2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Whatever that judge decided back then, yes on absurdly weak evidence, does not mean he deserved to be sent to a concentration camp. El Salvador is sovereign and can do what it wants to it's own citizens in El Salvador to gang members, but El Salvador had nothing to do with determining if Garcia was a gang member or not. The ONLY reason Garcia is in a concentration camp now is because the Trump regime wants to pay for that. One phone call and he's out. 

Also of course ALL of the Venezuelans in the concentration camp there were put there ILLEGALLY and also without due process. 

Americans can live under the constitution and rule of law or not and tragically the maga fascisms are embracing total disregard for the law.

Now fascist Trump is working on sending U.S. citizens to offshore concentration camps.

How do you know it was weak evidence. It was two judges anyway. In separate hearings. More deflection. I am not nor have I ever claimed it was correct to deport him. In fact a judge ruled he shouldn't. I respect that decision to. Unlike you I am not cherry picking which judges to believe.

8 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

How do you know it was weak evidence. It was two judges anyway. In separate hearings.

Anyone that looks into it knows.

But you're ignoring the point.

He's in a CONCENTRATION CAMP now. 

There are zero grounds for him to be in that concentration camp.

He is an El Salvadorian in his home country now but tragically in a concentration camp there not because of El Salvadoran law but because of corrupt U.S. Trump regime MONEY. 

Whether he can ever live in the USA again is a completely different question. Probably not. But he should be released from that concentration camp immediately. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

Really? Where? Do you have a link to dispute the below which is from BBC Verify?

 

"Nevertheless, the judge presiding over Abrego Garcia’s 2019 case found enough evidence—based on the confidential source—to conclude that he was affiliated with the gang, a finding later upheld by another judge. This resulted in his being denied bail. During this time, he filed for asylum to avoid deportation to El Salvador, claiming his family had been targeted by Barrio-18, a rival gang."

 

I'd say that it's not disputed on the one hand, but on the other hand it's a bit misleading.
 

Quote

In the initial denial, the judge said the determination of Abrego Garcia’s gang membership “appears to be trustworthy and is supported” by evidence from the Gang Field Interview Sheet which, in part, referenced the informant. 

 

The immigration judges’ decision to deny bond is not equivalent to ruling that Abrego Garcia was a gang member, David Bier, associate director of immigration studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, said.

In immigration bond hearings, detainees have the burden of proof to show they are neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community. Abrego Garcia “failed to meet his burden to show that he was not a danger,” Bier said. That’s not the same as the government proving affirmatively that he was an MS-13 member.

“The immigration judge is only taking at face value any evidence that the government provides,” Bier said. “It is not assessing its underlying validity at that stage.”

Neither of the immigration court proceedings constitute a conviction, because they were not trials.

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).

6 minutes ago, cambion said:

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).

Yes immigration matters are generally rushed and cursory. But that's because the normal worst case scenarios are only normal deportation back home where the person is a free citizen back there. NOT to a concentration camp! This man was completely denied due process with this fascist disappearance. If they can do that to him, they can do that to anybody, including U.S. citizens. What's next? Throwing dissenting citizens out of copters into the sea Argentian dictator style?

6 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Anyone that looks into it knows.

But you're ignoring the point.

He's in a CONCENTRATION CAMP now. 

There are zero grounds for him to be in that concentration camp.

He is an El Salvadorian in his home country now but tragically in a concentration camp there not because of El Salvadoran law but because of corrupt U.S. Trump regime MONEY. 

Whether he can ever live in the USA again is a completely different question. Probably not. But he should be released from that concentration camp immediately. 

 

 

You can stop telling me what point I'm ignoring too. I called you out for your false claims he was not a member of a gang and provided proof via way of two separate judges and the evidence they replied on to refuse his bail. 

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

You can stop telling me what point I'm ignoring too. I called you out for your false claims he was not a member of a gang and provided proof via way of two separate judges and the evidence they replied on to refuse his bail. 

That was not proof.

Also you're disingenuously focused on minutiae when the actual story and what it represents is about the end of American democracy. where a dictator like president thinks it's OK to ignore the rulings of the supreme court.

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Yes immigration matters are generally rushed and cursory. But that's because the normal worst case scenarios are only normal deportation back home where the person is a free citizen back there. NOT to a concentration camp! This man was completely denied due process with this fascist disappearance. If they can do that to him, they can do that to anybody, including U.S. citizens. What's next? Throwing dissenting citizens out of copters into the sea Argentian dictator style?

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/

4 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

That was not proof.

Yes I know you prefer not to believe the legal system by way of judges decisions. 

 

You further EDIT once I had replied is more evidence of your dishonesty

10 minutes ago, cambion said:

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).

Al Jazeera?

 

I much prefer BBC Verify and stick with the facts:

 

"Nevertheless, the judge presiding over Abrego Garcia’s 2019 case found enough evidence—based on the confidential source—to conclude that he was affiliated with the gang, a finding later upheld by another judge. This resulted in his being denied bail. During this time, he filed for asylum to avoid deportation to El Salvador, claiming his family had been targeted by Barrio-18, a rival gang."

4 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Al Jazeera?

 

I much prefer BBC Verify and stick with the facts:

 

"Nevertheless, the judge presiding over Abrego Garcia’s 2019 case found enough evidence—based on the confidential source—to conclude that he was affiliated with the gang, a finding later upheld by another judge. This resulted in his being denied bail. During this time, he filed for asylum to avoid deportation to El Salvador, claiming his family had been targeted by Barrio-18, a rival gang."

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)

Just now, cambion said:

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)

No not at all. New facts are always welcome unlike those who attempt to lie and deny what the judges said. The Evidence the judges had was from a confidential source, no mention of the government being that source on BBC verify.

11 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Yes I know you prefer not to believe the legal system by way of judges decisions

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)

Just now, cambion said:

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)

Yes the legal system because that is what it is. To try and argue that point is just bizarre

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

No not at all. New facts are always welcome unlike those who attempt to lie and deny what the judges said. The Evidence the judges had was from a confidential source, no mention of the government being that source on BBC verify.

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)

 

Quote

The Maryland cop who first linked Kilmar Abrego Garcia to alleged gang activity in 2019 was placed on a “do not call” list published by Prince George’s County State’s Attorney Aisha Braveboy in 2021 — meaning he was deem unfit to testify in state court 

https://baltimorebeat.com/governments-case-against-abrego-garcia-is-based-on-pg-county-cop-who-was-on-the-sas-do-not-call-list/

The headline is just a lie.

 

She did not say he would not be returned. She said that if/when he was returned, he would be re-deported. 

 

T

1 minute ago, cambion said:

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/

I don't recall anyone arguing that the government was the source. That wouldn't make sense on a lot of levels.

 

12 minutes ago, cambion said:

"The immigration judge is only taking at face value any evidence that the government provides,

 

 

4 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Yes the legal system because that is what it is. To try and argue that point is just bizarre

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,

 

Quote

"The immigration judge is only taking at face value any evidence that the government provides,

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).

5 minutes ago, cambion said:

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).

How is it bizarre? The point is certainly worth arguing

 

Then go ahead and argue whether its a legal due process with someone else. I don't waste time on such nonsense

As an illegal alien, his due process is extremely limited. 

 

The court determined he was a gang member and ordered him deported. 

 

Bring him back. Unless he can show that he has legal status, even if brought back he can just be deported again. 

 

The left loves them some wife-beating gang-bangers. 

5 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

How is it bizarre? The point is certainly worth arguing

 

Then go ahead and argue whether its a legal due process with someone else. I don't waste time on such nonsense

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.
 

Quote

DHS relied principally on a singular unsubstantiated allegation that Abrego Garcia was a member of MS-13

The “evidence” against Abrego Garcia consisted of nothing more than his Chicago Bulls hat and hoodie, and a vague, uncorroborated allegation from a confidential informant claiming he belonged to MS-13’s “Western” clique in New York—a place he has never lived. ECF No. 31.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.31.0.pdf

Just now, cambion said:

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

It's certainly a "legal due process"

 

I know it is. Goodnight

6 minutes ago, cambion said:

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

If he is in the country illegally, and cannot show a judge otherwise, he can be deported. 

Seems he likes colorful shirts, is now a KC Chiefs fan and was enjoying some refreshments complete with a cherry and seasoned rim. Living the good life. 

31 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

If he is in the country illegally, and cannot show a judge otherwise, he can be deported. 

As an illegal alien, his due process is extremely limited. 

 

The court determined he was a gang member and ordered him deported. 

 

Bring him back. Unless he can show that he has legal status, even if brought back he can just be deported again. 

 

The left loves them some wife-beating gang-bangers. 

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:

 

Quote

The order properly requires the Government ... to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador

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,

 

Quote

The wife of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the alleged MS-13 gang member whose deportation has become a hot issue on Capitol Hill, said she “acted out of caution” by filing for a protective order against her husband after she accused him of beating her.

Jennifer Vasquez Sura said Wednesday that she sought the 2021 restraining order because she was a past survivor of domestic violence and wanted legal protection “in case things escalated.”

“Things did not escalate, and I decided not to follow through with the civil court process,” Ms. Vasquez Sura said about the order she petitioned in Prince George’s County, Maryland. “We were able to work through the situation privately as a family, including by going to counseling.”

She said her marriage to Mr. Abrego Garcia “only grew stronger” in the years that followed.

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.

3 minutes ago, cambion said:

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 that such aliens are entitled to by the laws of the United States.

He can be deported to El Salvador if the threat to him no longer exists, which (as I understand it) does not. 

 

We do not know that he did not get due process, we only know what is reported. 

 

3 minutes ago, cambion said:

 

"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.

"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.

Indeed

3 minutes ago, cambion said:

 

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).

I don't think that "Refugees and asylum seekers who have valid claims upheld by a judge..." are in the country illegally. 

3 minutes ago, cambion said:

 

"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.

As I said. 

 

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. 

 

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. 

I honestly shocked how many people support this gang member.

 

If this happened in Thailand, the entire community would be raining abuse on him, telling him how when you're a guest in a country you have to keep your head down and follow the law. That he was making all of us look bad. And no one would bat an eye when Thailand revoked his permission to stay and deported him.

 

The US government did not elect to punish this MS-13 member through the US court system. Therefore, he has no due process. They simply revoked his "asylum" status and deported him. That is entirely the right of the State Department, and the US courts have no jurisdiction, any more than they have jurisdiction when an embassy officer denies a visa.  The only reason this is getting play is due to corruption and judicial overreach, and the only reason anyone is supporting this gang member is because they hate Trump.

 

Move this entire event to Thailand, and the peanut gallery here would be cheering the deportation of a criminal.

 

When you're a guest in a country, you keep your head down and mind your manners. I didn't go participate in Thaksin protests because as a guest I do not have the same rights as my wife, nor can I force a trial like Thai citizens can. Immigration can simply deport me on a whim, and then it's my own problem to figure out how to support my family. That's reality you face when you move to a foreign country, and I have zero sympathy for this gang member that was sent home.

7 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

He can be deported to El Salvador if the threat to him no longer exists, which (as I understand it) does not. 

 

We do not know that he did not get due process, we only know what is reported. 

 

Indeed

I don't think that "Refugees and asylum seekers who have valid claims upheld by a judge..." are in the country illegally. 

As I said. 

 

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. 

 

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. 

"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,
 

Quote

Six years later, without notice, legal justification, or due process, officers from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), a subagency of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), put him on a plane bound for the Terrorism Confinement Center (“CECOT”)

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.

2 minutes ago, uncletiger said:

I honestly shocked how many people support this gang member.

 

If this happened in Thailand, the entire community would be raining abuse on him, telling him how when you're a guest in a country you have to keep your head down and follow the law. That he was making all of us look bad. And no one would bat an eye when Thailand revoked his permission to stay and deported him.

 

The US government did not elect to punish this MS-13 member through the US court system. Therefore, he has no due process. They simply revoked his "asylum" status and deported him. That is entirely the right of the State Department, and the US courts have no jurisdiction, any more than they have jurisdiction when an embassy officer denies a visa.  The only reason this is getting play is due to corruption and judicial overreach, and the only reason anyone is supporting this gang member is because they hate Trump.

 

Move this entire event to Thailand, and the peanut gallery here would be cheering the deportation of a criminal.

 

When you're a guest in a country, you keep your head down and mind your manners. I didn't go participate in Thaksin protests because as a guest I do not have the same rights as my wife, nor can I force a trial like Thai citizens can. Immigration can simply deport me on a whim, and then it's my own problem to figure out how to support my family. That's reality you face when you move to a foreign country, and I have zero sympathy for this gang member that was sent home.

The left does not care about this piece of human debris, they are only using him to attack Trump, stir up hate and discontent and frighten people. 

 

That's why the left is so dependent on deceit, if they were truthful, they'd have no power at all. 

8 minutes ago, uncletiger said:

I honestly shocked how many people support this gang member.

 

If this happened in Thailand, the entire community would be raining abuse on him, telling him how when you're a guest in a country you have to keep your head down and follow the law. That he was making all of us look bad. And no one would bat an eye when Thailand revoked his permission to stay and deported him.

 

The US government did not elect to punish this MS-13 member through the US court system. Therefore, he has no due process. They simply revoked his "asylum" status and deported him. That is entirely the right of the State Department, and the US courts have no jurisdiction, any more than they have jurisdiction when an embassy officer denies a visa.  The only reason this is getting play is due to corruption and judicial overreach, and the only reason anyone is supporting this gang member is because they hate Trump.

 

Move this entire event to Thailand, and the peanut gallery here would be cheering the deportation of a criminal.

 

When you're a guest in a country, you keep your head down and mind your manners. I didn't go participate in Thaksin protests because as a guest I do not have the same rights as my wife, nor can I force a trial like Thai citizens can. Immigration can simply deport me on a whim, and then it's my own problem to figure out how to support my family. That's reality you face when you move to a foreign country, and I have zero sympathy for this gang member that was sent home.

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.

4 minutes ago, cambion said:

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.

Are you a wife beating MS13 terrorist too? If not, sleep easy.