The Democrat Party Hates America

[Alexis Jacobi]

He is illegally detained in El Salvador after being illegally deported.

Not quite. He is legally imprisoned in El Salvador after being illegally and improperly deported to El Salvador.

They have far far lower evidentiary requirements. Thousands are now locked up on such basis.

And the people of El Salvador love their president for making life there livable again.

[Immanuel Can]

This is the case of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia.

I hate to tell you...one case does not signify whether or not the Federal Government has the power to deport. They do.

[FlashDangerpants]

This is the case of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia.

I hate to tell you...one case does not signify whether or not the Federal Government has the power to deport. They do.

Have you had a stroke? Do we need to call you an ambulance? I never said the government has no power to deport, I said they had to do so in accord with due process.

You've lost your marbles.

[Alexis Jacobi]

From the NYTs right now (FYI):

There are sculptures of tortoises scattered around the Supreme Court grounds. They symbolize, the court’s website says, “the slow and steady pace of justice.”

But the court can move fast when it wants to, busting through protocols and conventions. It did so around 1 a.m. on Saturday, blocking the Trump administration from deporting a group of Venezuelan migrants accused of being gang members under a rarely invoked 18th-century wartime law.

The court’s unsigned, one-paragraph order was extraordinary in many ways. Perhaps most important, it indicated a deep skepticism about whether the administration could be trusted to live up to the key part of an earlier ruling after the government had deported a different group of migrants to a prison in El Salvador.

That unsigned and apparently unanimous ruling, issued April 7, said that detainees were entitled to be notified if the government intended to deport them under the law, “within a reasonable time,” and in a way that would allow the deportees to challenge the move in court before their removal.

There were indications late Friday that the administration was poised to violate both the spirit and letter of that ruling. Lawyers for the detainees said their clients were given notices that they were eligible to be deported under the law, the Alien Enemies Act. The notices were written in English, a language many of them do not speak, the lawyers said. And they provided no realistic opportunity to go to court.

The American Civil Liberties Union, racing against the clock, filed its emergency application to the Supreme Court on Friday evening — Good Friday, as it happened — and urged the court to take immediate action to protect the detainees as part of a proposed class action.

The lawyers told the court that they feared their clients could be deported within hours, saying that some had already been loaded onto buses, presumably to be taken to the airport.

The Supreme Court did act fast. “The government is directed not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of this court,” the order said.

[Immanuel Can]

I never said the government has no power to deport, I said they had to do so in accord with due process.

I'm still waiting for that evidence that the "process" used was not what was "due." I'm not hearing it.

[FlashDangerpants]

The evidentiary rules for specialist courts may well be specialised for the sort of cases tried therein. But the accused always has right to challenge evidence that is untrue or that is improperly collected. If you don't have that much right at least, then the equal protection clause has been breached.

What I read though is that in some of those hearings the level of evidence is much lower. Hearsay is admitted (report of a third party) and simple government testimony is taken as factual.

The accused (or the rounded up) have rights but they are limited.

Dude, this is getting silly. I get it, some courts allow hearsay evidence and some rule on the basis of probabilities and get this .... they don't have juries in those courts either, it's all just judges. I know right, it's not like on TV at all!

They do have rules, the evidence has to be supported by something and it has to be relevant and it must speak to the issue at hand and cannot be fruit of the poison tree. So if the El Salvadorians torture one of their inmates (a lot of bodies leave that place with electrical scorching) and he names somebody being conveniently held by ICE as some sort of partner in crime, that evidence wouldn't be admissible in an immigration hearing (although I hear bad things about the FISC courts that handle foreign intelligence matters).

This has all been tested over the years in many cases that gone before Supreme Courts to wrangle the duties of the special immigration hearings with regards to the fifth, fourteenth and other amendments. If you don't trust me, go look up Trias- Hernandez v. INS, 528 F.2d 366, 369 (9th Cir. 1975)

Not that it really matters, those are the rules of evidence in a removal hearing, and this man was deported without one of those.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Me no unnerstan.

The US system for illegals is one thing, and a very different thing than legal [sic] proceedings in El Salvador.

The US system is overall extremely generous to illegals. They have rights.

El Salvador, for some good reasons, doesn’t give a rat’s ass. They had a severe gang and criminality problem. And they solved it — Latino style. It required a benevolent caudillo.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Not that it really matters, those are the rules of evidence in a removal hearing, and this man was deported without one of those.

No, he had numerous hearings. And lost two. His final application resulted in an order not to be deported because of the likelihood that he would be harmed by gangs in El Salvador. He was granted a special right to reside and work. But not a final permission.

You get a big shipment of magic mushrooms lately?!

[FlashDangerpants]

I never said the government has no power to deport, I said they had to do so in accord with due process.

I'm still waiting for that evidence that the "process" used was not what was "due." I'm not hearing it.

OK, well here's the article in the George Washington Law Review titled

Supreme Court Affirms Lawlessness of the Removal of Kilmar Abrego Garcia

Highlights:
His wife learned of his removal when she recognized his image among photos in the media of men being forced into prone positions by Salvadoran prison guards.

On April 10, 2025, the Supreme Court issued its ruling on the Government’s request.9 In a unanimous decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court affirmed the lawlessness of Mr. Abrego Garcia’s removal to a Salvadoran prison, observing that even “[t]he United States acknowledges that Abrego Garcia was subject to a withholding order forbidding his removal to El Salvador, and that the removal to El Salvador was therefore illegal.”10 The Court largely affirmed the underlying District Court order, maintaining its effect while also suggesting that Judge Paula Xinis’s directive that the Government “facilitate and effectuate the return of [Abrego Garcia] to the United States by no later than 11:59 PM on Monday, April 7, 2025”11 should be clarified.12 Specifically, the Court explained that the District Court should exercise “due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.”13 The Court also instructed the Government defendants to “share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps.”


Or... if you want to read the full ruling of the Supreme Court....
That's published here in PDF form.
From the Sotomayor concurrence, you get this passage:
Nevertheless, I agree with the Court’s order that the proper remedy is to provide Abrego Garcia with all the process to which he would have been entitled had he not been unlawfully removed to El Salvador. That means the Government must comply with its obligation to provide Abrego Garcia with “due process of law,” including notice and an opportunity to be heard, in any future proceedings. Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 306 (1993).

[FlashDangerpants]

Not that it really matters, those are the rules of evidence in a removal hearing, and this man was deported without one of those.

No, he had numerous hearings. And lost two. His final application resulted in an order not to be deported because of the likelihood that he would be harmed by gangs in El Salvador. He was granted a special right to reside and work. But not a final permission.

You get a big shipment of magic mushrooms lately?!

The Supreme Court holds that under the equal protection clause of the constitution he was entitled to a hearing to resolve this matter before he could be spirited away from his wife and child. The outcome of his prior removal hearings was that a judge placed a stay. Nobody gets to just declare themselves the new sheriff in town and just discard such rulings, not in a civilised nation, well not unless it is descending into tyranny.

Why did you write mushroom and then put a picture of a mushroom there?

[FlashDangerpants]

Me no unnerstan.

The US system for illegals is one thing, and a very different thing than legal [sic] proceedings in El Salvador.

The US system is overall extremely generous to illegals. They have rights.

El Salvador, for some good reasons, doesn’t give a rat’s ass. They had a severe gang and criminality problem. And they solved it — Latino style. It required a benevolent caudillo.

Yeah. The great Central/South American traditions of martial law, giant torture prisons, and secret police death squads aren't really something to copy. Nor the rides thing that Henry likes.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Yeah. The great Central/South American traditions of martial law, giant torture prisons, and secret police death squads aren't really something to copy. Nor the rides thing that Henry likes.

Authoritarianism, if it is “benevolent”, often works better than other arrangements — here.

Simon Bolívar noted that “governing this people is like plowing the ocean.”

While I despise criminality (having had a gun pointed against my head once or twice and a few knives as well) I tend to see Latin American lawlessness among the lower classes as requiring sane reforms.

The lawlessness that really irks me though is that of the criminal overclass.

I would not feel too too bad if the retribution were distributed fairly. As it is the poor man pays far more in consequences. And the wealthy and connected escape consequences.

I’d like about a million — maybe two million — among the privileged classes here to be taken on that definitive helicopter journey. And their ordeal videographed.

Absolute terror. Massacring the criminal, his family, maybe even leveling the building where he and his family live. A rain of absolute destruction against the corrupt classes.

But against criminality among all classes. It just has to be equal — democratic.

It is impossible for outsiders to understand how deeply corruption penetrates here. It is simply unreal — literally fabulous. Only magical realism can portray it.

This is why I can understand what Bukele did in El Salvador was necessary — certainly excusable. He made life livable for average people. But some of those imprisoned are likely innocent.

Bad luck.

But I bet that the criminal overclasses escaped retributive punishment.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Why did you write mushroom and then put a picture of a mushroom there?

You trying to pick a fight with me?! I thought we were talking nice?

[Immanuel Can]

I never said the government has no power to deport, I said they had to do so in accord with due process.

I'm still waiting for that evidence that the "process" used was not what was "due." I'm not hearing it.

OK, well here's the article in the George Washington Law Review

We've already established that he wasn't an illegal alien.

Explain instead how illegal aliens are being deprived of "due process." I'd like to see the evidence of that.

[FlashDangerpants]

This was my reply to Walker where I brought up the issue of due process for this specific event....

On a side note, it’s interesting that The Democrats who indiscriminately flooded the country with illegals by the millions, now want a careful, case-by-case review of each individual who is being deported, to the extent that a US senator from Maryland went to El Salvador to petition for the return of a MS13, non-citizen illegal back to the US. He must ostensibly consider all of humanity to be his constituency, but in reality he is likely owned by MS13, which has a notable presence in Maryland due to the policies of The Democrats Who Hate America.

… and given the Biden administration’s sterling example of corruption by Democrat SOP in DC.

Are you supporting a decision to make due process and equal protection under the law conditional on the goodwill of some guy at ICE rather than enforceable by court order in line with the demands of the constitution with its checks and balances?

You are a collaborator.

So this change of subject is irrelevant.

I'm still waiting for that evidence that the "process" used was not what was "due." I'm not hearing it.

OK, well here's the article in the George Washington Law Review

We've already established that he wasn't an illegal alien.

Explain instead how illegal aliens are being deprived of "due process." I'd like to see the evidence of that.

You are just trying to save face as always.