " perceived dissidents living abroad.We are not there yet are we ?

8 minutes ago, Jim Blue said:

I lived in a military dictatorship for years. The next stage is to " pursue " perceived dissidents living abroad.We are not there yet are we ?

Well of course I am not an American - so unlikely to be persued. That said if I attempted to enter America ( I have no intention of so doing) then I am sure that I would be refused or detained. 

 

As for "pursue perceived dissidents living abroad", well it would only be a small relatively simple step. Some countries have a record of allowing America to apprehend and detain their "enemies" on their soil, all one has to do is to define and identify such enemies.

 

The court’s 5-4 ruling Monday night requires those challenging Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to rely on a complicated and rarely successful legal process known as habeas corpus, and to potentially file those claims in some of the most conservative federal courts in the nation.

 

SCOTUS: Don't worry.  You can address your removal during the "habeas corpus" process.

 

ME: What if I'm not provided "habeas corpus" by the Trump administration before I am disappeared? 

 

They won't let me contact my family in prison in El Salvador.

 

SCOTUS: Gotcha. 😀