Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: What the Constitution, Supreme Court say about 'due process' for Trump deportees:
Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2025 10:14:06 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 129
Message-ID: <ti6b4kljcbmsc9rai6cd7rd3gmkk2t7ksq@4ax.com>
References: <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=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2025 16:14:09 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="819358dc8c7b26e5a44bbe74358ef3b4";
	logging-data="4084203"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/g6y9KAe+LNfDTaSF1wr+ifg95qC7i9jY="
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zVk2QwgKKp1TmcKKWLNnYhGE8os=

On Sun, 8 Jun 2025 06:56:44 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> 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.

Soon, I suspect a court and jury will decide on that.

--
C'est bon
Soloman