President Donald Trump

So your arguments are it’s ok to violate an order saying to deport him because they put him an a jail and there’s obvious no gangs in jail so he shouldn’t be afraid?

Dunno whether that worse than “it’s just going to happen if you follow the rules anyways so might as well just not follow the rules at all!!”

The order not to deport applied to that country as a free person there not to that country prisons afaik.

Anyway cordie mentioned that the AEA wasn't triggered in Garcia case but i think it was used, and that clearly supersedes court orders (giving *no due process* to the deported individual).

Is the AEA a ******ed law? yes. Take it to congress who never removed that law from the books. Was it inapplicabile in that instance? maybe, but you can only decide that ex post , and being a ******ed law it will have efficacy immediatly, always be lawful at that time, and then you can claim "well hm no you couldn't" , and stop further uses (which is what happened).

If you give the president the power to deport at will with no due process , you are going to have a few cases where the deported person shouldn't have been deported , but that wouldn't be a "rules aren't being followed" topic, rather a "rules are redic" topic.

But anyway now the problem seems to be that courts are angry an illegal with no right to stay in the USA got deported for the wrong reasons. I am not sure why , after that alien isn't in the USA anymore, they have any jurisdiction at all.

And ofc people who want the system to be built in a way that makes deportations impossible even if the law prescribes them, are happy at each and every hurdle created to make deportations harder.

But again i ask you as i did ask others, what exactly is the standing court order against the trump administration for the Garcia case, and how is the trump admin supposed to comply? and why do courts have jurisdiction on that at all to begin with?

I refuse to believe that you are arguing with a straight face that it can be illegal to deport someone to a country and let them walk free, but ok to deport them to a prison in return for monetary compensation.

Several people have explained to you that it is extremely common to have courts order a “make your best effort” and then decide if that has occurred once action is actually taken. You disagree with that in this context, doesn’t mean it is insane.

For example, serveral commentators have pointed out that a single judge in Texas ordered the Biden admin to conduct negotiations to continue Trumps Remain in Mexico policy without any direction other than- this policy has to stay. And scotus let that happen.

Yes if the stated reason to avoid the deportation in the case of "walking free" was the risk to his life linked to gangs roaming free in the country (!!!) , as it was.

And btw the murder rate since 2019 dropped more than 90%.

As for "best efforts" do you realize the complete independence of foreign policy from courts right? so they cannot ever order any foreign policy tradeoff? so how can court order "efforts" related to managing an international relationships at all given they have absolutely 0 jurisdiction on that, and that power is fully the exclusive of the executive + congress when applicable?

The Texas judge ordered the admin to do something that was 100% within it's powers, and that was 100% domestic in application. How has that anything to do with our case? do you have any example of courts ordering anything to governement related to the detention of someone in a foreign country?

First, you’re completely changing your argument about “oh it’s too vague how can they comply.”

Next - How is it not “100% within the domestic powers” of the US government to ask for this guy back?

They literally sold him to El Salvador in the first place.

The USA are becoming a place where holding the laws and respecting it is viewed as a luxury .

Imagine ….

Yup imagine what Luciom would have call Obama and the democrats if they would acted the same way …
But it’s the right so it’s ok !

It's vague, how can they comply? unless ofc you think the order can encompass FORCING international relationships in any way, like forcing trump to try to convince Bukele by offering him something of value and so on.

How can they comply domestically? list me what the admin should do that has no foreign relation element (that's offlimit completly for courts to order right?).

It is maybe in the US gvmnt domestic power to stop paying for that specific person imprisonment (if it still does, unclear if that's the case given the guy isn't even in the max security prison anymore), but asking for him "back"? why would it be within domestic powers?

They didn't "sell" anyone. People can't be sold.

I don't think i would have commented differently if Obama or Biden sent away illegal aliens or completly disregarded the rights of people who aren't american citizens elsewhere in the world.

I am actually on record agreeing with Obama assassinating an american citizen extrajudicially in a foreign country with drones, which he did, that's what happens when you side with terrorists.

+ more than 300 other terrorists ofc , assassinated by Obama worldwide, that we know of, with droning.

I am not the incoherent person who treats the same actions differently if it's democrats or republicans doing them. Those are your friends here , not me.

Luciom, I have asked you specifically, twice now, which law you think requires the government to deport everyone here without official permission.

You ignored the question both times, yet continue to state over and over again that is a legal requirement, as part of your arguments.

It isn’t just about illegal immigration like Obama stated …
And you seem to be very sympathetic about those other issues or see no problem with it …
Which again vastly exceed potus power .

Section 237 of the INA (8 U.S.C. § 1227)

It is not a requirement. He will just point you to a lengthy code section.

I would need a law degree to fully parse all of that, but the wording very beginning to me implies that these people can be deported if the AG wants to deport them, not that it is required.

'Any alien (including an alien crewman) in and admitted to the United States shall, upon the order of the Attorney General, be removed if the alien is within one or more of the following classes of deportable aliens:.. "

So, an alien meeting these qualifications will be removed when the AG orders their removal. It doesn't make any demands of the AG.

There’s not really any difference in the reasons for it. It all comes down to exploiting people to extract wealth.

What are you talking about ???
You don’t believe many people in all countries in the world gets exploited one way or the other lol ?

This isnt due to capitalism, it’s about politics choices .
But again if you believe they would have been better off without globalization , I wonder why massive amounts of people being lift out of poverty the last 3 decades didn’t happen before globalization .

what stop Trump to kidnapp Lucy's parents and send them in salvador now?
Can't he say it was a mistake they didn't have their ID at the time, etc... like this dude that got snapped by ICE this week for 48h, and he is an american citizen.
Then when it happens they can't ask them back because reasons?

No, it's how capitalism works. Liberals such as you don't like to acknowledge this.

I mean isn't that shall imperative? that's the same verbal form of the 10 commandments isn't it?

Anyway there is the "take care" clause of the constitution as well for the president, he has to execute the laws, he doesn't have a power to fully disregard them.

Keep in mind we are talking aliens in gvmnt custody, not a mandate to do anything he can to capture all illegals already in the USA . The executive can set priorities (and within the illegals under custody, he can set a priority of who to deport first).

Basically not deporting illegals in custody is dereliction of duty (it might stop at the head of the department though). Mayorkas impeachment was absolutely justified

There is actually a law mandating the president to try to get back wrongfully incarcerated citizens. And it specifically and explicitly says to treat naturalized citizens as natural born citizens.

Maybe you should start to realize that the USA, starting from it's constitution and then with laws and so on, explicitly considers non citizens worthy of fewer protections, tier B human beings, for many things.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path....

§1731. Protection to naturalized citizens abroad
All naturalized citizens of the United States while in foreign countries are entitled to and shall receive from this Government the same protection of persons and property which is accorded to native-born citizens.

§1732. Release of citizens imprisoned by foreign governments
Whenever it is made known to the President that any citizen of the United States has been unjustly deprived of his liberty by or under the authority of any foreign government, it shall be the duty of the President forthwith to demand of that government the reasons of such imprisonment; and if it appears to be wrongful and in violation of the rights of American citizenship, the President shall forthwith demand the release of such citizen, and if the release so demanded is unreasonably delayed or refused, the President shall use such means, not amounting to acts of war and not otherwise prohibited by law, as he may think necessary and proper to obtain or effectuate the release; and all the facts and proceedings relative thereto shall as soon as practicable be communicated by the President to Congress.

Which country, before capitalism existed, had no exploitation (under your definition, use whatever definition you prefer) historically?

"Shall, upon order of the AG" means "has to if and when the AG orders it", but you knew that.

Everytime he gets caught in a lie his English skills suddenly become an issue.

It's overt partisan hackery masquerading as impartial rational argument, and not very well at that.

trump should just order the DOJ to stop prosecuting any federal criminal allegation where the purported victim is a registered democrat, according to you that would be perfectly legal