Taro T Posted yesterday at 05:09 PM Posted yesterday at 05:09 PM 16 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: It is actually a term of art in immigration law. I have never seen any confusion over this previously, which is why this is fake confusion. Again, who said he'll be at liberty in the USA, living "like a citizen?" I'm sure that's what his attorneys want, but he has no such right. Instead of trolling the courts and trying to confuse the American people, Trump should simply call his bluffs: we will bring him back, hold him in custody, and move to reopen his immigration case while also trying to find a third country willing to accept him. He really has no leg to stand on if these things happen. But this administration is all about posturing. Well, according to dictionary.findlaw.com it means "to make easier" or "to help bring about." (Which is essesntially what had been said in the previous post.) So, what part of "making easier" his coming back to the US is synonymous with "actually bringing him back to the US?" Isn't that kind of what the term "effectuate" means in this instance, and kind of the cause of this whole kerfuffle as the SCOTUS has asked the district judge what was meant by THAT term?
The Frankish Reich Posted yesterday at 05:11 PM Posted yesterday at 05:11 PM 1 minute ago, Taro T said: Well, according to dictionary.findlaw.com it means "to make easier" or "to help bring about." (Which is essesntially what had been said in the previous post.) So, what part of "making easier" his coming back to the US is synonymous with "actually bringing him back to the US?" Isn't that kind of what the term "effectuate" means in this instance, and kind of the cause of this whole kerfuffle as the SCOTUS has asked the district judge what was meant by THAT term? I'm telling you that it is a term of art in immigration law that is not necessarily limited to the dictionary definition.
AlBUNDY4TDS Posted yesterday at 05:12 PM Posted yesterday at 05:12 PM 45 minutes ago, Roundybout said: Too bad, so sad. Follow SCOTUS. Ooh like student loan forgiveness?
The Frankish Reich Posted yesterday at 05:17 PM Posted yesterday at 05:17 PM (edited) https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/salvadoran-presidents-remarks-do-not-alter-trump-administrations-duty-to-comply-with-court-order-to-facilitate-detainees-return/ This is by Andrew McCarthy, a conservative former U.S. Attorney. Paywalled in general, but you get 3 free articles without signing in. Read it! It may very well be that, legally, Abrego Garcia will never live in the United States again. But the truth is, he has never lived here legally. That, of course, didn’t stop him from living in Maryland for the last six years. That’s because the first Trump administration (a) failed to appeal an immigration judge’s 2019 order prohibiting Abrego Garcia’s repatriation to El Salvador on fear-of-persecution grounds, and (b) allowed him to be released from custody to live and work in Maryland, notwithstanding that federal immigration law calls for illegal aliens to be detained until the conclusion of their removal proceedings. Edited yesterday at 05:22 PM by The Frankish Reich
Taro T Posted yesterday at 05:22 PM Posted yesterday at 05:22 PM 10 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: I'm telling you that it is a term of art in immigration law that is not necessarily limited to the dictionary definition. So, why don't you tell us what this "term of art in immigration law" means?
The Frankish Reich Posted yesterday at 05:23 PM Posted yesterday at 05:23 PM Just now, Taro T said: So, why don't you tell us what this "term of art in immigration law" means? Please read Andrew McCarthy's article in the National Review (link above). He's worked on prisoner return cases. So have I.
Taro T Posted yesterday at 05:29 PM Posted yesterday at 05:29 PM 3 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Please read Andrew McCarthy's article in the National Review (link above). He's worked on prisoner return cases. So have I. Read his article. In a couple of places he states that the US must "facilitate his return." At no point in the article was it readily apparent HOW "faciiltate" is being defined. So, why don't you be a mensch and give us the definition from "the art of immigration law."
Roundybout Posted yesterday at 05:32 PM Posted yesterday at 05:32 PM 19 minutes ago, AlBUNDY4TDS said: Ooh like student loan forgiveness? …they did though?
The Frankish Reich Posted yesterday at 05:36 PM Posted yesterday at 05:36 PM 2 minutes ago, Taro T said: Read his article. In a couple of places he states that the US must "facilitate his return." At no point in the article was it readily apparent HOW "faciiltate" is being defined. So, why don't you be a mensch and give us the definition from "the art of immigration law." McCarthy points out, for one, that there is a negotiated agreement between the U.S. and El Salvador in which the U.S. ultimately has control over these detainees. Plus, as understood for years, we would need a formal request from Rubio to his Salvadoran counterpart that Abrego be transferred to U.S. custody for transport back to the U.S. I don't think there's been any such request. A simple matter for Trump, sitting next to Bukele, to say "in the interest of continued good relations, and to ensure compliance with our Supreme Court, we respectfully request that Abrego be transferred to U.S. custody as soon as practicable." Trump and Miller and Bondi are playing games here, obviously with Bukele's help. They should be taking the order seriously, and using their best efforts to make not just logistical but legal arrangements to make the transfer happen as soon as reasonably practicable. I actually believe Bondi's response should subject her to sanctions and possible attorney disciplinary proceedings. It is literally unheard of.
Wacka Posted yesterday at 05:50 PM Posted yesterday at 05:50 PM They think the SCOTUS has any pull outside the borders of the US. The leader of EL Salvador said he is not returning the NS-13 member. End of story.
The Frankish Reich Posted 23 hours ago Posted 23 hours ago 4 minutes ago, Wacka said: They think the SCOTUS has any pull outside the borders of the US. The leader of EL Salvador said he is not returning the NS-13 member. End of story. No, it's not. The trolling will end, he will be returned. This is not the case they want for a "constitutional crisis."
Taro T Posted 23 hours ago Posted 23 hours ago (edited) 32 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: McCarthy points out, for one, that there is a negotiated agreement between the U.S. and El Salvador in which the U.S. ultimately has control over these detainees. Plus, as understood for years, we would need a formal request from Rubio to his Salvadoran counterpart that Abrego be transferred to U.S. custody for transport back to the U.S. I don't think there's been any such request. A simple matter for Trump, sitting next to Bukele, to say "in the interest of continued good relations, and to ensure compliance with our Supreme Court, we respectfully request that Abrego be transferred to U.S. custody as soon as practicable." Trump and Miller and Bondi are playing games here, obviously with Bukele's help. They should be taking the order seriously, and using their best efforts to make not just logistical but legal arrangements to make the transfer happen as soon as reasonably practicable. I actually believe Bondi's response should subject her to sanctions and possible attorney disciplinary proceedings. It is literally unheard of. So, in other words, no, you won't give what you claim is the definition of "facilitate" under "the art of immigration law." And, btw, 47 asking for him to be released into US custody, is effectively pretty d*mn near the same thing as saying we'll have a plane ready to take him back. Which was already suggested as the definition of (or more precisely an example of) "facilitate" upthread. Edited 23 hours ago by Taro T 1
4th&long Posted 23 hours ago Posted 23 hours ago 17 minutes ago, Wacka said: They think the SCOTUS has any pull outside the borders of the US. The leader of EL Salvador said he is not returning the NS-13 member. End of story. You racist wish it was that easy. I'm going to laugh when it's your family. White trash.
B-Man Posted 23 hours ago Posted 23 hours ago If you haven't been following the El Salvador deportation case, let me bring you up to speed: Judge: Hey Trump, you can't deport that guy to El Salvador. Trump: Yeah. Well. I did. Judge: Well now you have to bring him back. Trump: No can do compadre. He's under El Salvador control. I have no power there. Judge: You at least to have to TRY. Trump: That's fine. The El Salvador President is at my house right now. Judge: And? Trump: I asked him. Judge: AND? Trump: He said no. Judge: Did you really ask him? Trump: Lol no. Judge: Lol.
B-Man Posted 23 hours ago Posted 23 hours ago Going to El Salvador to ask for an El Salvador citizen, who was an illegal alien in the US, and is a gang member, to be returned to the US where he has a deportation order in place.
njbuff Posted 22 hours ago Posted 22 hours ago 49 minutes ago, 4th&long said: You racist wish it was that easy. I'm going to laugh when it's your family. White trash. I know it’s only PPP, but calling for the harm of another board member and calling said board member white trash should automatically get you banned. But I’m sure the mods must feel sorry for you.
Orlando Buffalo Posted 22 hours ago Posted 22 hours ago 2 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said: I get the confusion, because media reports - largely stemming from interest group/White House spin - have been so poor. We need to separate this guy, Abrego-Garcia, from all the other cases. There is a critical distinction in his case: Trump's Department of Justice, acting through the appointed officials, decided that Abrego-Garcia cannot be deported to El Salvador because he would likely face persecution there. That order remains intact. I'm not sure if Trump's DHS sought further review of that decision, but at any rate, that was a final order of his Attorney General at the time. That's why the new Trump Administration has admitted that he was removed to El Salvador by administrative error. It's not like he has a right to be free from custody in the USA. If he was released from custody (under Trump or Biden or both), well, that was likely a discretionary decision. And the new Trump Administration can go back to the court to ask them to "reopen" and change that decision based on major changes in El Salvador in the last few years, arguing that he no longer has any reason to fear being there. We can also ship him off to any other country that will take him, just not El Salvador unless/until that final order is overturned. But ignoring the court orders and throwing up your hands and saying "sorry, nothing we can do" is shameful. He is in prison in El Salvador based on a program in which the U.S. pays El Salvador to house people deported from the United States. We need to make our best efforts to "facilitate" his return, not pretend that we are suddenly powerless to do anything. I actually agree that Trump should return him to the US. But my confusion is not in regards to this individual case, I am referring to the new judge who said Trump can't deport people that Biden brought in. The fact that an EO made it legal for them to arrive an EO should be enough to get them to leave. https://www.axios.com/2025/04/15/trump-cuba-haiti-nicaragua-venezuela-legal-status-judge
The Frankish Reich Posted 22 hours ago Posted 22 hours ago 53 minutes ago, B-Man said: If you haven't been following the El Salvador deportation case, let me bring you up to speed: Judge: Hey Trump, you can't deport that guy to El Salvador. Trump: Yeah. Well. I did. Judge: Well now you have to bring him back. Trump: No can do compadre. He's under El Salvador control. I have no power there. Judge: You at least to have to TRY. Trump: That's fine. The El Salvador President is at my house right now. Judge: And? Trump: I asked him. Judge: AND? Trump: He said no. Judge: Did you really ask him? Trump: Lol no. Judge: Lol. Why do you find that amusing or acceptable? Q. Did you really ask him? A. No. ignoring a court order or at a minimum not acting honestly or in good faith. 5 minutes ago, Orlando Buffalo said: I actually agree that Trump should return him to the US. But my confusion is not in regards to this individual case, I am referring to the new judge who said Trump can't deport people that Biden brought in. The fact that an EO made it legal for them to arrive an EO should be enough to get them to leave. https://www.axios.com/2025/04/15/trump-cuba-haiti-nicaragua-venezuela-legal-status-judge Exactly. Different cases. the other case raises serious issues, but the Supreme Court solved the immediate one: you have to get some kind of hearing.
JDHillFan Posted 21 hours ago Posted 21 hours ago Just now, Roundybout said: Another fine member of the thin blue line MS-31. Brings back warm memories of 4th&d0ngs “Area 15”
Recommended Posts