Offthemat

I know that the withholding is of the removal and not the order. Withholding based on conditions - the conditions have changed - the order is in effect.

Not a problem - it can be done in absentia.

Clearly, you’re projecting. I listed a few of the points indicating that the man has had due process, you, a lawyer, have claimed he had none.

Saying this is ridiculous. Doing it is far from upholding the constitution. Trump, not be a lawyer, is following the law. There is no co-equal commander-in-chief. Your hero had two judges say he was ms13, and another deny his fraudulent asylum application. He was under a final order of removal, but was granted an errant withholding of removal order. Withholding as in - until conditions change. Well, conditions changed. How much due process do you want these illegals to have? To a point, certainly not to the extent a citizen might expect. We’re going to call it a class action (in reverse) due process.

That’s an odd thing to say, as the law in use is from the very beginnings of this nation. Shirley you’ll eventually get something right.

You don’t understand what the majority of the country is saying. We were against the Biden immigration policy all along. Due process for illegal immigrants is short and sweet. You entered this country illegally, it’s time to leave, one way or another. Every one of you.

This is entirely wrong. You should read the finding before you comment on it.

A rancher near here uses llamas to protect his herd from coyotes, wonder if they work for wolves?

My wife says dynadasies are hard to grow.

@WrestlingRasta @fishbane The Supreme Court dropped the decision at 1:00 am Saturday. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-orders-trump-administration-not-deport-venezuelans-now-rcna201949

Is that typical dimocrat reasoning? He’s already under a final order of removal, so it makes sense to bring him back here and deport him again? Any further action can be handled in absentia or skype.

It would be short work to overturn that judge’s ruling. Gangs aren’t much of a threat in El Salvador these days.

Do you have a source?

Who’s?

It’s Red’s financy fiancé that’s got the bucks.

Results are inconclusive.

He was applying for asylum just as the people in the link.

That was his claim when he was wrongly given the withholding of removal to El Salvador.

Yes. I posted that yesterday, 7th post on this page. Danger of gang violence is not grounds for asylum.

Can’t he get it from his finance fiancé?

He probably sent it to the wrong Gaza.

They’re complaining because their slush funds are drying up.

If you and your buddies are so adamant that rules should be followed, then this is easy. Garcia broke the law and he’s being reformed.