Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Catrike Ryder 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: 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 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