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

On 6/8/2025 5:56 AM, zen cycle wrote:

On 6/7/2025 12:07 PM, AMuzi wrote:

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.

 You're Welcome, and let me also express appreciation that you took the time to review the information available rather than simply buy the media
 The media is not the decider either, but so much is (and has been) decided by the media over the decades. That might explain the claim 'Judge Jones didn't say he couldn't be deported, just that he could he deported to el salvador or Guatemala'. That's written here:
 "B. Withholding of Removal Pursuant to INA§ 241(b)(3)
Withholding of removal, in contrast to asylum, confers only the right not to be deported to a particular country rather than the right to remain in the U.S."
 What to order did _not_ say was that he could still be deported.
 What the order did _not_ say was that he was a gang member (in fact, from the information contained in the order it seems more reasonable to interpret that Judge Jones did _not_ consider evidence that:
 "Exhibit 4 is a Prince George's County Police Department Gang Field Interview Sheet. It was admitted for the limited purpose of showing that the Respondent was labeled a gang member by law enforcement."
 was credible enough to enter into the case. If he was a gang member, there were enough precedents listed in that order that being a 'renouncing gang membership' or being in a rival gang was _not_ grounds for approving any stay in deportation.
 So Mr. Garcia was deported to el salvador, despite a court order from several years earlier explicitly stating he couldn't be deported to el salvador.
 The DOJ and ICE knowingly violated a court order. Who's the real criminal here?
 There is also no evidence from anyone, anywhere, that "two judges found him likely to be a gang member" (if true, such findings would be readily available as was Judge Jones order).
 There is also scant evidence that he was engaged in human trafficking. Based on the governments behaviour to this point, I ain't buyin' it.

As it turns out, he's being tried which may (or may not) clear up the details of the whole sorry mess.
I am not an attorney but it's unclear to me that the judge properly applied the asylum statutes to the case:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158
Which is moot now as the decision was not appealed.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971