Dem immigration talking points fizzle as dark picture of Abrego Garcia emerges

[Ron_Artest 1,532]

1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

A rival gang? 

No, not a rival gang.  There is nothing in the order about a rival gang.

[Ron_Artest 1,532]

Just now, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

That gang he claimed threatened him does not exist in El Salvador any more. So he’s safe 

If an immigration judge wants to make that order then OK.  But a judge hasn't.  You can't just make up facts and ignore the law.

[Ron_Artest 1,532]

2 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

His withholding of removal was only to El Salvador. He could still be deported. And he wasn’t sent away by accident. If you think that you are more stupid than you look

keep defending wife beating human trafficking gang banger 

OK so we agree, then bring him back from El Salvador and have an immigration judge determine where to deport him, right?

The Trump admin admitted they sent him there by mistake.  But yeah I can see why that was a lie and they just want to get rid of any brown person they can.

[TimHauck 2,876]

2 hours ago, Strike said:

Our judicial system ruled he WAS MS-13.  What you "think" doesn't matter legally.  Now you're opposed to the rule of law?   Until the judicial system rules he is not MS-13 he should be considered MS-13.  It's funny because no one has even filed a motion with the courts to overturn that finding.  But as a rule of law, he was found to be MS-13.

Him being MS-13 was not a “ruling.”  The actual ruling was simply that he was denied bond, with part of the reasoning being that the source claiming he was MS-13, “appeared trustworthy,” and that Garcia failed to show evidence that he was not a gang member.  Another part of the reason he was denied bond is because he had apparently failed to report for hearings on traffic violations.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.11.1_2.pdf

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,106]

18 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Him being MS-13 was not a “ruling.”  The actual ruling was simply that he was denied bond, with part of the reasoning being that the source claiming he was MS-13, “appeared trustworthy,” and that Garcia failed to show evidence that he was not a gang member.  Another part of the reason he was denied bond is because he had apparently failed to report for hearings on traffic violations.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.11.1_2.pdf

You know who didn't get denied bond(age)?  Your mom.  She got ALL of her due process.  All of it.

[jonnyutah 288]

Why doesnt the administration just get another country to take him you may ask?

Because then they wouldnt get all these dumb democrats shoving their feet in their mouths. 

[Ron_Artest 1,532]

3 minutes ago, jonnyutah said:

Why doesnt the administration just get another country to take him you may ask?

Because then they wouldnt get all these dumb democrats shoving their feet in their mouths. 

You're right.  But you have to remember some of Donald Trump's tenets of life.  Never admit you're wrong.  If you tell a lie enough times people will believe it.  Blame others whenever you can.

He's running this to his playbook.

[jbycho 754]

3 minutes ago, Ron_Artest said:

You're right.  But you have to remember some of Donald Trump's tenets of life.  Never admit you're wrong.  If you tell a lie enough times people will believe it.  Blame others whenever you can.

He's running this to his playbook.

Oh....TRUMP!!! 

That's what this is about. Got it.

[SaintsInDome2006 441]

24 minutes ago, jonnyutah said:

Why doesnt the administration just get another country to take him you may ask?

Probably because of a host of treaties, agreements & conventions. Bukele is notoriously corrupt as is the head of the prison. No doubt a good chunk of the $12 million we’re paying to store 220 prisoners is going directly to them to ignore such things.

[Strike 5,543]

1 hour ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

More info if helpful.

 

  Hide contents

 

The Respondent is a 24-year old native of El Salvador. He was born in 1995 in Los Nogales neighborhood, San Salvador, El Salvador. The Respondent testified that he fears returning to his country because the Barrio 18 gang was targeting him and threatening him with death because of his family ' s pupusa2 business. The Respondent's mother, Cecilia, ran the business out of her home. Although the business had no formal storefront, everyone in the town knew to get their pupusas from "Pupuseria Cecilia."

The Respondent's father, brother and two sisters all helped run the family business. The Respondent's job was to go to the grocery store to buy the supplies needed for the pupusas, and then he and his brother would do deliveries four days a week to the people in the town that ordered pupusas from Cecilia. At some point, Barrio 18 realized the family was making money from their family business and they began extorting the Respondent's mother, Cecilia. They demanded a regular stipend of "rent" money from the business, beginning with a monthly payment and then requiring weekly payments.

The gang threatened to harm the Respondent, his older brother Cesar, and the family in general if their demands were not met. Alternatively, they told Cecelia that if she could not pay the extortion money, she could tum Cesar over to them to become part of their gang. The Abrego family paid the money on a regular basis, whenever they could, and hid Cesar from the gang. On one occasion, the gang came to the family's home and threatened to kill Cesar if the family did not pay the rent.

The family responded by sending Cesar to the U.S. After Cesar left, the gang started recruiting the Respondent. They told Cecilia that she would not have to pay rent any more if she let him join the gang. The mother refused to let this happen. The gang then threatened to kill the Respondent. When the Respondent was around 12- years old, the gang came to the home again, telling Cecilia that they would take him because she wasn't paying money from the family's pupusa business. The Respondent's father prevented the gang from taking the Respondent that day by paying the gang all of the money that they wanted. During the days, the gang would watch the Respondent when he went back and forth to school. The members of the gangs all had many tattoos and always carried weapons. Eventually, the family had enough and moved from Los Nogales to the 10th of October neighborhood. This town was about 10 minutes away, by car, from Los Nogales. Shortly after the family moved, members of Barrio 18 from Nogales went to the 10th of October and let their fellow gang members know that the family had moved to that neighborhood. Barrio 18 members visited the house demanding the rent money from the pupusa business again.

They went to the house twice threatening to rape and kill the Respondent's two sisters and threatening the Respondent. The Respondent's parents were so fearful that they kept the Respondent inside the home as much as possible. Finally, the family decided they had to close the pupusa business and move to another area, Los Andes, about a 15 minute drive from their last residence. Even at this new location, the family kept the Respondent indoors most of the time because of the threats on his life. After four months ofliving in fear, the Respondent's parents sent the Respondent to the U.S. Even though the Respondent's father was a former policeman, they family never reported anything to the police regarding the gang extorting the family business.

The gang members had threatened Cecilia, telling her that if she ever reported anything to the police that they would kill the entire family. The family believed them, because they were well aware of the rampant corruption of the police in El Salvador and they believed that if they reported it to the police, the police would do nothing. At present, even though the family has now shut down the pupusa business, Barrio 18 continues to harass and threaten the Respondent's two sisters and parents in Guatemala. Additionally, they have targeted a brother-in-law who now lives with the family.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

And for EVERYONE who reads this forum, here is WHY I don't take anything people like SID, @The Real timschochet, Squissy, or Hackboy say at face value.  If you read SID's posts to me in this thread it sounds compelling.   BUT, you HAVE to read the source material.  From page 6 of the order SID is relying on to suggest that the illegal can't be deported ANYWHERE:

Quote

Withholding of removal, in contrast to asylum, confers only the right not to be deported to
a particular country rather than the right to remain in the U.S.

So the "Witholding of removal" means specifically to a single country, in this case El Salvador.  Apparently SID read this ENTIRE document EXCEPT the one sentence that blows his whole narrative up.  Or he's full of sh*t.  I'll let you decide.  But don't accept anything these MF'ers post at face value. 

[Strike 5,543]

2 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

This is the order I'm referring to.

- It does not limit itself to country.

Bumping this so you can't edit it and pretend you didn't say it.

[SaintsInDome2006 441]

4 minutes ago, Strike said:

BUT, you HAVE to read the source material. 

Which I posted. For you.

[SaintsInDome2006 441]

2 minutes ago, Strike said:

Bumping this so you can't edit it and pretend you didn't say it.

I quoted the actual order. Happy to look at the above.

[Strike 5,543]

2 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Which I posted. For you.

Only after multiple requests to do so.  You WANTED to just post your own cherry picked quotes.  But I WOULDN'T let you.

[SaintsInDome2006 441]

15 minutes ago, Strike said:

Only after multiple requests to do so.  You WANTED to just post your own cherry picked quotes.  But I WOULDN'T let you.

I'm happy to look at your reply above. I'm glad you are looking at the order (which I posted the first time a few days back). 

[jonnyutah 288]

That order is confusing. Honestly I would assume it meant you couldn't deport him to Guatemala. 

But there is nothing in that order that would prohibit us from sending him to mexico, if mexico would accept him. 

 

[Strike 5,543]

6 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I'm happy to look at your reply above. I'm glad you are looking at the order (which I posted the first time a few days back). 

So you've had it for days but didn't actually read it, and then misrepresented what it ordered.  Got it.  You're a quality poster!!!

[TBayXXXVII 2,545]

I find it funny that Democrats (politicians and media), boasted about all of the millions of people that were deported under the Biden administration... yet the media and general population just flat out assume that 100% of them had "due process" before being deported.

[TimHauck 2,876]

41 minutes ago, Strike said:

 

And for EVERYONE who reads this forum, here is WHY I don't take anything people like SID, @The Real timschochet, Squissy, or Hackboy say at face value.  If you read SID's posts to me in this thread it sounds compelling.   BUT, you HAVE to read the source material.  From page 6 of the order SID is relying on to suggest that the illegal can't be deported ANYWHERE:

So the "Witholding of removal" means specifically to a single country, in this case El Salvador.  Apparently SID read this ENTIRE document EXCEPT the one sentence that blows his whole narrative up.  Or he's full of sh*t.  I'll let you decide.  But don't accept anything these MF'ers post at face value. 

You’re correct that he could be deported somewhere other than El Salvador.

You’re incorrect that a court “ruled he was a member of MS-13.”

HTH

[Strike 5,543]

8 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

You’re correct that he could be deported somewhere other than El Salvador.

You’re incorrect that a court “ruled he was a member of MS-13.”

HTH

This is his appeal of the FIRST judge who determined he was a member of MS-13:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.11.2_3.pdf

They affirmed the FIRST judge's findings.  

[SaintsInDome2006 441]

59 minutes ago, Strike said:

Quote

Withholding of removal, in contrast to asylum, confers only the right not to be deported to a particular country rather than the right to remain in the U.S.

So the "Witholding of removal" means specifically to a single country, in this case El Salvador.  Apparently SID read this ENTIRE document EXCEPT the one sentence that blows his whole narrative up.  ...

Quote

 

I. Procedural History

The Respondent is a native and citizen of El Salvador. The Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") issued the Respondent a Notice to Appear ("NTA") on March 29, 2019 which alleged that the Respondent: (1) is not a citizen or national of the United States; (2) is a native and citizen of El Salvador; (3) entered the United States at or near an unknown place on or about an "' unknown date; and (4) was not then admitted or paroled after inspection by an immigration officer.

 

 

 

Quote

Here, the Respondent has not shown that it is "more likely than not" that he would be tortured if he were to be removed to El Salvador.

For one thing, you ...(not accusing you of anything btw)... you failed to point out that the court was referring to a different, cited case. (INS vs. Aguirre). It wasn't the case at issue, it was a general rule.

For another - the facts found by the court - which I quoted for you further up - are all about Garcia's history in El Salvador. And the above.

 

[SaintsInDome2006 441]

26 minutes ago, Strike said:

So you've had it for days but didn't actually read it, and then misrepresented what it ordered.  Got it.  You're a quality poster!!!

I just responded to you, glad to discuss. My only point when I posted the 1st time was that Garcia was ordered released in 2019 and the Trump administration didn't appeal it. I'm sure you agree it says that much.

[Strike 5,543]

1 minute ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

 

 

For one thing, you ...(not accusing you of anything btw)... you failed to point out that the court was referring to a different, cited case. (INS vs. Aguirre). It wasn't the case at issue, it was a general rule.

For another - the facts found by the court - which I quoted for you further up - are all about Garcia's history in El Salvador. And the above.

 

Dude, I don't WTF you're even trying to assert here.  My point is pretty focking simple:

A " Witholding of removal" only applies to a single country.  Your assertion was that it applied to ANY country and that we couldn't deport him to any country.  And you're wrong.  Don't try to obfuscate the issue now.

[SaintsInDome2006 441]

Just now, Strike said:

Dude, I don't WTF you're even trying to assert here.  My point is pretty focking simple:

A " Witholding of removal" only applies to a single country.  Your assertion was that it applied to ANY country and that we couldn't deport him to any country.  And you're wrong.  Don't try to obfuscate the issue now.

Quote

Here, the Respondent has not shown that it is "more likely than not" that he would be tortured if he were to be removed to El Salvador.

This is in the Order.

[Strike 5,543]

3 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

o

 

3 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

This is in the Order.

1)  No one is arguing about El Salvador. 

2)  Where in that order does it order him to be released?  It doesn't.  It simply says they can't deport him to El Salvador.

Quit wasting my time.

[Strike 5,543]

This is the full order from SID's link:
 

Quote

It is hereby ordered that:
I. the Respondent's application for asylum pursuant to INA§ 208 is DENIED;
II. the Respondent's application for withholding of removal pursuant to INA §
241(b)(3) is GRANTED; and
III. the Respondent's application for withholding of removal under the Convention
Against Torture is DENIED;

 

All that says is he can't be deported to El Salvador.  It says NOTHING about releasing him, and NOTHING about not being deported to other countries. 

[jbycho 754]

8 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

This is in the Order.

You are losing bigly. 

[SaintsInDome2006 441]

1 minute ago, Strike said:

1)  No one is arguing about El Salvador. 

The right is arguing that the order did not apply to El Salvador.

4 minutes ago, Strike said:

2)  Where in that order does it order him to be released?  It doesn't.  It simply says they can't deport him to El Salvador.

Right, but at that point there was no basis for Trump's INS/DOJ to hold him, so they released him. After he won the “withholding of removal” decision, Trump's own agencies released Garcia to go home. The Trump ICE/DHS saw no any danger to the community because they did not appeal which they could have. Instead they monitored Garcia who made all appointments and that continued for 5+ years. 

[avoiding injuries 1,580]

You know who doesn’t have to worry about them and their family being threatened by gangs?

Non-gang members. 

[Strike 5,543]

6 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

The right is arguing that the order did not apply to El Salvador. 

Right, but at that point there was no basis for Trump's INS/DOJ to hold him, so they released him. After he won the “withholding of removal” decision, Trump's own agencies released Garcia to go home. The Trump ICE/DHS saw no any danger to the community because they did not appeal which they could have. Instead they monitored Garcia who made all appointments and that continued for 5+ years. 

No! No! No!.  You said he was released per a Judge's order.  That means he was ordered released.  He was not.  They could have held him.  They could have deported him elsewhere.  They CHOSE to release him.  You're as bad as @The Real timschochet.  And NO!!!  No one is arguing that he can be deported to El Salvador.  Everyone admits that was a clerical mistake.  It wasn't supposed to happen.  No one disputes that.  We just don't care about bringing him back because he's a domestic abusing, gang banger, illegal alien. 

Editing - This is your post:

Quote

My only point when I posted the 1st time was that Garcia was ordered released in 2019

Quite different from the bolded above.  Trying to save face.  Is your name Tim by chance?

 

You're destroying whatever little credibility you had.  This is pathetic.  Just take the L, admit you're wrong, and move on.

[SaintsInDome2006 441]

3 minutes ago, Strike said:

No! No! No!.  You said he was released per a Judge's order.  That means he was ordered released.  He was not.  They could have held him.  They could have deported him elsewhere.  They CHOSE to release him.  ...

Let's say you're right on this. - Fine. But if so that is on the Trump administration. And personally - this is just my POV - actually no, I disagree because the judge left them no choice. You disagree with me, fine, but in the facts - which I quoted for you in SPOILERS - there was no basis for holding him. And yes that's why I posted the order, I'm fine with you arguing about it but I see it differently.

[SaintsInDome2006 441]

6 minutes ago, Strike said:

And NO!!!  No one is arguing that he can be deported to El Salvador.  Everyone admits that was a clerical mistake.  It wasn't supposed to happen.  No one disputes that. 

You're talking about something completely different here. This is the Trump DOJ's claim - in 2025 - about sending Garcia to the maxi-prison. In 2025, not 2019. There was no "administrative error" in 2019.

[Strike 5,543]

Just now, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Let's say you're right on this. - Fine. But if so that is on the Trump administration. And personally - this is just my POV - actually no, I disagree because the judge left them no choice. You disagree with me, fine, but in the facts - which I quoted for you in SPOILERS - there was no basis for holding him. And yes that's why I posted the order, I'm fine with you arguing about it but I see it differently.

You see FACTS differently?  ROFLMAO.  Typical liberal.

And I'm not defending the Trump administration.  They should have deported him to Yemen IMO.  I don't defend bad policy and/or government decisions.  That doesn't change the FACT that he wasn't ordered released, and that's a significant point, as is the one about him being legally declared a member of MS-13.  But there's you pretending he was ordered released when he wasn't and Hackboy pretending he wasn't declared a member of MS-13.  As I always say, I don't mind having a discussion over our OPINIONS.  But you guys are trying to CHANGE FACTS.  And that's just a waste of time and tells me you aren't serious about having an actual  legit discussion on the issue.

[Strike 5,543]

2 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

You're talking about something completely different here. This is the Trump DOJ's claim - in 2025 - about sending Garcia to the maxi-prison. In 2025, not 2019. There was no "administrative error" in 2019.

WTF are you talking about "Trump DOJ"?  The post I responded to said this:

Quote

The right is arguing that the order did not apply to El Salvador. 

That is not the Trump administration.

[SaintsInDome2006 441]

Just now, Strike said:

You see FACTS differently?  ROFLMAO.  Typical liberal.

And I'm not defending the Trump administration.  They should have deported him to Yemen IMO.  I don't defend bad policy and/or government decisions.  That doesn't change the FACT that he wasn't ordered released, and that's a significant point, as is the one about him being legally declared a member of MS-13.  But there's you pretending he was ordered released when he wasn't and Hackboy pretending he wasn't declared a member of MS-13.  As I always say, I don't mind having a discussion over our OPINIONS.  But you guys are trying to CHANGE FACTS.  And that's just a waste of time and tells me you aren't serious about having an actual  legit discussion on the issue.

Look Strike, much respect, I'm serious. My point (after your excellent responses) wasn't that the judge ordered him released, my point was that the Trump administration in 2019. The judge stated there was no basis for removal - there was no danger to the community (and again look at the court's findings) - so what basis did the Trump DHS have for holding him?

[SaintsInDome2006 441]

1 minute ago, Strike said:

That is not the Trump administration.

Well then I disagree. The right wing is arguing that the 2019 order only applied to Guatemala.

[Strike 5,543]

1 minute ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Look Strike, much respect, I'm serious. My point (after your excellent responses) wasn't that the judge ordered him released, my point was that the Trump administration in 2019. The judge stated there was no basis for removal - there was no danger to the community (and again look at the court's findings) - so what basis did the Trump DHS have for holding him? 

Your point WAS that he was ORDERED released, which he was not.  If you've EVOLVED your thinking based on my excellent responses then say so.  Say something like "you are correct that he wasn't ordered released.  Can we discuss x, y, or z based upon what WAS ordered."  If you want to do that we can move on but you don't get to just pretend like your original point was valid even though it's now a DIFFERENT point.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,433]

2 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Look Strike, much respect, I'm serious. My point (after your excellent responses) wasn't that the judge ordered him released, my point was that the Trump administration in 2019. The judge stated there was no basis for removal - there was no danger to the community (and again look at the court's findings) - so what basis did the Trump DHS have for holding him?

A judge is the Trump administration? Doesn’t the judiciary act independent? You’re an idiot. 

[Strike 5,543]

2 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Well then I disagree. The right wing is arguing that the 2019 order only applied to Guatemala.

WHAT?  Where did anyone ever say the 2019 order applied only to Guatemala.  Post a link.  Because if someone is saying that they're wrong.  But, of course, that's a completely different point than ANYTHING we've been going back and forth over.

[TimHauck 2,876]

53 minutes ago, Strike said:

This is his appeal of the FIRST judge who determined he was a member of MS-13:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.11.2_3.pdf

They affirmed the FIRST judge's findings.  

They affirmed the findings that he be denied bond, and that he couldn’t prove he was NOT in MS-13.  They said the allegations came from a “trustworthy source,” but they did not “rule that he was in MS-13.”

I’d be curious if they still consider the police officer that filed the initial report and his informants a trustworthy source considering his criminal guilt…