Is there any USMB member who believes all deported Tren de Aragua members be returned to the US?

[jc456]

As the SCOTUS pointed out yes they can apply for a habeas corpus hearing.

I like how you use "full blown trial" as scary words. No, not a "full blow trial" with a jury if that is what you mean. The habeas proceeding is before an Immigration Judge and simply provides that the defendant can provide evidence counter to the governments claims.

WW

In Texas. NY and NJ have no standing for them.

 

[WorldWatcher]

In Texas. NY and NJ have no standing for them.

I didn't say anything about location.

I have no idea what you are saying with NY and NJ having standing. This doesn't involve the states, it's between the individual and the Federal government either in Federal District Court or Federal Immigration Court.

WW

 

[jc456]

I didn't say anything about location.

I have no idea what you are saying with NY and NJ having standing. This doesn't involve the states, it's between the individual and the Federal government either in Federal District Court or Federal Immigration Court.

WW

it has to do with what brought about that comment.

 

[WorldWatcher]

it has to do with what brought about that comment.

You quoted me, and I didn't mention location.

WW

 

[jc456]

You quoted me, and I didn't mention location.

WW

you brought up the SCOTUS ruling by the posting the statement you made, and that was due to why they were involved. Just setting the boundaries. They can only do that in the state they are detained in.

 

[ReinyDays]

Trump deported almost 200 illegals along with Kilmar. All of them should have full blown trials?

Is that what the Law says? ... I've been involved in these types of hearings ... 100 a day easy ... if they are indeed members of this gang, then how hard is it to prove? ...

If they're here illegally, then Law says they must be deported to their country of origin, Venezula in these cases ... Trump imprisoned these folks, without trial ...

Bubba didn't finish Middle School if you think that lawful here ... God what an idiot ...

 

[WorldWatcher]

you brought up the SCOTUS ruling by the posting the statement you made, and that was due to why they were involved. Just setting the boundaries. They can only do that in the state they are detained in.

That is what the decision said. As I said, NY and NH (as state entities) have nothing to do with it.

WW

 

[Seymour Flops]

As the SCOTUS pointed out yes they can apply for a habeas corpus hearing.

I like how you use "full blown trial" as scary words. No, not a "full blow trial" with a jury if that is what you mean. The habeas proceeding is before an Immigration Judge and simply provides that the defendant can provide evidence counter to the governments claims.

WW

Kilmar already had that and democrats are not satisfied.

Rainy day said "trial," that is why I asked him about a trial. You seem to agree that a full blown trial for an obvious illegal alien would be a huge waste of time and money. But you insist on hearings?

Did the law allowing for expedited removal by immigration officers get repealed in between trump being elected and trump taking office? If not, what is the legal basis for your demand that those procedures not be used anymore?

 

[jc456]

That is what the decision said. As I said, NY and NH (as state entities) have nothing to do with it.

WW

it was NY and NJ not NH. And it was the move that sent it to SCOTUS. so please. stop embarrassing yourself.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Kilmar already had that and democrats are not satisfied.

Correct, and the Judge put on a deportation hold in 2019.

The Trump Administration could have still processed him for deportation by complying with 8 USC 1231 and then getting the hold lifted.

Rainy day said "trial," that is why I asked him about a trial. You seem to agree that a full blown trial for an obvious illegal alien would be a huge waste of time and money. But you insist on hearings?

Did the law allowing for expedited removal by immigration officers get repealed in between trump being elected and trump taking office? If not, what is the legal basis for your demand that those procedures not be used anymore?

Abrego Garcia doesn't fall under expedited removal. (A) his encounter was not at the border, (B) his encounter was not withing 100 miles of the border, (C) his encounter was not within the time frame requried, and (D) he applied for asylum meaning he was eligible for a hearing before an Immigration Judges. Which he had and the Judge put an immigration hold in place.

WW

 

[Seymour Flops]

Is that what the Law says? ... I've been involved in these types of hearings ... 100 a day easy ...

If that is ultimately what the Supreme Court rules must happen, then so be it.

My question for all who are calling for that is why now? Why not when Barack Obama was called the deporter in chief for his extensive use of expediter removal? Why not when Joe Biden saw the election approaching and decided to start deporting illegals as fast as he could using expedited removal? Did the law allowing expedited removal Somehow get repealed that nobody heard of?

if they are indeed members of this gang, then how hard is it to prove? ...

To "prove?" Almost impossible, given the secrecy and lack of record keeping by gangs. We should still be deporting. Illegal aliens, who are suspected gang members. They are illegal anyway, so they are not "innocent."

If they're here illegally, then Law says they must be deported to their country of origin,

Really? could you cite that law please?

Venezula in these cases ... Trump imprisoned these folks, without trial ...

Venezuala offer to take them when their own countries would not due to how dangerous they are.

 

[jc456]

Correct, and the Judge put on a deportation hold in 2019.

The Trump Administration could have still processed him for deportation by complying with 8 USC 1231 and then getting the hold lifted.

again, the judge had no standing to hold him. SCOTUS said that.

Abrego Garcia doesn't fall under expedited removal. (A) his encounter was not at the border,

he was illegally here. duh!

 

[WorldWatcher]

again, the judge had no standing to hold him. SCOTUS said that.

Judges don't have "standing". Judges have jurisdictions.

And yes, the Immigration Judge had jurisdiction in immigration cases to issue orders. Which is what happened in 2019.

he was illegally here. duh!

Actually he wasn't. He was here legally after his 2019 Asylum hearing on a Temporary Status and the Trump Administration gave him a work authorization.

To deport him the Trump Administration just needed to comply with 8 USC 1231. Locate a 3rd party country that agreed to take him, go back to the immigration judge, get the hold lifted, then deport him.

WW

 

[struth]

'Nazis got better treatment,' judge says of Trump administration's Alien Enemies Act deportations​

An appeals court heard arguments over the use of the Alien Enemies Act.

Trump administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act last week to deport more than 200 alleged members of a Venezuelan gang to El Salvador with no due process.

"There's no regulations, and nothing was adopted by the agency officials that were administering this. They people weren't given notice. They weren't told where they were going. They were given those people on those planes on that Saturday and had no opportunity to file habeas or any type of action to challenge the removal under the AEA," Judge Millet said. "What's factually wrong about what I said?"

"So your theory is that they don't get the challenges until they're in the Salvadorian jail?" the judge said. "Are you saying that they don't have a right, until they're removed from the United States, in U.S. custody, to challenge?"

"The problem here is that they are challenging implementation of a proclamation in a way that never gave anyone a chance to say, 'I'm not covered,'" the judge said.

"And if your argument is we didn't have to do that, it's an intrusion on the president's war powers, the courts are paralyzed to do anything ... that's a misreading of precedent, misreading of the text of the Alien Enemies Act," she said.

Judge Millett and Ensign appeared to agree on one thing: The president's actions have brought the court into "unprecedented territory."

"I think the intrusion upon the War Powers and foreign policy powers of the president is utterly unprecedented," Ensign argued.

"Well, this is an unprecedented action as well," Millet responded. "So of course, there's no precedent for it, because no president has ever used this statute this way, which isn't to say one way or the other if it can be done, but simply to say we are in unprecedented territory."

The hearing comes hours after Judge Boasberg ruled that the migrants deserved to have a court hearing before their deportations to determine whether they belonged to the Tren de Aragua gang.

In a ruling denying the Trump administration's request to dissolve his order blocking the deportations, Judge Boasberg wrote that Trump's "unprecedented use" of the Alien Enemies Act does not remove the government's responsibility to ensure the men removed could contest their designation as alleged gang members.

Trump last week invoked the Alien Enemies Act -- a wartime authority used to deport noncitizens with little-to-no due process -- by arguing that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua is a "hybrid criminal state" that is invading the United States. Boasberg temporarily blocked the president's use of the law to deport more than 200 alleged gang members to El Salvador, calling the removals "awfully frightening" and "incredibly troublesome."

An official with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement subsequently acknowledged in a sworn declaration that "many" of the noncitizens deported last week under the Alien Enemies Act did not have criminal records in the United States.

Wow that weirdo, radical judge was overturned quickly

 

[Delldude]

The habeas proceeding is before an Immigration Judge and simply provides that the defendant can provide evidence counter to the governments claims.

Should be a quick rubber stamp. Entering the country illegally should put the kibosh on that.

Abrego Garcia doesn't fall under expedited removal. (A) his encounter was not at the border, (B) his encounter was not withing 100 miles of the border, (C) his encounter was not within the time frame requried, and (D) he applied for asylum meaning he was eligible for a hearing before an Immigration Judges. Which he had and the Judge put an immigration hold in place.

I'm pretty sure he failed to apply for asylum before the time limit expired and was denied.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Should be a quick rubber stamp. Entering the country illegally should put the kibosh on that.

Agreed.

I'm pretty sure he failed to apply for asylum before the time limit expired and was denied.

Correct, but then you have to go to the next sentence where he was GRANTED a deportation hold

To deport him the Trump Administration just needed to comply with 8 USC 1231. Locate a 3rd party country that agreed to take him, go back to the immigration judge, get the hold lifted, then deport him.

WW
.
.
.

 

[Delldude]

Agreed.



Correct, but then you have to go to the next sentence where he was GRANTED a deportation hold

To deport him the Trump Administration just needed to comply with 8 USC 1231. Locate a 3rd party country that agreed to take him, go back to the immigration judge, get the hold lifted, then deport him.

WW
.
.
.

View attachment 1100307

He was denied asylum and will be deported.

 

[konradv]

In Texas. NY and NJ have no standing for them.

They have to respect each other’s rulings.

 

[WorldWatcher]

He was denied asylum and will be deported.

I have no doubt, the Trump Administration just needs to comply with 8 USC 1231. Locate a 3rd party country that agreed to take him, go back to the immigration judge, get the hold lifted, then deport him.

WW

 

[jc456]

They have to respect each other’s rulings.

nope