Re: What the Constitution, Supreme Court say about 'due process' for Trump deportees:

On 6/7/2025 8:48 AM, zen cycle wrote:

On 6/7/2025 9:25 AM, AMuzi wrote:

On 6/7/2025 6:42 AM, zen cycle wrote:

On 6/7/2025 12:43 AM, AMuzi wrote:

On 6/6/2025 9:54 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 6/6/2025 6:22 PM, AMuzi wrote:

>
Update this afternoon regarding Mr Abrego Garcia.
3-1/2 minute video is on the 2d screen/page here:
>
https://www.yahoo.com/news/kilmar-abrego-garcia-way- back-185850961.html

>
This sounds a lot closer to what the Founding Fathers intended, compared to "Deport him!" and "Oops, we goofed but we can't fix it."
>
>

>
>
All his deplorable criminal activities aside,

>
Ass-covering allegations by the DOJ.
>

he has a prior deportation order fer chrissake. What does it take to enforce a Statute??

>
He did? seems to me the exact opposite is true.
>

>

>

>
The 2019 deportation order specified that he be removed but not deported to El Salvador or Guatemala (he had lived in both his birthplace El Salvador and also Guatemala).

 That is completely untrue. Here's the order.
 https://drive.google.com/file/ d/1V_yaacfwjS6i02eeCaHoPh64tGvySkVO/edit
 There is nothing in the order which orders removal. What you're quoting is an editorial interpretaion from the media.
 

The issue more correctly is to where and not whether.
>
The present administration seems to have taken up that point as he is in fact here again.

 Funny how they couldn't get him back, then did, then made up more charges
 

>

 

Thank you. Sincerely. I looked for that without success.
End of section III A
"Respondent's application for asylum is time-barred and must be denied. We turn next to withholding of removal under the Act."
But then in Section B
"The Court finds that the Respondent's proposed social group, "Immediate Family Members of the Abrego Family," essentially his nuclear family, is cognizable."
essentially finding that Mr Abrego Garcia's asylum claim, denied above, is reinstated by the Court.
Final decision is:
I. the Respondent's application for asylum pursuant to INA§ 208 is DENIED;
II. the Respondent's application for withholding of removal pursuant to INA §241(b)(3) is GRANTED; and
III. the Respondent's application for withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture is DENIED;
Which does explain so much confusion in the reportage. Makes no sense to me either but I am not the decider.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971