TimHauck

I’m sorry you can’t read

Yes it does dummy. The district court ruled they must “facilitate and effectuate his return.” The order to facilitate his return remains in effect. Now please admit you were wrong.

Yeah, can’t trust those liberal rags like when you believed the CBS article with false information about the North Dakota murder

Bump for @Strike also. Will he at least admit one of these is a typo?

They said they need clarification on the term “effectuate,” but that the order to “facilitate his return” remains in effect. Bolding mine: 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.

Did I miss the part in here where it says any illegal can be sent to a terrorist confinement center in El Salvador? I’m sure peefoam will say something stupid like “all illegals are terrorists”

Are you arguing semantics about the word “facilitate”?

Supreme Court said they had to

Nope what? We can ask anything we want, especially since we’re paying them. They can say no, but then they should have an actual reason to keep him there. Is entering the US illegally a crime in El Salvador?

Such as?

You can ask. And considering we’re paying them, there’s not really any reason that they’d say no, unless they plan on releasing him.

Also can we talk about the ridiculous comments from the El Salvador president? “How am I supposed to smuggle him to the US?!?!?!” Uh, he’s in your prison (so we think). Just put him on a plane. Do we even know if he’s alive?

Bump. Curious in particular what you think Dinklage’s criticism actually was@EternalShinyAndChrome

I watched it. Tim does not provide any evidence other than the comments from Miller that he was MS-13. In fact at one point Tim even calls him an “alleged” member of MS-13, so thanks for proving Tim agrees that the evidence of him being a gang member is questionable! As for Miller, all he says is ”Two immigration courts found him to be a member of MS-13.” One judge did, but it was based entirely on a criminal informant who was arrested at the same time and a form filled out by a cop who was later suspended. And even this judge said that documents presented by the prosecution were “at odds with each other.” The appeals court did not find him to be a member of MS-13, so Miller was incorrect there. They noted the previous “allegations” and denied the appeal because they say he did not prove he was not dangerous, but they did not say he was a member of MS-13. Here is the decision: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.11.2_3.pdf In addition, Miller’s focus on only the portion of the Supreme Court in their favor is absolutely laughable. He fails to mention the part about requiring an attempt to facilitate this man’s return. Lastly, Miller’s quote of “I’d promise you if he was your neighbor you would move right away” is absolutely grotesque, and might be the most racist thing I’ve ever heard a government official say in an official capacity. Here is a good article without political bias that includes most of the details including some mentioned above: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/abrego-garcia-and-ms-13--what-do-we-know If you prefer video, I don’t like leftist garbage either. My preferred source is Breaking Points, to hear both sides. But on this particular issue, even the conservative (Sagaar) acknowledges that this is a terrible look for the Trump admin, and a dangerous slippery slope. They read from the SC ruling directly, and also provide other examples of conservatives against this move, including multiple time Fox News guest Jonathan Turley who said there is a good defamation case against Miller by the dude who was fired for saying they made a mistake.

Can you link where “multiple courts labeled him as MS 13”? All I see is one cop who was later suspended did, which to my knowledge was the only evidence ever provided. How it started: we need to deport all these violent illegals that don’t want to work and contribute nothing to society! How it’s going: let’s deport this illegal that has a US citizen wife and kid, has been here for over a decade with no violent record and a steady job! For chrissake the reason he was “labeled a gang member” in the first place was because he was looking for work outside of Home Depot!

Wrong.

Yeah if that’s accurate all that stat means is only about 25% of Republicans support it, since all Democrats and Independents likely would. Weird coming from the people that loved to talk about slippery slopes…

Anyone who disagrees that they should do so doesn’t believe in our constitution.

To clarify, you think: You can't possibly believe that they weren't going to have little people in the movie. …. They could have just come right out and said "Peter we're not putting little people in the move" but they didn't.  Makes perfect sense? I’d suggest re-reading them, letting me know which way you meant, and apologizing.

Yes I agree, if the amount doesn’t change whether he’s there or not then I wouldn’t really count that as paying for him. That said, the fact that we’re paying them at all seems contradictory to the claim that “we can’t force them to send him back.” I’m sure if we withheld some payments they’d probably send him back pretty quickly.

Ok, that doesn’t answer my question though. Are we paying for him to be imprisoned there?

This post makes zero sense. You start by saying “you can’t possibly believe that they weren’t going to have little people in the movie” But end by saying “they could have just come right out and said we’re not putting little people in the movie.” Do you mean they should have responded to Dinklage that they’re “not NOT putting little people in the movie”? If so, newsflash, pretty much all of MAGA really thought they weren’t putting little people in the movie (well except for one), and thought Disney “replaced” the dwarves with the “7 diverse people,” as @EternalShinyAndChrome calls them. And he STILL thinks that was the plan. I did too originally but now realize the 7 diverse people were separate from the dwarves all along. In fact the second link you shared, which I already shared earlier, is proof of that. To be clear, Dinklage’s comments came out when there weren’t really specific details known yet other than some of the cast. So he was basically mad the movie was being made at all, and was just working off the assumption that dwarves would be involved. In fact he even said this: “He would enthusiastically support a more sensitive retelling of the 85-year-old film with a "cool, progressive spin on it" but wasn't otherwise convinced“ There is no evidence Disney changed anything based on Dinklage’s comments in particular since the rumors of the reshooting came out almost 2 years after his comments, and their response at the time even makes it seem like they had already been “consulting with members of the dwarfism community.”

Serious question: can non-legal residents get work permits?

Maybe you should move there

True, we probably shouldn’t expect laws to be followed here if they’re actually going to blatantly disregard the constitution by trying to have him run for a third term.