Trump's Concentration Camp

[1032004]

9 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

We’re paying for the service of housing criminals.  The further away from America the better. 

Well the Supreme Court said one of them shouldn’t be there.  You got a problem with the Supreme Court?

[JimmySpeaks]

4 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Well the Supreme Court said one of them shouldn’t be there.  You got a problem with the Supreme Court?

That has nothing to do with us paying them to house prisoners 

[JimmySpeaks]

His own President said he’s a terrorist and they don’t want him let out into their population.   

[Bigbrog]

30 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Well then we could stop paying them.  But obviously we won’t because the administration doesn’t want them to explain anything.  

Us paying them is also why they should willingly send him back if that’s what the Supreme Court says we should try to do which it is.   I can’t think of any reason why they wouldn’t send him back here if we asked, that’s one less person they have to deal with. 
 

Care to again say what the Supreme Court ruling said??  I bet it doesn't say what you think it says.

[1032004]

15 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

That has nothing to do with us paying them to house prisoners 

It does.  The Supreme Court said he shouldn’t be there, and we need to try to “facilitate his return.”  Considering we’re paying them, that should be easy peasy.

12 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

His own President said he’s a terrorist and they don’t want him let out into their population.   

Cool, good thing the Supreme Court wants him back here and not in El Salvador.

Edited April 17 by 1032004

[1032004]

7 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

Care to again say what the Supreme Court ruling said??  I bet it doesn't say what you think it says.

I’ll quote if for you.  Are you arguing that “facilitate” doesn’t mean try?

 

On Friday, April 4, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland entered an order directing the Government to “facilitate and effectuate the return of [Abrego Garcia] to the United States by no later than 11:59 PM on Monday, April 7.” On the morning of April 7, the United States filed this application to vacate the District Court’s order.  The Chief Justiceentered an administrative stay  and subsequently referred the application to the Court.

 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 order 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. The intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs. For its part, the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps. 

[JimmySpeaks]

7 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

It does.  The Supreme Court said he shouldn’t be there, and we need to try to “facilitate his return.”  Considering we’re paying them, that should be easy peasy.

Cool, good thing the Supreme Court wants him back here and not in El Salvador.

No because our supreme court has no control over what they do. Their President is on record saying he’s not releasing a terrorist at home or anywhere. Case closed. 

Edited April 17 by JimmySpeaks

[1032004]

1 minute ago, JimmySpeaks said:

No because our supreme court has no control over what they do 

But the Supreme Court has control over what Trump does (or should at least).

And Trump has control over what El Salvador does with the prisoners we pay them to house.

[Caveira]

2 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

But the Supreme Court has control over what Trump does (or should at least).

And Trump has control over what El Salvador does with the prisoners we pay them to house.

The Supreme Court can’t force the president to force another country to do something they don’t want to do. 

[JimmySpeaks]

Just now, 1032004 said:

But the Supreme Court has control over what Trump does (or should at least).

And Trump has control over what El Salvador does with the prisoners we pay them to house.

Again, we’re paying to keep murderers and rapists away from America.   Your solution is to bring them all back here?  Brilliant. 

[Bigbrog]

1 minute ago, 1032004 said:

I’ll quote if for you.  Are you arguing that “facilitate” doesn’t mean try?

 

 

On Friday, April 4, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland entered an order directing the Government to “facilitate and effectuate the return of [Abrego Garcia] to the United States by no later than 11:59 PM on Monday, April 7.” On the morning of April 7, the United States filed this application to vacate the District Court’s order.  The Chief Justiceentered an administrative stay  and subsequently referred the application to the Court.

 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 order 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. The intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs. For its part, the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps. 

  How hard is it to understand what "help facilitate the release from prison" means.  You keep spewing the left's MSM's rhetoric and it isn't true.  If the SCOTUS wanted the US to "facilitate his return to the US" they would have said that they uphold the district court's ruling, but they didn't.   Funny part is what you posted says exactly what I am saying but you refuse to read it that way. 

Let's start here...how do you interpret this to mean (from what you posted)..."The intended scope of the term "effectuate" in the District Court's order is, however, unclear and may exceed the District Court's authority."   It even goes on to say that the government should be prepared to share WHAT IT CAN concerning the steps it has taken....   Again, tell us what you think that means....

[Caveira]

5 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

  How hard is it to understand what "help facilitate the release from prison" means.  You keep spewing the left's MSM's rhetoric and it isn't true.  If the SCOTUS wanted the US to "facilitate his return to the US" they would have said that they uphold the district court's ruling, but they didn't.   Funny part is what you posted says exactly what I am saying but you refuse to read it that way. 

Let's start here...how do you interpret this to mean (from what you posted)..."The intended scope of the term "effectuate" in the District Court's order is, however, unclear and may exceed the District Court's authority."   It even goes on to say that the government should be prepared to share WHAT IT CAN concerning the steps it has taken....   Again, tell us what you think that means....

I got two turn tables and a microphone.  

[1032004]

7 minutes ago, Caveira said:

The Supreme Court can’t force the president to force another country to do something they don’t want to do. 

Not force.  Ask.

[Caveira]

1 minute ago, 1032004 said:

Not force.  Ask.

I saw him ask on tv didn’t I.   The El Salvador president doesn’t want to release what he considers to be a terrorist.   Case closed.  

[Bigbrog]

2 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Not force.  Ask.

impeach Trump because he didn't ask nicely  

[1032004]

6 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

  How hard is it to understand what "help facilitate the release from prison" means.  You keep spewing the left's MSM's rhetoric and it isn't true.  If the SCOTUS wanted the US to "facilitate his return to the US" they would have said that they uphold the district court's ruling, but they didn't.   Funny part is what you posted says exactly what I am saying but you refuse to read it that way. 

Let's start here...how do you interpret this to mean (from what you posted)..."The intended scope of the term "effectuate" in the District Court's order is, however, unclear and may exceed the District Court's authority."   It even goes on to say that the government should be prepared to share WHAT IT CAN concerning the steps it has taken....   Again, tell us what you think that means....

I can read just fine.  They’re not requiring that they succeed in getting him back (effectuate), but they’re requiring them to try (facilitate).

So far all I’m aware of them doing is offering a plane.  But when Bukele was asked (by a media member) if he would send him back, he went into some nonsense about “smuggling him into the US.”  Except it wouldn’t be smuggling since the US already offered a plane…

[1032004]

1 minute ago, Caveira said:

I saw him ask on tv didn’t I.   The El Salvador president doesn’t want to release what he considers to be a terrorist.   Case closed.  

He didn’t.  That was a media member.  

1 minute ago, Bigbrog said:

impeach Trump because he didn't ask nicely  

Well he does say he’s a master deal maker right?  If he can’t get the President of a country he’s paying to house prisoners to send back one of the prisoners, at no expense to them and would thus result in less costs, then he may not be as good at making deals as we thought.

[Caveira]

Just now, 1032004 said:

He didn’t.  That was a media member.  

Well he does say he’s a master deal maker right?  If he can’t get the President of a country he’s paying to house prisoners to send back one of the prisoners, at no expense to them and would thus result in less costs, then he may not be as good at making deals as we thought.

A) you don’t know he didn’t ask in private.  
 

B) he doesn’t care to push harder because he thinks he’s a terrorist gang member.  

 

He complied with the order.  Case closed.   You want him to comply “more”.  He doesn’t want to.    

 

[Scouts Honor]

1 hour ago, 1032004 said:

They were extorting his family’s business.  In El Salvador.  So they knew where to find him there.  A lot harder to find him in the US, and if they did want to find him, him being granted asylum wouldn’t have really helped him.  Probably would have just made it easier to find him TBH

so what happened to his family

someone in this thread said he was brave

he left them there to the whims of the rival gang.

[Bigbrog]

Just now, 1032004 said:

I can read just fine.  They’re not requiring that they succeed in getting him back (effectuate), but they’re requiring them to try (facilitate).

So far all I’m aware of them doing is offering a plane.  But when Bukele was asked (by a media member) if he would send him back, he went into some nonsense about “smuggling him into the US.”  Except it wouldn’t be smuggling since the US already offered a plane…

LOL...SCOTUS is requiring the US to TRY and facilitate HIS RELEASE from prison....and you finally admit the SCOTUS doesn't say we have to return him.

And now you are holding Bukele to abide by the US district courts??  The SCOTUS specifically says that the District Court has no standing to have any say in foreign affairs.  And what do you disagree with about what Bukele said?  

 

[Scouts Honor]

31 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

It does.  The Supreme Court said he shouldn’t be there, and we need to try to “facilitate his return.”  Considering we’re paying them, that should be easy peasy.

Cool, good thing the Supreme Court wants him back here and not in El Salvador.

i dont think they get to decide for another country 

[Bigbrog]

5 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

He didn’t.  That was a media member.  

Well he does say he’s a master deal maker right?  If he can’t get the President of a country he’s paying to house prisoners to send back one of the prisoners, at no expense to them and would thus result in less costs, then he may not be as good at making deals as we thought.

Trump doesn't want him back!!  What does that have to do with being a deal maker??  Sorry bud, but you are reaching so hard on this and are wrong at every turn.

[Scouts Honor]

5 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

Trump doesn't want him back!!  What does that have to do with being a deal maker??  Sorry bud, but you are reaching so hard on this and are wrong at every turn.

come on, you know he voted for trump

or so it's alleged 

[1032004]

16 minutes ago, Caveira said:

A) you don’t know he didn’t ask in private.  
 

B) he doesn’t care to push harder because he thinks he’s a terrorist gang member.  

 

He complied with the order.  Case closed.   You want him to comply “more”.  He doesn’t want to.    

 

He didn’t comply with the order.   What he “cares about” is irrelevant. Hopefully we’ll get another ruling from the Supreme Court to better define “facilitate.” 

The order also required them to provide updates as to what they were doing to facilitate it, and I believe all that’s been said is they said they would provide a plane.  If they asked then surely that would have been stated.  
 

[1032004]

16 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

LOL...SCOTUS is requiring the US to TRY and facilitate HIS RELEASE from prison....and you finally admit the SCOTUS doesn't say we have to return him.

And now you are holding Bukele to abide by the US district courts??  The SCOTUS specifically says that the District Court has no standing to have any say in foreign affairs.  And what do you disagree with about what Bukele said?  

 

I never said they had to get him back.  I said they had to try to get him back.

I also said considering we are paying Bukele, it should be easy to get him back if we simply asked.  There is no reason for Bukele to say no, it would be one less prisoner they’d have to deal with, and we offered a plane so it’s not like they’re just letting a “dangerous terrorist” go free.

I disagree with his ridiculous statement of “what do you want me to do, smuggle him into the US?”  We offered a plane, it wouldn’t be smuggling!