- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Tennessee police in 2022 busted Maryland thug with trafficking 7 women
Posted on 4/17/25 at 9:06 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 4/17/25 at 9:06 am to SlowFlowPro
My post was directed to the person I posted to and was completely relevant to the post to which I replied.
Appreciate your interest in my posts.
Appreciate your interest in my posts.
0
Posted on 4/17/25 at 9:07 am to SlowFlowPro
"Improper" does not necessarily mean violation of the law.
Just as an "administrative error" does not equal illegality.
Just as an "administrative error" does not equal illegality.
Posted on 4/17/25 at 9:07 am to BBONDS25
quote:
His removal order was stayed and he was temporarily granted asylum.
You seem to be an expert. I didn't know he was granted asylum. Was he???
At any rate, until you show me that the order prohibiting his deportation to El Salvador was dissolved, I don't think there's anything to discuss.
Posted on 4/17/25 at 9:07 am to ABearsFanNMS
quote:
What is due process for illegal immigrants that crossed over our border illegally?
It’s irrelevant if an individual is a member or supporter of a terrorist organization.
And the Department of State has designated Tren de Aragua (TdA), Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13), Cártel de Sinaloa, Cártel de Jalisco Nueva Generación (CJNG), Cártel del Noreste (CDN), La Nueva Familia Michoacana (LNFM), Cártel de Golfo (CDG), and Cárteles Unidos (CU) as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) and Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs).
If an individual is deemed to be associated with or providing support to a designated terrorist organization, they may be found inadmissible to the U.S. and, if already in the country, may be subject to deportation.
Posted on 4/17/25 at 9:08 am to wdhalgren
quote:
There is no provision for judges to impede that presidential power on an individual due process basis.
The Supreme Court literally just ruled 9-0 this is not a correct statement of the law
Posted on 4/17/25 at 9:09 am to IvoryBillMatt
he was not granted asylum.
Posted on 4/17/25 at 9:10 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
didn't know he was granted asylum.
He wasn’t.
Posted on 4/17/25 at 9:11 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
SlowFlowPro
quote:
I'm not a leftist.
Posted on 4/17/25 at 9:14 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
This is my last attempt to explain this. Everyone agrees that deporting criminal aliens is legal. However, ALL the judges and justices who have reviewed the facts and the law agree that deporting THIS illegal alien TO El Salvador WAS illegal because of the hold order explicitly prohibiting Abrego Garcia’s deportation to El Salvador. This is not a close or even debatable question of law.
How can this hold considering he claimed he feared retribution from a rival gang (supposedly called the 18th Street Gang) which NO LONGER EXISTS! How can one be fearful of something that is gone?
Posted on 4/17/25 at 9:15 am to ABearsFanNMS
quote:
How can this hold considering he claimed he feared retribution from a rival gang (supposedly called the 18th Street Gang) which NO LONGER EXISTS! How can one be fearful of something that is gone?
Ask the Supreme Court because that's what they ruled
Posted on 4/17/25 at 9:16 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The Supreme Court literally just ruled 9-0 this is not a correct statement of the law
They basically said, well the guy was removed mistakenly but the courts can't force the president to bring him back. It was a way of conceding to the president's authority under the AEA. The 1948 ruling was much more clear about the president's powers here, and if the current Supremes want to actually challenge those powers, they'll have to address them specifically. They won't do that because the president was well within his authority under the AEA as written in 1798 and as previously strongly affirmed by the USSC in 1948.
This is what an unequivocal ruling looks like
quote:
Held:
1. The Alien Enemy Act precludes judicial review of the removal order. Pp. 335 U. S. 163-166.
2. In the circumstances of relations between the United States and Germany, there exists a "declared war" notwithstanding the cessation of actual hostilities, and the order is enforceable. Pp. 335 U. S. 166-170.
3. The Alien Enemy Act, construed as permitting resort to the courts only to challenge its validity and construction, and to raise questions of the existence of a "declared war" and of alien enemy status, does not violate the Bill of lights of the Federal Constitution. Pp. 335 U. S. 170-171.
4. The fact that hearings are utilized by the Executive to secure an informed basis for the exercise of the summary power conferred by the Act does not empower the courts to retry such hearings, nor does it make the withholding of such power from the courts a denial of due process. Pp. 335 U. S. 171-172.]
This post was edited on 4/17/25 at 9:22 am
Posted on 4/17/25 at 9:18 am to SDVTiger
quote:
Says the guy defending ppl who broke our laws
You just proved my point. I'm not defending HIM. I'm just pointing out that the Government ignored a lawful order that prohibited his deportation to El Salvador.
Is this as bad as New York state violating all sorts of laws and the Constitution to convict President Trump? Is this as bad as Biden's DOJ persecuting J6ers and pro-lifers? No, but it's the same principle.
Posted on 4/17/25 at 9:19 am to SlowFlowPro
There is nothing in our laws that say he can’t be deported to El Salvador.
In fact, it’s the place he’s supposed to be deported to.
In fact, it’s the place he’s supposed to be deported to.
Posted on 4/17/25 at 9:20 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
You just proved my point. I'm not defending HIM. I'm just pointing out that the Government ignored a lawful order that prohibited his deportation to El Salvador.
According to USC 1231, El Salvador is the only country he can be deported to.
Seems like you are the one that hates our laws.
This post was edited on 4/17/25 at 9:21 am
Posted on 4/17/25 at 9:22 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
Thanks. That's at least a legal argument. I don't think it would have held up even if presented to the Supreme Court. I don't think invocation of the Alien Enemies Act would have applied retroactively to dissolve the pre-existing grant of protection from removal to El Salvador.
Well you would be wrong, everyone subject to the executive order is subject to deportation under the AEA unless they are naturalized citizens. You can have a green card, visa, etc. and be subject to deportation under the AEA.
quote:
all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies.
Text of the AEA. LINK
Posted on 4/17/25 at 9:22 am to wdhalgren
quote:
The 1948 ruling was much more clear about the president's powers here,
That is what the Supreme Court cited recently, but that case is also completely different in terms of facts involved (and even the portion of the law relied upon by the admin). The Supreme Court didn't get into the weeds on that part because it wasn't before the court (and hasn't been determined by the district court yet regardless).
quote:
and if the current Supremes want to actually challenge the president's power under that act, they'll have to address that power specifically.
The 1948 case is being misinterpreted online, not by the Supreme Court.
quote:
Although judicial review under the AEA is limited, we have held that an individual subject to detention and removal under that statute is entitled to “‘judicial review’” as to “questions of interpretation and constitutionality” of the Act as well as whether he or she “is in fact an alien enemy fourteen years of age or older.” Ludecke, 335 U. S., at 163-164, 172, n. 17. (Under the Proclamation, the term “alien enemy” is defined to include “all Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of TdA, are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States.” 90 Fed. Reg. 13034.) The detainees’ rights against summary removal, however, are not currently in dispute. The Government expressly agrees that “TdA members subject to removal under the Alien Enemies Act get judicial review.” Reply in Support of Application To Vacate 1. “It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law” in the context of removal proceedings. Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 306 (1993). So, the detainees are entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard “appropriate to the nature of the case.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 313 (1950). More specifically, in this context, AEA detainees must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act. The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.
Posted on 4/17/25 at 9:24 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Improper = violation of the law = illegal. This isn't in dispute.
That right here is your fatal flaw. It's absolutely disputable and any sane person with minor understanding of the English language knows the two words are NOT equal. You know this and should do better.
Posted on 4/17/25 at 9:25 am to SlowFlowPro
Judges should stop defying our laws or interpreting them to their political ideological whims.
USC 1231 is clear as day.
Nothing in our law says he can't be deported to El Salvador.
Nothing.
USC 1231 is clear as day.
Nothing in our law says he can't be deported to El Salvador.
Nothing.
quote:
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b), when someone is ordered removed (deported), the U.S. government must try to remove them to a specific set of countries, in a priority order.
?? Priority List of Countries for Removal (in order):
Country of citizenship or nationality
If the person is a citizen of a specific country, the U.S. will try to deport them there first.
Country of last habitual residence
If they have no clear citizenship, but lived in a country regularly, the U.S. can send them there.
Country that issued them a travel document
For example, if they used a passport or other document from a country, that country may be considered.
Country of departure
The country from which they entered the U.S. or last transited through.
Any country willing to accept them
If none of the above work out, the U.S. can negotiate with any country willing to accept the individual.
quote:
Under U.S. law, particularly in 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (asylum statute), some people are barred from receiving asylum, even if they would normally qualify based on fear of persecution.
? Bars to Asylum Include:
Participation in terrorist activity
Membership in a terrorist organization
Commission of a serious non-political crime
Danger to the security of the United States
This post was edited on 4/17/25 at 9:35 am
Posted on 4/17/25 at 9:26 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
You just proved my point. I'm not defending HIM. I'm just pointing out that the Government ignored a lawful order that prohibited his deportation to El Salvador.
"Ignore" implies intent. There has been no evidence of that, has there?
It is at this point, what the government claims it is - an administrative error. It is very similar to Judge Boasberg assuming jurisdiction improperly in the AEA case. An improper action, but presumably done in good faith - and thus not an intentional act such as "ignoring" an order or statute.
Posted on 4/17/25 at 9:31 am to dgnx6
quote:
According to USC 1231, El Salvador is the only country he can be deported to
Your ignorance never ceases to amaze and amuse. I assume you mean 8 USC 1231.
Dazzle us with your legal brilliance, explain how 8 USC 1231 limits his deportation to El Salvador...careful, because if it does, then that would have meant that Abrego Garcia, under the law, couldn't be legally deported ANYWHERE because the order prohibiting his deportation to El Salvador is still in effect.
Page 20 of 23
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News