Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: What the Constitution, Supreme Court say about 'due process' for
 Trump deportees:
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2025 09:15:38 -0500
Organization: Yellow Jersey, Ltd.
Lines: 148
Message-ID: <10245ud$3s1io$10@dont-email.me>
References: <atmo3khh39c4ourcmsomm5smij938e6ai2@4ax.com>
 <101hsku$26lq0$6@dont-email.me> <javo3kh338hi3btp8df8llti02i6q7ra0h@4ax.com>
 <101i16r$2ados$1@dont-email.me> <101lkqh$3kj7o$1@dont-email.me>
 <pnct3k1grlt8flup51ass2pgtactgkfnrd@4ax.com> <101mrjn$aqa$1@dont-email.me>
 <101n4p9$2sls$1@dont-email.me> <101nkr7$7nm8$1@dont-email.me>
 <101nnvp$8qi5$1@dont-email.me> <101p3nr$3ua51$11@dont-email.me>
 <101piht$rahk$5@dont-email.me> <101q88i$7nm9$8@dont-email.me>
 <101qf6l$12ekl$3@dont-email.me> <101qjs6$13kk9$2@dont-email.me>
 <101qlt6$148ni$1@dont-email.me> <101qnin$13kk9$7@dont-email.me>
 <101vpnj$2fj8i$4@dont-email.me> <10209le$2o944$4@dont-email.me>
 <1020g1c$2pd7f$9@dont-email.me> <10218ic$1fqj9$2@dont-email.me>
 <1021ek9$31ttg$3@dont-email.me> <1021fum$330rl$1@dont-email.me>
 <1021o4o$357i3$1@dont-email.me> <1023q9d$330rl$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2025 16:15:42 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8a7bbffdf757ab2bedf5837ae056f853";
	logging-data="4064856"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18M0tPVJT1P6zlQppLTC838"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:pmDk6CN+sOT8buhD+fy10ISITbg=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <1023q9d$330rl$2@dont-email.me>

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