1032004

I’ve been trying to follow the updates, honestly didn’t even realize he was no longer there, thank you. So would that mean we are no longer paying for him to be imprisoned? It’s also curious that Bukele stated definitely he was a terrorist, yet released him from the “terrorist prison”? He also risked a Con Air-style escape by transferring him to a different prison, so then he shouldn’t be concerned about any escapes if being put on a plane to the US

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5252884-deportation-legal-battle/ “back in 2019, Abrego Garcia sought asylum and protection from removal from the U.S. on the basis that his life would be in danger if he was returned to El Salvador. The immigration judge denied the asylum claim because the time limits to make such a claim had expired. But he did indeed rule Abrego Garcia should not be deported to El Salvador.”

Abrego Garcia

And wasn’t it denied?

Withholding of removal isn’t asylum. Did the people in the link apply for asylum or withholding of removal?

How so?

Cool story, Abrego Garcia didn’t get asylum though so I don’t see the relevance?

Laird is an OK example, but he did get R12 in his last tournament at heavyweight, so not exactly a huge jump. And the year he got 6th the highest seed he beat was 12 and at the tournament he did not beat anyone that AA’d

The fact that Bastida has now on multiple occasions been used as an example for someone doing “worse” at 285, IMO is proof that it’s far more common to do better. I’m not sure how “injured” he really was at the end of this season btw…

New decision from conservative appellate judge about sums it up: “It is difficult in some cases to get to the very heart of the matter. But in this case, it is not hard at all. The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order. Further, it claims in essence that because it has rid itself of custody that there is nothing that can be done. This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.” https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca4.178400/gov.uscourts.ca4.178400.8.0.pdf

A US court did not determine he was in MS-13, it just said the allegations “appear to be trustworthy.” Also in reply to your comments above, there were 4 men questioned at the Home Depot, and one of them was determined to not be in MS-13 and was released. So the fact that he was “with others confirmed to be MS-13” doesn’t mean much. Link to decision: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.11.1_2.pdf

Yes we did

Yes he should have been punted out of the country, but he shouldn’t have been put in prison. Good to know you’re okay with a country’s president just arbitrarily deciding who’s a terrorist or not.

I didn’t say he wouldn’t say no. I said he has no reason to say no. And if Abrego Garcia does stay there, he probably does owe his citizens an explanation for what he is accused of, because right now the only reason he’s in the prison that’s been acknowledged by US courts is that he came to the US illegally. Is trying to enter the US illegally a crime in El Salvador?

lol that’s not asking

Please provide a link with evidence of this. Thanks in advance

Hypotheticals about withholding payments are kinda pointless IMO since we know the admin would never do that. I’m more just saying that since we’re paying them (and we offered him transportation to get back), there’s no reason for El Salvador to say no if we simply asked. But if I had to bet no one from the administration actually did.

I never said SCOTUS said we had to return him, I said SCOTUS said we had to try. I also said that considering we are paying El Salvador to house him, there is no reason for them to not willingly send him back. And since we did offer a plane, it would not be “smuggling” as Bukele claimed. You sound like Bukele pretending to be confused when you’re really not.

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!

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.

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.

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…

Not force. Ask.

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.

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.