Patterico's Pontifications

4/1/2025

Trump Administration Concedes Mistaken Deportation

Filed under: General — Dana @ 5:10 am



[guest post by Dana]

Exactly why can’t he be brought home?:

The Trump administration conceded in a court filing Monday that it mistakenly deported a Maryland father to El Salvador “because of an administrative error” and argued it could not return him because he’s now in Salvadoran custody.

Background:

The filing stems from a lawsuit over the removal of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national who in 2019 was granted protected status by an immigration judge, prohibiting the federal government from sending him to El Salvador.

The filing, first reported by The Atlantic, appears to mark the first time the administration has admitted an error related to its recent deportation flights to El Salvador, which are now at the center of a fraught legal battle.

“On March 15, although ICE was aware of his protection from removal to El Salvador, Abrego Garcia was removed to El Salvador because of an administrative error,” the Trump administration filing states.

Here is some added context from the court filings, which still doesn’t change the fact that an individual with protected status was deported back to the very country he was legally protected from being sent to:

The man is an illegal migrant from El Salvador. In 2019, ICE presented sufficient evidence that he was a member of the MS-13 gang for an immigration judge to deny him bond and order his removal.

However, he then filed an asylum claim and obtained a withholding of removal order under the convention against torture. Essentially, he argued that despite his being here illegally and likely being a gang member based on the previous finding, he could be tortured if sent back to El Salvador. Such an order could still allow the government to deport him, but not to his home country, at least not without first contesting the order.

He has been using that order since 2019 to avoid deportation.

Some government attorneys have reportedly been shocked by what happened to Albrego Garcia. There is a separate procedure to follow in the courts if the government wants to deport an individual with protected status.

Government attorneys said that the deportation was an “oversight,” but one done in “good faith.” So I guess that makes it okay. /sarc.

This is a horrible consequence of the administration rushing through these deportations without any oversight necessary accountability.

—Dana

112 Responses to “Trump Administration Concedes Mistaken Deportation”

  1. Hello.

    Pre-emptive strike: Because one might be upset to see such an egregiously careless mistake made does not mean there is no sympathy for Americans killed by illegal aliens. It is quite possible to be bothered by such a ghastly mistake by the presiding administration and also horrified by the murder of Americans at the hands of illegal aliens.

    Dana (294cda)

  2. @1 Yeah, it’s certainly possible to be bothered by both. But, that’s not what’s happening. A “mistake” like this, where an illegal and gang member doesn’t get due process to the nth degree, gets magnified, analyzed and a dedicated post. A case like this gets entirely ignored by the same folks.

    So yeah, it’s possible, but it’s not happening.

    lloyd (dd2d14)

  3. Government attorneys said that the deportation was an “oversight,” but one done in “good faith.” So I guess that makes it okay.

    No, it was not done in good faith, no more than the killing of a pedestrian by a drunken driver doing 90 mph on a residential street is in good faith.

    It was overzealousness and incompetence by a conman and his sycophants looking to look good to the eggsuckers who put them in charge of the government.

    nk (5efbd4)

  4. Despite the Trayvon Martin treatment this man is getting, some helpful reminders:

    The man is an illegal migrant from El Salvador. In 2019, ICE presented sufficient evidence that he was a member of the MS-13 gang for an immigration judge to deny him bond and order his removal.

    lloyd (dd2d14)

  5. The question for me will be, how much of due process does an illegal alien get?

    To me, I’m in the camp that once its confirmed of your status, immediate deportation is allowed.

    Seems like this story, this person is beyond a shadow of doubt an illegal alien.

    Furthermore, if he’s truly claimed asylum, I would’ve had more sympathy if he claimed asylum the proper way from the beginning, rather than taking advantage of the previous’ administration lax policies.

    whembly (b7cc46)

  6. In reading the filing I am not so sure that what is being is that the administration erred in the deportation of if they are saying that he is being removed because of an “administrative error.”

    His gang affiliation and his danger to the community issues were never resolved favorably to him in 2019, but a judge later granted him the temporary status he enjoyed.

    March 2019, Abrego Garcia was served a notice to appear in removal proceedings, charging him as inadmissible as an “alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled, or who arrives in the United States at any time or place other than as designated by the Attorney General.” Id. ¶¶ 25–29 (quoting
    8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i)). During a bond hearing, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) stated that a confidential informant had advised that Abrego Garcia was an active member of the criminal gang MS-13. Id. ¶ 31. Bond was denied. See id. ¶¶ 34, 39; see also IJ Order, infra Ex. A, at 2–3 (finding that Abrego Garcia was a danger to the community); BIA Opinion, infra Ex. B, at 1–2 (adopting and affirming IJ Order, specifically finding no clear error in its dangerousness finding).
    Abrego Garcia then filed an I-589 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture. Compl. ¶ 35. Although Abrego Garcia was found removable, the immigration judge granted him withholding of removal to El Salvador in an order dated October 10, 2019. Id. ¶ 41.

    And here:

    Here, Abrego Garcia cannot now relitigate the finding that he is a danger to the community. That issue was actually litigated and decided in his bond hearing in 2019. IJ Order 2–3 (“Respondent failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that his release from custody would not pose a danger to others, as the evidence shows that he is a verified member of MS-13” and he “has failed to present evidence to rebut that assertion.”). He appealed that decision to the appropriate administrative review body, the Board of Immigration Appeals, which adopted and affirmed the immigration judge’s “danger ruling” notwithstanding Abrego Garcia’s arguments. BIA Opinion 1–2. There is no evidence of further review by the Fourth Circuit, and the time for such review has passed, so the agency decision is a valid and final judgment. Moreover, because the Board affirmed the immigration judge solely on the ground that Abrego Garcia was a danger to the community, that ground is
    16

    Case 8:25-cv-00951-PX Document 11 Filed 03/31/25 Page 19 of 22
    essential to the judgment. Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 27 cmt. o (Am. L. Inst. 1982). Finally, Abrego Garcia had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue. He had the opportunity to give evidence tending to show he was not part of MS-13, which he did not proffer. IJ Order 2–3. And he had sufficient motivation to challenge the finding—he needed to prevail on it to obtain bond pending his removal proceedings. See Compl. ¶ 39 (discussing missing the birth of his son because he was detained); accord Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 28 cmt. j (discussing unfairness in applying preclusive effect to first judgment when “the amount in controversy in the first action [was] so small in relation to the amount in controversy in the second”). Thus, the finding of Abrego Garcia’s danger to the community is conclusive, and he is estopped from challenging it now.

    Without the actual Cerna Declaration that is mentioned, I really can’t be close to certain. But it really appears to me that the government is saying that the “administrative error” was by the judge that granted a status that should not have been available to a danger-to-society individual. Because of that error, he didn’t enjoy that status.

    That said, and not knowing what the Cerna Declaration spells out, my gut tells me we need to know more about the process of finding an error in a ruling and the process of moving forward. Who overrules immigration judges? Is it the same legal process or is it controlled more by the Secretary of State or some other government process?

    BuDuh (4214e4)

  7. rather than taking advantage of the previous’ administration lax policies.

    It happened in 2019.

    BuDuh (4214e4)

  8. The question for me will be, how much of due process does an illegal alien get?

    To me, I’m in the camp that once its confirmed of your status, immediate deportation is allowed.

    Fine. Throw them out of the country. Don’t ship them to a foreign prison; it’s not the same thing.

    nk (5efbd4)

  9. @7

    rather than taking advantage of the previous’ administration lax policies.

    It happened in 2019.

    BuDuh (4214e4) — 4/1/2025 @ 7:15 am

    The ruling happened in 2019 and he then claimed asylum. To my reading, I don’t think his asylum claims was ever fully ajudicated. (unless being a member of a gang nixed his claims due to his gang deemed as a terrorist orgainization).

    whembly (b7cc46)

  10. Fine. Throw them out of the country. Don’t ship them to a foreign prison; it’s not the same thing.
    nk (5efbd4) — 4/1/2025 @ 7:23 am

    Do you even understand how “throwing them out of the country” works? Looks like you don’t. They have to go somewhere and that “somewhere” country has to agree to accept them.

    lloyd (dd2d14)

  11. @8

    The question for me will be, how much of due process does an illegal alien get?

    To me, I’m in the camp that once its confirmed of your status, immediate deportation is allowed.

    Fine. Throw them out of the country. Don’t ship them to a foreign prison; it’s not the same thing.

    nk (5efbd4) — 4/1/2025 @ 7:23 am

    You’re probably right.

    But, frankly, I’m having a hard time getting riled up on this.

    Governments will inevitable F-up certain these sort of things.

    Want to know an easy solution for this to not to happen?

    Don’t break our laws in the first place.

    whembly (b7cc46)

  12. I found the Cerna Declaration

    12. The operation that led to Abrego-Garcia’s removal to El Salvador was designed to only include individuals with no impediments to removal. Generally, individuals were not placed on the manifest until they were cleared for removal.
    13. ICE was aware of this grant of withholding of removal at the time Abrego- Garcia’s removal from the United States. Reference was made to this status on internal forms.
    14. Abrego-Garcia was not on the initial manifest of the Title 8 flight to be removed to El Salvador. Rather, he was an alternate. As others were removed from the flight for various reasons, he moved up the list and was assigned to the flight. The manifest did not indicate that Abrego-Garcia should not be removed.
    15. Through administrative error, Abrego-Garcia was removed from the United States to El Salvador. This was an oversight, and the removal was carried out in good faith based on the existence of a final order of removal and Abrego-Garcia’s purported membership in MS-13.

    Indeed it was an error in present time as opposed to claiming he was removed in part because of an error in 2019.

    My mistake.

    BuDuh (4214e4)

  13. Via Patterico

    Vance here, mocking @jonfavs for not reading the court filing, says the deported man was a “convicted” gang member. The court filing does not say that. It says he was denied bond in 2019 over an informant’s claim he was in MS-13. That’s not a conviction.

    The issue is not whether Abrego Garcia was removable — it’s that the court agreed he shouldn’t be sent to El Salvador. The administration has scoffed at the notion there have been errors in March 15 flight determinations. But here they acknowledge one.

    But it was the Trump admin that added the twist of malevolence by shipping him off to an El Savador. The individual stories won’t stop coming out.

    Paul Montagu (b69d31)

  14. While this is a great example of the kind of mistake that can be avoided if the government follows the law (also known as Due Process) Given the general level of incompetence Trump has shown in the past I was expecting a lot more mistakes like this.

    Time (516ffe)

  15. I don’t agree that Mr. Garcia should be returned. Rather, all of the deportees should be returned so they can face due process, and I hope our Circuit Court or Supreme Court will rule as such.

    Trump paid Bukele to keep them there, so he can pay Bukele to release them back into American custody. The transaction was already done once, it can be done again.

    Paul Montagu (b69d31)

  16. O added a /sarc tag to the post, to clarify….

    Dana (13fc29)

  17. Do you even understand how “throwing them out of the country” works? Looks like you don’t.

    Stick it!

    They have to go somewhere and that “somewhere” country has to agree to accept them.

    Lies, damn lies, and Trumper lies. The default is their country of citizenship, and then legally and morally it becomes “their” problem.

    But your boy is not following deportation law. He claims to be following enemy alien expulsion law. Like the Japanese internments during WWII. And his Manzanar is in El Salvador.

    nk (1538c2)

  18. Which is worth keeping in mind at all times in this discussion. Trump is not merely enforcing immigration law with the El Salvador cases. He claims to be following the Alien Enemies Act.

    nk (1538c2)

  19. Due process means a Lilliputian immigration judge controls national immigration policy.

    Due process means an ICE detainer can be ignored, resulting in an innocent person’s murder. (see my link @2)

    The usual folks here aren’t interested in due process. They are only interested in opposing any attempt at fixing a problem they helped create.

    lloyd (dc390f)

  20. @17 “Lies, damn lies, and Trumper lies. The default is their country of citizenship, and then legally and morally it becomes “their” problem.”

    He was from El Salvador, or did you miss that part?

    (See also Britain, and their attempt at a Rwanda solution.)

    lloyd (dc390f)

  21. This was already mentioned, but the irony is that the last time the Alien Enemies Act was invoked, Nazi deportees had their day in court.

    Judge Millett noted that alleged Nazis were given hearing boards and were subject to established regulations, while the alleged members of Tren De Aragua were given no such rights.

    Paul Montagu (b69d31)

  22. Reposting from the main thread:

    From Patterico on Twitter:

    Why are you citing a May 22, 2019 order regarding a decision in a bond hearing and not the October 10, 2019 order of the judge granting him protection from deportation? https://t.co/FJaRprjAl6

    https://x.com/Patterico/status/1907089717637652692

    Not a gang member, not illegal.

    Davethulhu (14e9e4)

  23. I think that allowing asylum claims as the 5th bite of the apple is a mistake.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  24. I’m reminded of Obama’s quip about driving a car into a ditch.

    Lots of folks here sipping on slurpees.

    lloyd (dc390f)

  25. Fine. Throw them out of the country. Don’t ship them to a foreign prison; it’s not the same thing.

    What do you do when their own country won’t receive them? Take over Greenland and release them there?

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  26. I´m sure there will be a lot more “accidental” deportations as the Administration ramps up its efforts.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  27. Why are you citing a May 22, 2019 order regarding a decision in a bond hearing and not the October 10, 2019 order of the judge granting him protection from deportation?

    Because he only applied for asylum as an afterthought. He didn’t even know how to game the system properly.

    lloyd (dc390f)

  28. Fine. Throw them out of the country. Don’t ship them to a foreign prison; it’s not the same thing.

    On further review, he WAS sent to his home country. That the home country viewed him as a dangerous criminal is NOT our problem. The judge’s order allowing this dangerous criminal to only be sent to a different country that would not imprison him was asinine.

    And here we have the basic problem: Every administration this century, and probably before, has let this problem grow. It is not solvable by the ponderous justice of the normal court systems — that has failed utterly — yet there needs to be due process. The basic issues are simple enough: 1) illegal entry; 2) criminal behavior or associations; 3) integration into the community and 4) self-support. Most of these are low-justice issues yet we insist on treating them with the high justice.

    You would think that Congress could act here, and respond to Trump’s “emergency” decrees. If they don’t, and if the electorate wants the problem addressed, the courts will not be well served by obstruction.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  29. The question for me will be, how much of due process does an illegal alien get?

    …….. (T)he Supreme Court has recognized that aliens who have physically entered the United States generally come under the protective scope of the Due Process Clause, which applies to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent. Consequently, there are greater due process protections in formal removal proceedings brought against aliens already present within the United States. These due process protections generally include the right to a hearing and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before deprivation of a liberty interest.

    Source. Footnotes omitted.

    The Court has also held that

    ……… an order of removal may be entered only if the government presents clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that the facts alleged as grounds for deportation are true. Woodby v. INS, 385 U.S. 276, 286 (1966). However, an alien in formal removal proceedings has the burden of proving his or her eligibility for discretionary relief from removal. Kimm v. Rosenberg, 363 U.S. 405, 408 (1960); see also Jay v. Boyd, 351 U.S. 345, 359 (1956) (holding that a special inquiry officer could rely upon undisclosed, confidential information in deciding to deny an alien’s application for suspension of deportation as a matter of discretion).

    See footnote 2 at the above link.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  30. Kevin M:

    This guy was a citizen of El Salvador shipped to an El Salvador prison. I see nothing that says he was released. Instead, he was being held pursuant to a contract with ICE.

    The guy can be produced for his hearing. If he were released by El Salvador into the general population, I concede it would be more difficult.

    Appalled (f0dcf0)

  31. Every administration this century, and probably before, has let this problem grow.

    “Improper entry by an alien” wasn’t a crime until 1952.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  32. So he was supposed to be deported and was a MS-13 gangbanger. The dispute is where to deport him to as he was sent to a place that doesn’t treat MS-13 gangbangers well.

    That about cover it?

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  33. What do you do when their own country won’t receive them? Take over Greenland and release them there?

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 4/1/2025 @ 9:16 am

    Guantanamo Bay, but apparently that is too expensive.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  34. It is still on the government to prove that he was in fact a member of MS-13 in court. Simply making the allegation is not enough.

    Sam G (6936cd)

  35. “So he was supposed to be deported and was a MS-13 gangbanger. ”

    He was neither, see post 22

    Davethulhu (14e9e4)

  36. When a jew kills an German, it’s sad crime. When the state decides that a certain group of people, based on their appearance, will be shipped to a concentration camp is coopting the citizens of said country into participants in their countries actions.

    Again, if you can’t be bothered to care about the laws and constitution of our country because this guy is problematic, indicates that you don’t really care about the law and constitution. When it’s hard is precisely where we were different, and better, than other countries.

    It’s why America was the the shining city on the hill. Now, at least according to MAGAts, American is a crap whole that everyone is taking advantage of, dirty slum at the bottom of the hill.

    That the dollar was the global reserve currency ensured the US was at the top of the pyramid, but these morons are trying really hard to tank the dollar as much as is possible.

    Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a)

  37. hole

    Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a)

  38. What do you do when their own country won’t receive them? Take over Greenland and release them there?

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 4/1/2025 @ 9:16 am

    If they convert to Judaism, Israel has to take them under its Basic Law.

    Displaced persons and refugees who no longer have a country are not some new calamity.

    Nations with a conscience, America maybe the foremost, have found ways to help them and accommodate them for centuries.

    nk (1538c2)

  39. > It is still on the government to prove that he was in fact a member of MS-13 in court. Simply making the allegation is not enough.

    Precisely this.

    And the fact that the government now believes that making the allegation is enough — and a large chunk of the population supports them in this — means that *nobody* is safe. The government can simply make an allegation and *boom* that’s enough.

    aphrael (380fc1)

  40. @35

    “So he was supposed to be deported and was a MS-13 gangbanger. ”

    He was neither, see post 22

    Davethulhu (14e9e4) — 4/1/2025 @ 10:04 am

    The man is an illegal migrant from El Salvador. In 2019, ICE presented sufficient evidence that he was a member of the MS-13 gang for an immigration judge to deny him bond and order his removal.

    He then filed an asylum claim and obtained a withholding of removal order under the convention against torture.

    Arguments could be made, as nk did, that it was a mistake to send him back to El Salvador per his asylum claim.

    It is likely a mistake.

    But this isn’t just a case that it was based on an allegation*.

    Remember, he claimed asylum by saying he was in a gang and other gangs at home torture each other.

    whembly (b7cc46)

  41. If i’m honest, i’m more concerned with the part of the court filing which argues that, once someone has been dispatched to CECOT — even if it was done by mistake — no court has jurisdiction to hear the case.

    They make a “mistake” and send you to CECOT, and then there is *nothing anyone can do about it*.

    aphrael (380fc1)

  42. “In 2019, ICE presented sufficient evidence that he was a member of the MS-13 gang for an immigration judge to deny him bond and order his removal.”

    The evidence turned out to be bullsh*t.

    “Remember, he claimed asylum by saying he was in a gang and other gangs at home torture each other.”

    No he didn’t. I’m begging you to read Patterico’s twitter link. https://x.com/Patterico/status/1907089717637652692

    Davethulhu (14e9e4)

  43. Precisely this.

    And the fact that the government now believes that making the allegation is enough — and a large chunk of the population supports them in this — means that *nobody* is safe. The government can simply make an allegation and *boom* that’s enough.

    aphrael (380fc1) — 4/1/2025 @ 10:27 am

    Pffft.

    If you entered the country illegally, what section of immigration law says you only get deported if you’re MS-13? Cut the crap.

    lloyd (dc390f)

  44. They make a “mistake” and send you to CECOT, and then there is *nothing anyone can do about it*.

    The German judicial system had no jurisdiction over the concentration camps either including the ones inside Germany and Austria.

    nk (1538c2)

  45. Davethulhu (14e9e4) — 4/1/2025 @ 11:18 am

    lmao

    I’ll call your bluff. If the government proved to your satisfaction that he was MS-13, this wouldn’t make a difference to you.

    You spent the past four years knowing that Ms-13 and TdA were being let in and all the while you just sat on your hands. You don’t have a solution to the problem, because you don’t see it as a problem to begin with.

    lloyd (dc390f)

  46. @42

    No he didn’t. I’m begging you to read Patterico’s twitter link. https://x.com/Patterico/status/1907089717637652692

    Davethulhu (14e9e4) — 4/1/2025 @ 11:18 am

    Okay, I’ve caught up. Thanks for that.

    I don’t know what to think.

    I’m thinking we don’t have all the facts either, and this administration is at the very least doing a poor job of communicating here.

    whembly (b7cc46)

  47. “Improper entry by an alien” wasn’t a crime until 1952.

    Let those who entered before then argue that. It didn’t have much weight in the Eisenhower administration, so why should it now?

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  48. @44 It took 44 comments to get to a Holocaust analogy? Do better, folks.

    lloyd (dc390f)

  49. He then filed an asylum claim and obtained a withholding of removal order under the convention against torture.

    Not according to the link Dave provided at 9:10.

    The order, on the last page, states that he was denied his claim under Convention Against Torture. He was also denied asylum because he raised no such claim for the 7 years he had been in the US prior to getting caught in 2019. He did receive the withholding order based on INS 241(b)(3).

    BuDuh (7511a1)

  50. @49

    Not according to the link Dave provided at 9:10.

    The order, on the last page, states that he was denied his claim under Convention Against Torture. He was also denied asylum because he raised no such claim for the 7 years he had been in the US prior to getting caught in 2019. He did receive the withholding order based on INS 241(b)(3).

    BuDuh (7511a1) — 4/1/2025 @ 11:31 am

    INS 241(b)(3)(i)

    INA § 241(b)
    (3) Restriction on removal to a country where alien’s life or freedom would be threatened

    (A) In general
    Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), the Attorney General may not remove an alien to a country if the Attorney General decides that the alien’s life or freedom would be threatened in that country because of the alien’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion,

    (B) Exception
    Subparagraph (A) does not apply to an alien if the Attorney General determines that–
    (i) the alien ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion;

    Seems like all it would take is from AG Bondi to determine if his fear of torture is reasonable.

    whembly (b7cc46)

  51. …INA 241(b)(3)

    BuDuh (7511a1)

  52. You fixed my “INS.” Thank you, Whembly.

    BuDuh (7511a1)

  53. have found ways to help them and accommodate them for centuries.

    Like the Mariel boatlift?

    We did allow mass immigration from Europe until the 1930s (but not from Asia) as we had all that Indian land to fill up with white people. I guess you could call that compassion, despite people like James Blaine who didn’t consider Catholics and Jews to be white people.

    Even then, there were some real physical and financial barriers to immigration until recently. But once cheap air travel happened, all bets were off as half the world could arrive at our doorstep for a year’s savings.

    Where are we now? Shanytowns and displaced Americans on the street. Outrageous housing costs and unemployed tradesmen. Overwhelmed roads and social services. Ethnic enclaves that refuse assimilation. All due to forgetting why immigration needs limits.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  54. #40 —

    The nice thing about today’s court system is that it is very easy to look at the filings being made on a specific case. I would urge you to look at this one:

    https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.1.0.pdf

    This is Mr. Garcia’s story — per his attorney:

    On March 28, 2019, Plaintiff Abrego Garcia went to a Home Depot in Hyattsville, Maryland to solicit employment. When he arrived, he joined three other young men who were also at Home Depot soliciting employment, two of whom he recognized from prior occasions at the Home Depot, though he had never interacted with them in any other context. The young men proceeded to chat to pass the time.

    At 2:27 PM, while the four of them were chatting, a detective from the Hyattsville City Police approached the group. The detective did not speak to Plaintiff Abrego Garcia, but only one of the other men. Soon thereafter, officers from Prince George County Police Department (“PGPD”) arrived on the scene and proceeded to handcuff all four young men, including Plaintiff Abrego Garcia. At no point did police explain why they were arresting Plaintiff Abrego Garcia, nor was Plaintiff Abrego Garcia ever charged with any crime. This was Plaintiff Abrego Garcia’s first and only time in state custody.

    At the police station, the four young men were placed into different rooms and questioned. Plaintiff Abrego Garcia was asked if he was a gang member; when he told police he was not, they said that they did not believe him and repeatedly demanded that he provide
    information about other gang members. The police told Plaintiff Abrego Garcia that he would be released if he cooperated, but he repeatedly explained that he did not have any information to give because he did not know anything.

    Plaintiff Abrego Garcia was then transferred to another room and told that ICE officers would be coming to take him into federal immigration custody. Eventually, ICE officers arrived and took Plaintiff Abrego Garcia into detention.

    On April 24, 2019, Plaintiff Abrego Garcia appeared for his first hearing in immigration court. Through counsel, he moved for release on bond pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), submitting over seventy pages of evidence in support thereof. ICE opposed a change in custody status, arguing that Plaintiff Abrego Garcia presented a danger to the community because local police had supposedly “verified” that he is an active gang member.

    In support thereof, ICE offered a Gang Field Interview Sheet (“GFIS”) generated by PGPD. The GFIS explained that the only reason to believe Plaintiff Abrego Garcia was a gang member was that he was wearing a Chicago Bulls hat and a hoodie; and that a confidential
    informant advised that he was an active member of MS-13 with the Westerns clique. The GFIS had been entered into PGPD’s database at 6:47 PM, approximately four hours after police met Plaintiff Abrego Garcia for the first time.

    According to the Department of Justice and the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office, the “Westerns” clique operates in Brentwood, Long Island, in New York, a state that Plaintiff Abrego Garcia has never lived in. 33. The attorney for Plaintiff Abrego Garcia subsequently made multiple attempts to obtain additional information from law enforcement concerning these allegations. PGPD indicated that it did not have any incident report related to the Home Deport episode at all, nor did the Department have any incident reports containing his name. The Hyattsville City Police Department (“HCPD”), on the other hand, confirmed it had an incident report for the Home Depot incident, but that only 3 people were named and Plaintiff Abrego Garcia was not one of them, nor did it have any other incident reports with his name in its database. His attorney also contacted the PGPD Inspector General requesting to speak to the detective who authored the GFIS sheet, but was informed that the detective had been suspended. A request to speak to other officers in the Gang Unit was declined.

    Plaintiff Abrego Garcia then filed an I-589 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture with the Baltimore Immigration Court and was scheduled for an individual hearing. His individual hearing spanned over two days: August 9, 2019, and September 27, 2019. In advance of his hearing, Plaintiff Abrego Garcia, through counsel, filed a motion for a subpoena to require the appearance of two PGPD detectives, and any evidence substantiating his alleged gang membership.

    On August 9, 2019, the attorney for ICE indicated on the record that ICE had conferred with its law enforcement partners and that all the evidence and intelligence they had was what was contained in the GFIS. As a result, a subpoena was deemed unnecessary.

    tl;dr? An informant fingered Garcia as a member of a gang that was active in New York (rather than Maryland) and Garcia was wearing a Chicago Bulls hat and a hoodie. The officer who made that determination was later suspended. I wonder what our landlord would think of taking an action based on that evidence.

    Apparently this info was submitted as part of the asylum claim, but the claim decision itself does not evaluate the strength or weakness of that evidence.

    Appalled (f0dcf0)

  55. It is still on the government to prove that he was in fact a member of MS-13 in court. Simply making the allegation is not enough.

    They did prove it, and got a removal order. Do they need to prove it again? Anyone who asserts that the process needs to be ponderous is just throwing up obstruction.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  56. Apparently this info was submitted as part of the asylum claim, but the claim decision itself does not evaluate the strength or weakness of that evidence.

    The man’s attorney’s argument is not “information”, it’s simply an argument.

    tl;dr? Don’t come here illegally.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  57. Kevin M –

    The immigration judiciary did not rule on whether Garcia was part of MI-13. They did deny bond because they suspected he was. (Lesson — Don’t go to Home Depot wearing a hoodie)

    Appalled (f0dcf0)

  58. The officer who made that determination was later suspended.

    Charles McGonigal?

    BuDuh (7511a1)

  59. Anyone who asserts that the process needs to be ponderous is just throwing up obstruction.
    Kevin M (a9545f) — 4/1/2025 @ 11:47 am

    100% spot on.

    lloyd (dc390f)

  60. If they convert to Judaism, Israel has to take them under its Basic Law.

    Not as easy as you might think. A conversion process that would be acceptable to the Israeli Interior Ministry would probably take longer than any time they spend in Fortress Bukele. And it would require oversight by a group of rabbis who are opposed to conversions of convenience even when the prospective convert is a patrilineal Jew alreadly living in Israel, never meind a gangbanger from abroad.

    [Waves hello to everyone]

    kishnevi (0c10d1)

  61. The sequence of even seems to be:

    He was detained in March 2019 and charged with removability. Garcia is a “native and citizen” of El Salvador. He crossed the border illegally in 2012, and was thus already removable – totally independently of whether he was in MS-13.

    The finding that he was a member of MS-13 only came up because he asked for bond. The immigration judge reviewed the evidence and found that it “showed he is a verified member of MS-13.” and therefore that Garcia did not demonstrate “that his release from custody would not pose a danger to others.”

    The Immigration Judge also found that Garcia was a flight risk, noting his “history of failing to appear for proceedings pertaining to his traffic violations.” Thus, on two independent grounds, the judge denied his bond.

    Garcia appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which affirmed the immigration judge’s findings on dangerousness, and thus dismissed the appeal.

    Fast forward what looks about to be 6 months(?), Garcia and his attorney engaged with a new tactic. Instead of challenging the finding of removability, Garcia filed a new claim for:
    1) asylum
    2) withholding of removal to El Salvador per INA 241(b)(3)
    3) protection under Article 3 of the Convention against Torture.

    We have to remember the situation that Garcia is in. He is facing imminent removal, given the ruling of the first immigration judge. He has two brothers who have green cards. His fiancé is a citizen, and has just given birth to his child. He clearly wants to stay.

    And so, at this hearing applying for asylum, he testifies that he fears returning to El Salvador because the 18th Street Gang “was targeting him and threatening him with death because of his family’s pupusa business.”

    He argued that the gang was extorting his mother, Cecilia. That they threatened to kill him. Of course, they never reported anything to the police. Still, he fears for his life eight years later, he testified – even though the family had closed down the pupusa business.

    Despite the convenience of Garcia’s claims which at this point is being made eight years after the fact, when facing imminent removal, and despite the lack of corroborating evidence beyond affidavits from his family, unless I’m missing something here, the new immigration judge found Garcia’s account “credible.”

    Even after this finding, the new immigration judge didn’t grant Garcia’s asylum claim. That was obviously time-barred. He still doesn’t have legal status at that point.

    However, Garcia was granted a withholding of removal to El Salvador. Which, again is not a legal right to stay in the United States – only a legal right to not be removed to one specific country.

    Any “not-El Salvador” country would be sufficient.

    So, to recap, it appears that Garcia faced 2 immigration courts and 1 board of immigration appeals hearing.

    That seems like quite a bit of “due process’ing” there… right?

    whembly (b7cc46)

  62. @61

    He was detained in March 2019 and charged with removability. Garcia is a “native and citizen” of El Salvador. He crossed the border illegally in 2012, and was thus already removable – totally independently of whether he was in MS-13.

    Exactly.

    lloyd (dc390f)

  63. #61

    And where did he go? — El Salvador. And the USA is paying to keep him in jail. (Why?)

    Oopsie. LOL.

    Appalled (f0dcf0)

  64. whembly (b7cc46) — 4/1/2025 @ 12:18 pm

    Excellent summary, whembly.

    lloyd (dc390f)

  65. @63 Appalled, where should he go? Or, do you just want to stand around sipping your slurpee?

    lloyd (dc390f)

  66. Apparently he had over 5 years to self deport to a safe country rather than staying illegally in this country while hoping a mistake would not be made in a forced removal that he knew was coming.

    Talk about an oopsie.

    BuDuh (3c18d4)

  67. #65

    As I understand his facts, anywhere except El Salvador.

    #66

    I think that’s called blaming the victim. In any event, the guy wasn’t just sent to El Salvador, but plopped into a notorious prison in El Salvador. There is a difference, y’know?

    #61 — thanks for the summary of facts. You’ve done better than 99% of the media on these stories based on legal filings. The conclusion is more than a little Kafka for my taste, but unlike some other Trump stuff, there is a lot of room for reasonable agreement.

    Appalled (f0dcf0)

  68. Every administration this century, and probably before, has let this problem grow.
    ………
    Kevin M (a9545f) — 4/1/2025 @ 9:28 am
    _________________
    “Improper entry by an alien” wasn’t a crime until 1952.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 4/1/2025 @ 9:41 am
    _________________

    “Improper entry by an alien” wasn’t a crime until 1952.

    Let those who entered before then argue that. It didn’t have much weight in the Eisenhower administration, so why should it now?

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 4/1/2025 @ 11:25 am

    The point being, of course, was that for 163 years there was no such crime as “improper entry” into the United States. It’s a very recent (73 years) idea. Whatever the Eisenhower administration thought is irrelevant.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  69. Y’all are seriously just fine with the idea that the administration can (a) ignore a court order to (b) dispatch someone to an overseas torture camp that it is paying to hold its deportees and then claim that (c) no US court has jurisdiction to fix the situation?

    this is not a power that this administration — ANY administration — should have.

    it is completely inconsistent with both the rule of law *and* any concept of individual freedom; it grants the administration sole power to decide the status of *any person*, at its discretion, with no review.

    aphrael (380fc1)

  70. Y’all are seriously just fine with the idea that the administration can (a) ignore a court order to (b) dispatch someone to an overseas torture camp that it is paying to hold its deportees and then claim that (c) no US court has jurisdiction to fix the situation?

    I am not fine with that.

    Are you fine with willfully ignoring a deportation order?

    BuDuh (3c18d4)

  71. aphrael (380fc1) — 4/1/2025 @ 12:43 pm

    Why don’t you just answer whembly’s question. I’ll repeat it for you:

    Any “not-El Salvador” country would be sufficient.

    So, to recap, it appears that Garcia faced 2 immigration courts and 1 board of immigration appeals hearing.

    That seems like quite a bit of “due process’ing” there… right?

    whembly (b7cc46) — 4/1/2025 @ 12:18 pm

    Would it have been ok to send him to Mexico? Or, where?

    lloyd (dc390f)

  72. @69 nice!

    Y’all are seriously just fine with the idea that the administration can (a) ignore a court order to (b) dispatch someone to an overseas torture camp that it is paying to hold its deportees and then claim that (c) no US court has jurisdiction to fix the situation?

    this is not a power that this administration — ANY administration — should have.

    it is completely inconsistent with both the rule of law *and* any concept of individual freedom; it grants the administration sole power to decide the status of *any person*, at its discretion, with no review.

    aphrael (380fc1) — 4/1/2025 @ 12:43 pm

    I’m of 2 minds here:

    1) Garcia did get at least 3 hearings on his status. The issue, is the protective order sending him back to Garcia. Would you be fine if they sent Garcia to Honduras instead?

    2) I can’t remember if we discussed this, but if you felt strongly about:

    it is completely inconsistent with both the rule of law *and* any concept of individual freedom; it grants the administration sole power to decide the status of *any person*, at its discretion, with no review.

    Then you should have problems with Obama’s extrajudicial droning of American citizens.

    whembly (b7cc46)

  73. > I am not fine with that.

    And yet you’re defending it.

    aphrael (380fc1)

  74. > Would it have been ok to send him to Mexico? Or, where?

    In this case, sending him to a country other then El Salvador would have preserved the rule of law.

    I think the process here — where the government alleged that he was a gang member based on an informant who claimed he was active in a state he’d never been in, combined with a popular sports tattoo and clothing, and then *he* was required to prove that he wasn’t a gang member — is busted, but it’s at least *process*.

    aphrael (380fc1)

  75. I am absolutely not defending that.

    BuDuh (3c18d4)

  76. > Then you should have problems with Obama’s extrajudicial droning of American citizens.

    I absolutely did.

    aphrael (380fc1)

  77. Where in your version of “rule of law” fit in regarding his 2019 order of removal, aphrael?

    Just disregard those laws?

    BuDuh (3c18d4)

  78. And i’ll circle back to — if the administration can yeet someone into a foreign torture camp in violation of a court order, and the the person so yeeted has *no process whatsoever* to undo the act, no person residing in the United States is safe from arbitrary abuse of power.

    This kind of thing is *precisely* the reason behind the Habeas Act of 1679. But look, here’s a loophole: pay a foreign country to detain people who we want to detain in violation of our laws, and then nobody can do anything about it.

    aphrael (380fc1)

  79. > Where in your version of “rule of law” fit in regarding his 2019 order of removal, aphrael?

    It was effectively stayed by a court order. That court order is binding on the administration.

    aphrael (380fc1)

  80. @76

    > Then you should have problems with Obama’s extrajudicial droning of American citizens.

    I absolutely did.

    aphrael (380fc1) — 4/1/2025 @ 12:57 pm

    Right on.
    🤜🤛

    whembly (b7cc46)

  81. > NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right

    This has been part of Anglo-American law since the *thirteenth century*.

    But I guess it no longer applies.

    aphrael (380fc1)

  82. Sent him back to his home country.

    His asylum claim was obviously given to him by his lawyer.

    NJRob (4673d8)

  83. It was effectively stayed by a court order.

    I am looking for that quote. All I can find is an order that he should not have been returned to El Salvador and possibly Guatemala. Dave posted that above at 9:10. I don’t see anything that allowed him to stay in the US.

    My question stands, unless you can show me that he had no deportation order whatsoever.

    I am open to learning.

    BuDuh (3c18d4)

  84. The point being, of course, was that for 163 years there was no such crime as “improper entry” into the United States. It’s a very recent (73 years) idea. Whatever the Eisenhower administration thought is irrelevant.

    The point being that, for 163 years, international travel was difficult to impossible for most of the world’s population. Immigration limits are there to prevent being overwhelmed, as we can see by what happened when the limits were ignored.

    Easy travel required different rules.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  85. Are you fine with willfully ignoring a deportation order?

    And is everyone fine with presidents “waiving” laws they find inconvenient, to the point of ignoring them? We hear now about Trump and impoundment, but the 20 million who entered illegally since the end of the last amnesty is several orders of magnitude more a problem than not paying for some niche group’s niche program.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  86. Then you should have problems with Obama’s extrajudicial droning of American citizens.

    They were enemy combatants. Play stupid games….

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  87. The point being that, for 163 years, international travel was difficult to impossible for most of the world’s population.

    Not from Mexico.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  88. The point being that, for 163 years, international travel was difficult to impossible for most of the world’s population.

    Not from Mexico.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 4/1/2025 @ 1:29 pm

    Or Canada.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  89. The point being that, for 163 years, international travel was difficult to impossible for most of the world’s population.

    It still is.

    And large population movements on more or less safe ships became possible in the late 1800s.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  90. whembly (b7cc46) — 4/1/2025 @ 12:53 pm

    Obama’s extrajudicial droning of American citizens.

    That was in a war zone.

    Although they didn’t really offer him an opportunity to surrender.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  91. “My question stands, unless you can show me that he had no deportation order whatsoever.”

    Here’s what I’ve found: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.1.1.pdf

    Scroll to the bottom for the summary. Basically there were 3 prongs:

    1) Asylum – Denied
    2) Withholding of removal per INA 241(b)3) – Granted
    3) Withholding of removal per Convention Against Torture – Denied

    So he had a granted Withholding of Removal, which (I believe) means:

    Withholding of removal also does not offer permanent protection or a path to permanent residence. If conditions improve in a person’s home country, the government can revoke withholding of removal and again seek the person’s deportation. This can occur even years after a person is granted protection.

    Which means the person in question did not have a deportation order against him.

    Davethulhu (14e9e4)

  92. Kevin M (a9545f) — 4/1/2025 @ 1:25 pm

    but the 20 million who entered illegally since the end of the last amnesty is several orders of magnitude more a problem than not paying for some niche group’s niche program.

    It’s not a problem, except to a bureaucrat. They are a net benefit to the economy, especially because they ae illegal, and if they were somehow all deported it would create a recession.

    https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/democrats/2024/12/mass-deportations-would-deliver-a-catastrophic-blow-to-the-u-s-economy

    Depending on how many immigrants are deported, these mass deportations would:

    Reduce real gross domestic product (GDP) by as much as 7.4% by 2028,

    Reduce the supply of workers for key industries, including by up to 225,000 workers in agriculture and 1.5 million workers in construction,
    Push prices up to 9.1% higher by 2028, and
    Cost 44,000 U.S.-born workers their jobs for every half a million immigrants who are removed from the labor force.

    This is not just the Democrats. The Congressional Budget Office agrees.

    https://www.cbo.gov/publication/60569

    Cato Institute rebutttal of the FAI study on the economic effects;

    https://www.cato.org/blog/fairs-fiscal-burden-illegal-immigration-study-fatally-flawed

    The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) is devoted to reducing legal and illegal immigration. Its recent report, “The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers (2017)” by Matthew O’Brien, Spencer Raley, and Jack Martin, estimates that the net fiscal costs of illegal immigration to U.S. taxpayers is $116 billion. FAIR’s report reaches that conclusion by vastly overstating the costs of illegal immigration, undercounting the tax revenue they generate, inflating the number of illegal immigrants,

    Note: Since they count each one as a net cost and not a benefit. inflating the numbers raises the cost

    counting millions of U.S. citizens as illegal immigrants,

    Basically it’s a theory that holds that the fewer the people in a country the richer it is – more usually it is considered that a state or city that is losing population is getting poorer

    and by concocting a method of estimating the fiscal costs that is rejected by all economists who work on this subject.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  93. aphrael (380fc1) — 4/1/2025 @ 1:03 pm

    , or exiled,

    Till about 1880, there were no real restrictions on getting into a country.

    Even later.

    In 1905 Donald Trump’s grandfather was exiled from Bavaria, Germany.

    Our present international order really came into being with World War I.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  94. Conditions in El Salvador have gotten far worse for accused MS-13 gang members, but better for most other people.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  95. Let those who entered before then argue that. It didn’t have much weight in the Eisenhower administration, so why should it now?

    because if you’re using a law from 1798 about aliens, it might be important to know that the aliens that many of you were talking about were considered aliens in 1798 you see 2025 is after 1950 as well as 1978. of course, the key point is there are laws on the books today that tell you how this process supposed to work. All of you members of the bund want to ignore the law as it exist that you and your representatives have voted for for over 200 years just because 260 people were sent to a concentration camp and only some of them weren’t supposed to be. Oopsie, no big deal.

    We are literally paying for a lawless country to put American residence in a concentration camp that has no connection in any way to the countries that they are from or the country that is sending them there it is all no big deal.

    Colonel Klink (ret) (e809a6)

  96. the 18th Street Gang

    The other big gang in El Salvador. (also founded in Los Angeles and spread to El Salvador by deportees)

    At that time he did not face being put into prison without due process of law.

    He may have been conceding that he had some protection from MS-13.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  97. Our present international order really came into being with World War I.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 4/1/2025 @ 2:45 pm

    Hardly. After WW I all the major countries (with the exception of Germany) retained their colonial empires.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  98. whembly (b7cc46) — 4/1/2025 @ 11:35 am

    Seems like all it would take is from AG Bondi to determine if his fear of torture is reasonable.

    And that although his freedom was threatened it was not due to his race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, but for other unjustified reasons not covered by the law.

    There was something that covered suspension of removal.

    His wife could also have filed an extreme hardship claim, which is completely discretionary.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  99. Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 4/1/2025 @ 3:00 pm

    After WW I all the major countries (with the exception of Germany) retained their colonial empires.

    More fundamentally, they also required passports and visas to cross borders, and ships had to take back passengers not admitted.

    And basically restricted people to the country they were in.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  100. More fundamentally, they also required passports and visas to cross borders, and ships had to take back passengers not admitted.

    And basically restricted people to the country they were in.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 4/1/2025 @ 3:10 pm

    How does this jibe with your comment:

    Our present international order really came into being with World War I.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 4/1/2025 @ 2:45 pm

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  101. Kevin M (a9545f) — 4/1/2025 @ 11:41 am

    We did allow mass immigration from Europe until the 1930s

    Until July 1, 1921 with numbers further restricted on July 1, 1924. From July 1, 1921 to July 1,1924 immigrants from certain countriess were admitted on a monthly basis with ships racing to arrive at the first of the month but not earlier.

    There were no quota restrictions on immigration from independent countries in the western hemisphere until July 1, 1968. But colonies had very limited quotas. There was much legal immigration from Jamaica between 1962 and 1968.

    Till July 1, 1968 there was no practical restriction on immigration from Ireland because the quota was high (based on the 1910 in 1921 and then after July 1, 1924 the 1890 Census)

    A lot of effort by Senator Ted Kennedy went into trying to make immigration from Ireland legal again after 1968. Or helping the “illegal Irish.”

    Clergy were outside the quota system as of 1927.

    As of 1929 country of both was substituted for country of citizenship.

    Marriage has always been outside the quota system.

    (but not from Asia) as we had all that Indian land to fill up with white people. I guess you could call that compassion, despite people like James Blaine who didn’t consider Catholics and Jews to be white people.

    Even then, there were some real physical and financial barriers to immigration until recently. But once cheap air travel happened, all bets were off as half the world could arrive at our doorstep for a year’s savings.

    Where are we now? Shanytowns and displaced Americans on the street. Outrageous housing costs and unemployed tradesmen. Overwhelmed roads and social services. Ethnic enclaves that refuse assimilation. All due to forgetting why immigration needs limits.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  102. but not from Asia)

    As of 1882. Later during World War II a very small quota was created for China.

    People falsely claimed to have been sons of American citizens born abroad. “Paper sons”

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  103. Shooter in walmart 2019 shooting that killed 23 says trump he thought wanted him to get rid of illegals in country. (DU)

    asset (76af0f)

  104. Thanks Dave. Where did your quote on the meaning of a withholding order come from?

    Something I find interesting is the document dates regarding his contact with the immigration courts.

    First is the April 29th, 2019 order that denied bond and found him to be deportable as well as dangerous.

    Second is the <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.1.1.pdf&quot; August 9 and September 27, 2019 INA 241 (b)(3) order.

    And lastly is the December 19, 2019 failed appeal of his April 29 unfavorable to him ruling.

    The last filing, if the date is correct, suggests that he should have still been held with no bond. The appeals court reviewed the initial court’s findings and concluded that there was no error in finding him dangerous. Due process I would think.

    How was he released? Is there another later document/ruling that says something to the effect of “he was found to be a danger to the US while here illegally and he was found to be in danger in his home country, so let’s drop him off at Home Depot.”

    BuDuh (3c18d4)

  105. …. Second is the August 9 and September 27, 2019 INA 241 (b)(3) order….

    BuDuh (3c18d4)

  106. Cato Institute rebutttal of the FAI study on the economic effects;

    CATO does not admit that borders are real

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  107. Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 4/1/2025 @ 1:30 pm

    Thank you Captain Obvious. Sheesh. I made that distinction several times previously.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  108. It still is.

    And large population movements on more or less safe ships became possible in the late 1800s.

    Most of the world’s population (everyone in the first or second world, anyway) can save up for airfare, and if that was all they had to do we’d have 50 million people showing up every year.

    Ship travel in 1880 was rather more expensive (even in steerage) as a proportion of earnings than plane travel is today. You can fly from Europe to NYC for less than $600. You can fly from Mumbai to LAX for less than $700. One way. The average pay in Mumbai is over $24K/year. It’s no barrier whatsoever.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  109. And large population movements on more or less safe ships became possible in the late 1800s.

    I notice that in the TV series 1923, 3rd class passage was referred to unofficially as “thieves and beggars” class. And, of course, no lifeboats.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  110. Just a thought.

    To make this right, perhaps the US could request El Salvador extradite Mr. Abrego Garcia back to the US. The internet indicates we have an extradition treaty with El Salvador.

    Alternatively, maybe there is something in the agreement between the US and El Salvador that enabled the deportations.

    DRJ (a84ee2)

  111. Under extradition, I believe the person returned would not be freed immediately but would have to face any pending immigration and criminal charges. Maybe that would satisfy the MAGA faithful

    DRJ (a84ee2)

  112. I don’t think the judicial branch can order the executive branch to extradite someone, although maybe it can if it involves a due process violation. But I think the courts can find government officials in civil or criminal contempt until extradition or removal/return proceedings are initiated.

    DRJ (a84ee2)

Leave a Reply


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1147 secs.