jbanda said:

---

Last time I checked they all went free.

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

jbanda said:

---

Last time I checked they all went free.

---

They did? They spent years in jail and had their lives ruined. Some of them died.

---

CampSkunk said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Quote:

---

Let me help you out, via Google, which will tell you that "Federal immigration agents arrested Abrego Garcia, 29, on March 12 after pulling him over in an Ikea parking lot

---

Is that something that shouldn't happen to illegals?

---

Yes, but you can't ignore the next step, which is providing them the due process that the laws require. Or should we ignore the laws in this case?

---

CampSkunk said:

---

Update from McCarthy. I know this is difficult for some of you MAGA to accept, but yes, the Trump DOJ can make mistakes. The Supreme Court, a majority of which most of us support, including two who are originalists, have said that the man is entitled to due process. The DOJ denied him due process. The Supremes gave directives, and the judge issued an order restating those directives. The DOJ responded by lying. I have a problem with that, and guess what, if it was Biden's DOJ doing that, I would have the same problem. How many of you complained about the J6 defendants and their lack of due process? If you take the opposite position on this one you are a hypocrite. And even if non-citizens have a lowered standard of entitlement to due process than citizens, it makes no difference in this case, since the Supreme Court already said that they were entitled.

The Semantic Separation of Powers Distraction in the Abrego Garcia Case

Quote:

---

At a conference on Friday in Maryland federal court, consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling the previous evening, Judge Xinis directed the Justice Department to address the following matters:

Quote:

---

(1) the current physical location and custodial status of Abrego Garcia; (2) what steps, if any, Defendants [i.e., administration officials] have taken to facilitate Abrego Garcia's immediate return to the United States; and (3) what additional steps Defendants will take, and when, to facilitate his return.

---

---

Quote:

---

The administration is trying to slow-walk the matter of returning Abrego Garcia to the U.S., risibly contending that the DOJ is still studying the Supreme Court's decision (all of four pages long including the few lines in a single paragraph that spell out the Court's directives). Consequently, after the Supreme Court ruled last Thursday evening, the DOJ initially asked Xinis to postpone any hearings until this week. By contrast, Xinis is apoplectic at the administration's refusal to cure its dereliction and has demanded daily updates about steps the government has taken to bring Abrego Garcia back.
Finally, on Saturday, the Justice Department provided the court with a terse update a declaration from State Department official Michael G. Kozak, who states:

Quote:

---

It is my understanding based on official reporting from our Embassy in San Salvador that Abrego Garcia is currently being held in the Terrorism Confinement Center in El Salvador. He is alive and secure in the facility. He is detained pursuant to the sovereign, domestic authority of El Salvador.

---

---

Quote:

---

In submitting the Kozak declaration, and nothing else, the Trump DOJ defied Xinis's order (which itself is based on the Supreme Court's order we'll come to that momentarily). To begin with, Kozak did not address what steps the United States government has taken, and intends to take, to secure Abrego Garcia's return. Moreover, while Kozak did report on Abrego Garcia's location, his purported disclosure about the prisoner's status was gibberish.

---

Quote:

---

Patently, what Xinis was asking, in inquiring about Abrego Garcia's "custodial status," is why he is imprisoned in the one country to which the U.S. government was not permitted to send him. The administration isn't answering that question. In fact, we don't even know if Kozak asked for that information: He says he got input from the State Department's Salvadoran embassy; that doesn't tell the judge what, if anything, the Department of Homeland Security, State Department headquarters, and the Justice Department are doing to comply with order to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return.

There is no doubt that the Supreme Court has endorsed Judge's Xinis's order. As the justices unambiguously concluded, that "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."

---

Quote:

---

Nevertheless, the Abrego Garcia dispute is not about settled legal principles. It is about the facts of the agreement between the U.S. and El Salvador regarding the detention of a prisoner facing (and entitled to) legal proceedings in federal court. To the extent that settled legal principles regarding separation of powers and presidential control over foreign policy are germane, they have already resulted in the custody cooperation agreement. Now the question is, under the terms of that agreement which, as El Salvador has publicly acknowledged, give the Trump administration continuing control over the fate of the prisoners what steps need to be taken to return Abrego Garcia to the United States?

---

---

Quote:

---

Nevertheless, the Abrego Garcia dispute is not about settled legal principles. It is about the facts of the agreement between the U.S. and El Salvador regarding the detention of a prisoner facing (and entitled to) legal proceedings in federal court. To the extent that settled legal principles regarding separation of powers and presidential control over foreign policy are germane, they have already resulted in the custody cooperation agreement. Now the question is, under the terms of that agreement which, as El Salvador has publicly acknowledged, give the Trump administration continuing control over the fate of the prisoners what steps need to be taken to return Abrego Garcia to the United States?

---

Quote:

---

So this not as cut and dried as McCarthy is implying, in my view.

---

BusterAg said:

---

CampSkunk said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Quote:

---

Let me help you out, via Google, which will tell you that "Federal immigration agents arrested Abrego Garcia, 29, on March 12 after pulling him over in an Ikea parking lot

---

Is that something that shouldn't happen to illegals?

---

Yes, but you can't ignore the next step, which is providing them the due process that the laws require. Or should we ignore the laws in this case?

---

Which law(s) were ignored?

The Trump administration ignored a verbal command from a judge, which is not a lawful order in this case, btw, until it is in writing, said command greatly overstepping the limitations of the Court's article II powers.

I haven't seen any legal analysis that Trump ignored laws, just tyrannical judges throwing temper tantrums.

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Quote:

---

So this not as cut and dried as McCarthy is implying, in my view.

---

McCarthy hates Trump. To clarify his viewpoint.

---

CampSkunk said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Quote:

---

So this not as cut and dried as McCarthy is implying, in my view.

---

McCarthy hates Trump. To clarify his viewpoint.

---

No, actually, he doesn't. I think I've read everything he has written the past few years, and my impression is the exact opposite.

---

CampSkunk said:

---

I don't disagree, and the DOJ certainly has a right to make those points. But right now, they have a duty to comply with directives from the Supreme Court, the Fourth Circuit, and this district court.

---

samurai_science said:

---

McCarthy is pure scum and using him as some moral high bar is funny

---

Democratic US Senators are literally going to other countries to bring illegal aliens BACK TO THE UNITED STATES.

I’ve never seen the kind of political malpractice going on here. Unreal. I mean - keep going. 😂 But unreal. https://t.co/1udOvr5AqH

— Scott Jennings (@ScottJenningsKY) April 15, 2025

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Adam Schiff needs to go into the El Salvador prison and get the guy out. stay.

---

CampSkunk said:

---

agracer said:

---

Nothing in your quotes say he was "snatched off the street". Why do libs insist on adding hyperbole when trying to make a point. It's undermines anything you're trying to communicate, everyone just rolls there eyes and ignores anything else you state.

---

Let me help you out, via Google, which will tell you that "Federal immigration agents arrested Abrego Garcia, 29, on March 12 after pulling him over in an Ikea parking lot near his home in Beltsville, Maryland, about half an hour outside of Washington." So, my apologies, he was snatched out of an Ikea parking lot. If "snatched" is too harsh a criticism for you, I'll allow "taken into custody". But if I was "taken into custody" and denied due process, I would call it being "snatched." Or maybe "grabbed", "plucked", or "carried off". So, close your mind and roll your eyes.

---

CampSkunk said:

---

Update from McCarthy. I know this is difficult for some of you MAGA to accept, but yes, the Trump DOJ can make mistakes. The Supreme Court, a majority of which most of us support, including two who are originalists, have said that the man is entitled to due process. The DOJ denied him due process. The Supremes gave directives, and the judge issued an order restating those directives. The DOJ responded by lying. I have a problem with that, and guess what, if it was Biden's DOJ doing that, I would have the same problem. How many of you complained about the J6 defendants and their lack of due process? If you take the opposite position on this one you are a hypocrite. And even if non-citizens have a lowered standard of entitlement to due process than citizens, it makes no difference in this case, since the Supreme Court already said that they were entitled.

The Semantic Separation of Powers Distraction in the Abrego Garcia Case

Quote:

---

At a conference on Friday in Maryland federal court, consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling the previous evening, Judge Xinis directed the Justice Department to address the following matters:

Quote:

---

(1) the current physical location and custodial status of Abrego Garcia; (2) what steps, if any, Defendants [i.e., administration officials] have taken to facilitate Abrego Garcia's immediate return to the United States; and (3) what additional steps Defendants will take, and when, to facilitate his return.

---

---

Quote:

---

The administration is trying to slow-walk the matter of returning Abrego Garcia to the U.S., risibly contending that the DOJ is still studying the Supreme Court's decision (all of four pages long including the few lines in a single paragraph that spell out the Court's directives). Consequently, after the Supreme Court ruled last Thursday evening, the DOJ initially asked Xinis to postpone any hearings until this week. By contrast, Xinis is apoplectic at the administration's refusal to cure its dereliction and has demanded daily updates about steps the government has taken to bring Abrego Garcia back.
Finally, on Saturday, the Justice Department provided the court with a terse update a declaration from State Department official Michael G. Kozak, who states:

Quote:

---

It is my understanding based on official reporting from our Embassy in San Salvador that Abrego Garcia is currently being held in the Terrorism Confinement Center in El Salvador. He is alive and secure in the facility. He is detained pursuant to the sovereign, domestic authority of El Salvador.

---

---

Quote:

---

In submitting the Kozak declaration, and nothing else, the Trump DOJ defied Xinis's order (which itself is based on the Supreme Court's order we'll come to that momentarily). To begin with, Kozak did not address what steps the United States government has taken, and intends to take, to secure Abrego Garcia's return. Moreover, while Kozak did report on Abrego Garcia's location, his purported disclosure about the prisoner's status was gibberish.

---

Quote:

---

Patently, what Xinis was asking, in inquiring about Abrego Garcia's "custodial status," is why he is imprisoned in the one country to which the U.S. government was not permitted to send him. The administration isn't answering that question. In fact, we don't even know if Kozak asked for that information: He says he got input from the State Department's Salvadoran embassy; that doesn't tell the judge what, if anything, the Department of Homeland Security, State Department headquarters, and the Justice Department are doing to comply with order to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return.

There is no doubt that the Supreme Court has endorsed Judge's Xinis's order. As the justices unambiguously concluded, that "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."

---

Quote:

---

Nevertheless, the Abrego Garcia dispute is not about settled legal principles. It is about the facts of the agreement between the U.S. and El Salvador regarding the detention of a prisoner facing (and entitled to) legal proceedings in federal court. To the extent that settled legal principles regarding separation of powers and presidential control over foreign policy are germane, they have already resulted in the custody cooperation agreement. Now the question is, under the terms of that agreement which, as El Salvador has publicly acknowledged, give the Trump administration continuing control over the fate of the prisoners what steps need to be taken to return Abrego Garcia to the United States?

---

---

CampSkunk said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

CampSkunk said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Quote:

---

Let me help you out, via Google, which will tell you that "Federal immigration agents arrested Abrego Garcia, 29, on March 12 after pulling him over in an Ikea parking lot

---

Is that something that shouldn't happen to illegals?

---

Yes, but you can't ignore the next step, which is providing them the due process that the laws require. Or should we ignore the laws in this case?

---

Which law(s) were ignored?

The Trump administration ignored a verbal command from a judge, which is not a lawful order in this case, btw, until it is in writing, said command greatly overstepping the limitations of the Court's article II powers.

I haven't seen any legal analysis that Trump ignored laws, just tyrannical judges throwing temper tantrums.

---

The immigration laws that compel the government to apply to this case. Or specifically, the Supremes, the Fourth Circuit, and the judge in this case is requiring the government to cure its unlawful conduct which has deprived Abrego Garcia of a federal law right he had not to be repatriated to El Salvador. It is the judiciary's constitutional duty to say what the law is. And to protect and define individual rights. You can read the Supreme's order here:

ON APPLICATION TO VACATE INJUNCTION ENTERED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

CampSkunk said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Quote:

---

So this not as cut and dried as McCarthy is implying, in my view.

---

McCarthy hates Trump. To clarify his viewpoint.

---

No, actually, he doesn't. I think I've read everything he has written the past few years, and my impression is the exact opposite. McCarthy just has the honesty to say what he agrees with and disagrees with in his opinion, and there have been many situations where he has concluded that Trump's position in a matter is exactly right. This is one of these where he's the opposite.

---

Quote:

---

He already had his due process several years ago.

Are we supposed to give him double-plus due process?

---

https://t.co/q7YQXv0RmX

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) April 15, 2025

I think he's making a point I made -- if you accept that a Court can direct him to make the demand, what is the limiting principle on the Court's authority if the answer back is "No"?

How many Orders does a Court get to give POTUS to carry out until the Court gets the answer… https://t.co/1amq1P2G4t

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) April 15, 2025

jbanda said:

---

Last time I checked they all went free.

---

Ag with kids said:

---

CampSkunk said:

---

agracer said:

---

Nothing in your quotes say he was "snatched off the street". Why do libs insist on adding hyperbole when trying to make a point. It's undermines anything you're trying to communicate, everyone just rolls there eyes and ignores anything else you state.

---

Let me help you out, via Google, which will tell you that "Federal immigration agents arrested Abrego Garcia, 29, on March 12 after pulling him over in an Ikea parking lot near his home in Beltsville, Maryland, about half an hour outside of Washington." So, my apologies, he was snatched out of an Ikea parking lot. If "snatched" is too harsh a criticism for you, I'll allow "taken into custody". But if I was "taken into custody" and denied due process, I would call it being "snatched." Or maybe "grabbed", "plucked", or "carried off". So, close your mind and roll your eyes.

---

He already had his due process several years ago.

Are we supposed to give him double-plus due process?

---

carl spacklers hat said:

---

As a member of a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (MS-13), he also is not eligible for due process. Plus he has a Deportation Order. Not sure what the problem is here. Some judge back in 2019/2020 screwed up by putting a stay order on the Deportation Order. That was the mistake, not shipping this dude back to his homeland.

---

Quote:

---

Ivan Mendez was the officer who filled out this gang interview sheet, according to a copy of the sheet itself, which we obtained from Curiel. And Curiel tells us that repeated conversations with the P.G. County police inspector general confirmed that Mendez was a lead detective on Abrego Garcia's case.

What's more, it turns out that Mendez was suspended, in early April 2019, for "providing information to a commercial sex worker who he was paying in exchange for sexual acts." That's according to the P.G. County police's own announcement of his indictment, which came a year later, in June 2020. Strikingly, the information Mendez shared was related to "an on-going police investigation."

---

CampSkunk said:

---

He could have, but Trump's DOJ failed to secure a removal order back in 2019, which was a mistake they have admitted. So, it's not a double due process because the Trump DOJ never followed through the first time.

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

CampSkunk said:

---

He could have, but Trump's DOJ failed to secure a removal order back in 2019, which was a mistake they have admitted. So, it's not a double due process because the Trump DOJ never followed through the first time.

---

OK. So you are advocating that an illegal gang member from El Salvador who never had a right to be in America and who is now in his home country should now be brought back here to do what?

Really odd position.

---

MarkTwain said:

---

CampSkunk said:

---

agracer said:

---

Nothing in your quotes say he was "snatched off the street". Why do libs insist on adding hyperbole when trying to make a point. It's undermines anything you're trying to communicate, everyone just rolls there eyes and ignores anything else you state.

---

Let me help you out, via Google, which will tell you that "Federal immigration agents arrested Abrego Garcia, 29, on March 12 after pulling him over in an Ikea parking lot near his home in Beltsville, Maryland, about half an hour outside of Washington." So, my apologies, he was snatched out of an Ikea parking lot. If "snatched" is too harsh a criticism for you, I'll allow "taken into custody". But if I was "taken into custody" and denied due process, I would call it being "snatched." Or maybe "grabbed", "plucked", or "carried off". So, close your mind and roll your eyes.

---

NOT ALLOWED DUE PROCESS?????

He was found by an immigration court to be a member of MS13 and it was appealed and the Immigration Appeals Court also found him guilty of entering the country illegally and was found to be a member of MS13 by his own admission. He testified in court that a "rival gang (Barrio 18 Gang) was an active threat to his life. The Barrio 18 gang according to the El Salvadorian authorities, has been largely eradicated in El Salvador. It was his fear of that gang in his home neighborhood, supposedly, that was the basis for his asylum claim. The court found his asylum claim invalid and he had a deportation order issued that the last administration ignored. He was denied asylum in October 2019 for failing to file within a year of arriving as is required by statute. Garcia conceded to the court he knew he was deportable. INA statute does not allow but ONE asylum claim. The only appeal Garcia filed was for his denied bail. It was dismissed. INA statue also states once a deportee leaves US border, they are deemed deported. HE'S AN EL SALVADORIAN IN EL SALVADORIAN PRISON. Case closed, he had his due process

---

CampSkunk said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

CampSkunk said:

---

agracer said:

---

Nothing in your quotes say he was "snatched off the street". Why do libs insist on adding hyperbole when trying to make a point. It's undermines anything you're trying to communicate, everyone just rolls there eyes and ignores anything else you state.

---

Let me help you out, via Google, which will tell you that "Federal immigration agents arrested Abrego Garcia, 29, on March 12 after pulling him over in an Ikea parking lot near his home in Beltsville, Maryland, about half an hour outside of Washington." So, my apologies, he was snatched out of an Ikea parking lot. If "snatched" is too harsh a criticism for you, I'll allow "taken into custody". But if I was "taken into custody" and denied due process, I would call it being "snatched." Or maybe "grabbed", "plucked", or "carried off". So, close your mind and roll your eyes.

---

He already had his due process several years ago.

Are we supposed to give him double-plus due process?

---

He could have, but Trump's DOJ failed to secure a removal order back in 2019, which was a mistake they have admitted. So, it's not a double due process because the Trump DOJ never followed through the first time.

---