Due Process Does Look Different: DHS Official Defends Deportation of Maryland Man

Earl said:
He was found to be a member of a terrorist group by the J/D.
Click to expand...
ROFLMAO. Not according to the USSC.
Earl said:
They we’re not convicted of terrorism, Pobre.

Have someone help you. An eighth grader, Pobre.
Click to expand...
I didn't say they were convicted of terrorism. I said they had a terrorism enhancement on their sentence.
It's interesting how in the same post you claim a conviction is required to prove terrorism while also arguing no evidence is required to prove terrorism.
Earl said:
If Homeland Security can show evidence that a person is a member of a gang designated as a terrorist group, they can deport that person.


1744391561881.png
LII | Legal Information Institute
https://www.law.cornell.edu › U.S. Supreme Court




17 hours ago — ... is currently detained in the Center for Terrorism Confinement (CECOT). ... his returnto the United States would posea threat to the public.
***“The United States alleges, however, that Abrego Garcia has been found to be a member of the gang MS–13, a designated foreign terrorist organization, and that his return to the United States would pose a threat to the public.”*** (Asterisks are mine)
Click to expand...
Nope. The court ruling says not such thing when you read the entire ruling. Since the government alleges then the person under due process is allowed to defend himself in front of a fact finder which is what the lower court found to be true and the USSC did not overturn.

The United States alleges, however, that Abrego Garcia has been found to be a member of the gang MS–13, a designated foreign terrorist organization, and that his return to the United States would pose a threat to the public. Abrego Garcia responds that he is not a member of MS–13, and that he has lived safely in the United States with his family for a decade and has never been charged with a crime.

Once again we are left to see your silly argument that terrorism requires a conviction except when you think it simply requires an allegation.
 
BartenderElite said:
Try to follow what "convicted of terrorism" means.

Do you know what the word "convicted" means, Earl?

And this admin lies. All of the time.
Click to expand...
In the case of a gang designated as a terrorist group, no conviction is necessary.

Why do you think President Trump did this…hint…to deport them quickly as they present a present danger to Americans.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
You deny that American Citizenship exists - but it does.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should read the USSC ruling that Earl keeps providing a link to but didn't read.

The Government now requests an order from this Court permitting it to leave Abrego Garcia, a husband and father without a criminal record, in a Salvadoran prison for no reason recognized by the law. The only argument the Government offers in support of its request, that United States courts cannot grant relief once a deportee crosses the border, is plainly wrong. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U. S. 426, 447, n. 16 (2004); cf. Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U. S. 723, 732 (2008). The Government’s argument, moreover, implies that it could deport and incarcerate any person, including U. S. citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
ROFLMAO. Not according to the USSC.

I didn't say they were convicted of terrorism. I said they had a terrorism enhancement on their sentence.
It's interesting how in the same post you claim a conviction is required to prove terrorism while also arguing no evidence is required to prove terrorism.

Nope. The court ruling says not such thing when you read the entire ruling. Since the government alleges then the person under due process is allowed to defend himself in front of a fact finder which is what the lower court found to be true and the USSC did not overturn.

The United States alleges, however, that Abrego Garcia has been found to be a member of the gang MS–13, a designated foreign terrorist organization, and that his return to the United States would pose a threat to the public. Abrego Garcia responds that he is not a member of MS–13, and that he has lived safely in the United States with his family for a decade and has never been charged with a crime.

Once again we are left to see your silly argument that terrorism requires a conviction except when you think it simply requires an allegation.
Click to expand...
Wrong, Pobre.

In the case of a gang designated as a terrorist group, no conviction is necessary.

Why do you think President Trump did this…hint…to deport them quickly as they present a present danger to Americans.

Try to follow this…President Trump designated several gang groups as terrorist groups. That allows him to deport them.

17 hours ago — ... is currently detained in the Center for Terrorism Confinement (CECOT). ... his returnto the United States would posea threat to the public.
***“The United States alleges, however, that Abrego Garcia has been found to be a member of the gang MS–13, a designated foreign terrorist organization, and that his return to the United States would pose a threat to the public.”*** (Asterisks are mine)
 
BartenderElite said:
What are you talking about?

The man does not need a house to stay in. He has a family and a life. If his house was in my neighborhood, I'd have no issue w/ that.

This is such a forced "gotcha" you guys are playing. It's ridiculous.
Click to expand...
You do realize he was illegally in possession of a firearm. You sure you want him living next door to you?
 
Earl said:
In the case of a gang designated as a terrorist group, no conviction is necessary.

Why do you think President Trump did this…hint…to deport them quickly as they present a present danger to Americans.
Click to expand...
I am curious how you tell someone is a member of a gang without due process. Can you tell us?
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Perhaps you should read the USSC ruling that Earl keeps providing a link to but didn't read.

The Government now requests an order from this Court permitting it to leave Abrego Garcia, a husband and father without a criminal record, in a Salvadoran prison for no reason recognized by the law. The only argument the Government offers in support of its request, that United States courts cannot grant relief once a deportee crosses the border, is plainly wrong. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U. S. 426, 447, n. 16 (2004); cf. Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U. S. 723, 732 (2008). The Government’s argument, moreover, implies that it could deport and incarcerate any person, including U. S. citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene.
Click to expand...
He has firearm charges.
 
Earl said:
Wrong, Pobre.

In the case of a gang designated as a terrorist group, no conviction is necessary.

Why do you think President Trump did this…hint…to deport them quickly as they present a present danger to Americans.

Try to follow this…President Trump designated several gang groups as terrorist groups. That allows him to deport them.

17 hours ago — ... is currently detained in the Center for Terrorism Confinement (CECOT). ... his returnto the United States would posea threat to the public.
***“The United States alleges, however, that Abrego Garcia has been found to be a member of the gang MS–13, a designated foreign terrorist organization, and that his return to the United States would pose a threat to the public.”*** (Asterisks are mine)
Click to expand...
And the USSC in the very next sentence says that Garcia has the right to confront those accusing him of being in a gang.
 
BartenderElite said:
So, why did you say he was convicted?
Click to expand...
I said he was found to be involved with a terrorist gang group.

Feb 21, 2025. Last month, DHS issued a notice expanding the reach of expedited removal to individuals living in the interior of the United States. This would allow certain noncitizens to be deported without an opportunity to gather evidence, contact an attorney, or to present their case to a judge
 
Earl said:
I said he was found to be involved with a terrorist gang group.

Feb 21, 2025. Last month, DHS issued a notice expanding the reach of expedited removal to individuals living in the interior of the United States. This would allow certain noncitizens to be deported without an opportunity to gather evidence, contact an attorney, or to present their case to a judge
Click to expand...

LOL

I just saw that you edited your response to me. After you realized that you were wrong.
 
BartenderElite said:
LOL

I just saw that you edited your response to me. After you realized that you were wrong.
Click to expand...
Editing is allowed to add additional information.

I realized you were wrong.

Isn’t this additional information?

Feb 21, 2025. Last month, DHS issued a notice expanding the reach of expedited removal to individuals living in the interior of the United States. This would allow certain noncitizens to be deported without an opportunity to gather evidence, contact an attorney, or to present their case to a judge

It already applied to border states.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Perhaps you should read the USSC ruling that Earl keeps providing a link to but didn't read.

The Government now requests an order from this Court permitting it to leave Abrego Garcia, a husband and father without a criminal record, in a Salvadoran prison for no reason recognized by the law. The only argument the Government offers in support of its request, that United States courts cannot grant relief once a deportee crosses the border, is plainly wrong. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U. S. 426, 447, n. 16 (2004); cf. Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U. S. 723, 732 (2008). The Government’s argument, moreover, implies that it could deport and incarcerate any person, including U. S. citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene.
Click to expand...
That is not the ruling, but an argument made by plaintiff counsel.

The actual ruling states;

{The application is granted in part and denied in part, subject to the direction of this order. Due to the administrative stay issued by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, the deadline imposed by the District Court has now passed. To that extent, the Government's emergency application is effectively granted in part and the deadline in the challenged order is no longer effective. The rest of the District Court’s order remains in effect but requires clarification on remand. The other properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. }
 
Uncensored2008 said:
That is not the ruling, but an argument made by plaintiff counsel.

The actual ruling states;

{The application is granted in part and denied in part, subject to the direction of this order. Due to the administrative stay issued by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, the deadline imposed by the District Court has now passed. To that extent, the Government's emergency application is effectively granted in part and the deadline in the challenged order is no longer effective. The rest of the District Court’s order remains in effect but requires clarification on remand. The other properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. }
Click to expand...
Indeed.

Poor Pobre has not been right this decade.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top