Posted on 05/01/2025 6:29:49 PM PDT by janetjanet998
Police body cam video footage of Kilmar Abrego Garcia allegedly being involved in human smuggling, as noted by Tennessee State Troopers.
The incident happened during a traffic stop in Tennessee in 2022.
“He’s hauling these people for money,” a trooper could be heard saying”
That van was owned by a man who confessed to trafficking illegals from TX to MD. It was flagged so that DHS was supposed to be alerted if it was ever seen because that was what the dark-tinted windows and added seats were intended for, as attested by the man who adapted it and used it that way - the man Garcia called his “boss”. A MD builder who claimed to be doing construction in St Louis but was carrying people he picked up in TX.
Your comment reflects desperation. You are in denial.
You comments are desperate to justify an illegal removal after the fact. Due process must happen at the time of the removal. Finding the truck was filled with dead bodies would not make the removal legal. At this time it is irrelevant to the legal question of an illegal removal where due process was not provided.
Garcia received his due process already. he was ordered deported by 2 different immigration judges.
Pure bullshit. At least learn his name - Abrego. As the court stated, he was lawfully in the United States since 2019. Your claim is nonsense that never happened.
Wow. In the past I have considered that what you’ve presented had some semblance of integrity but you’ve blown your cover on this one.
Gillmar Abrego Garcia. That’s what I’ve called him. When I want to be short I use his last name, Garcia, as is customary. He was only lawfully in the US because he had not yet been deported as ordered - and that was because he claimed he feared for his life if deported back to El Salvador.
Two things have changed since then:
1. MS-13 has been designated as a terrorist organization. The judges acknowledged that he was a member of MS-13, but the terrorist designation now means that he will never be a free man to roam the streets, which was what deportation WOULD HAVE MEANT at the time he was excused from being deported to El Salvador. The only appropriate legal place for terrorists is in prison. The option of staying in the US while awaiting deportation to someplace other than El Salvador is no longer a legal option for a known member of a terrorist organization. And that membership has ALREADY been legally determined. He was able to refute it if possible and he had nothing to refute it with. He had his due process already.
2. El Salvador has cleaned out its gang problem and now has all these terrorists in a prison where they can’t hurt each other or anybody else. Space is tight there for a reason; when there’s no room to pull back your arm for a roundhouse you can’t do a roundhouse. When there is no cutlery for eating with you can’t stab somebody. When there are no sheets you can’t strangle someone. When there’s no outside communication you can’t send or receive hit orders for the gang.
This is the ONLY PLACE WHERE GANG MEMBERS CAN BE SAFE, because what poses the danger is their own minds which can make a weapon out of anything. These are not inhumane or draconian conditions; these are the only conditions under which these self-damaged people are able to live in peace. This is the ONLY PLACE where Abrego Garcia’s fears of gang terror can possibly be alleviated.
I thank you for revealing yourself to me. I will take all your future words for what they are worth.
So a hearing in Immigration Court with a loss and issuance of a deportation order, an appeal in Immigration Appeals Court with a loss that retains the deportation order in force but adds a specification as to where he cannot be deported to (due to a BS asylum defense) is not due process??? What do you think he deserves? The same due process as in a criminal trial? As in a Civil trial? As in an administrative hearing?Did you go to law school? If so, where? Can you define the term “due process”? Do you even know what it means? If not, do not opine on it.
So a hearing in Immigration Court with a loss and issuance of a deportation order, an appeal in Immigration Appeals Court with a loss that retains the deportation order in force but adds a specification as to where he cannot be deported to (due to a BS asylum defense) is not due process???
A. That did not happen. The court has established there is no removal order on record.
B. Nothing done at a hearing in 2019 is due process for a removal procedure in 2025. In 2025, removal was carried out without due process. It is a violation of the Constitution and statute law.
What do you think he deserves? The same due process as in a criminal trial? As in a Civil trial? As in an administrative hearing?
He must be brought back and the removal must be done again, with all due process being followed, as the Circuit Court and the U.S. Supreme Court have unanimously ruled. He, and others, have been imprisoned without being charged or convicted of a crime. In your infantile analysis, you cannot anything wrong with that? Due process is not throw him on a plane and dump him in an El Salvadoran prison.
As the U.S. Supreme Court stated, "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."
Here is the unanimous U.S. Circuit Court opinion:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.88.0_5.pdf
USCA4 Appeal: 25-1404 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/17/2025UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUITNo. 25-1404
(8:25-cv-00951-PX)
KILMAR ARMANDO ABREGO GARCIA; JENNIFER STEFANIA VASQUEZ SURA; A.A.V., a minor, by and through his next friend and mother, Jennifer Vasquez Sura,
Plaintiffs – Appellees,
v.
KRISTI NOEM; TODD LYONS; KENNETH GENALO; NIKITA
BAKER; PAMELA JO BONDI; MARCO RUBIO,
Defendants – Appellants.O R D E R
WILKINSON, Circuit Judge, with whom KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, join:
Upon review of the government’s motion, the court denies the motion for an emergency stay pending appeal and for a writ of mandamus. The relief the government is requesting is both extraordinary and premature. While we fully respect the Executive’s robust assertion of its Article II powers, we shall not micromanage the efforts of a fine district judge attempting to implement the Supreme Court’s recent decision.
- - - - -
[2]
It is difficult in some cases to get to the very heart of the matter. But in this case, it is not hard at all. The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order. Further, it claims in essence that because it has rid itself of custody that there is nothing that can be done.
This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.
The government asserts that Abrego Garcia is a terrorist and a member of MS-13. Perhaps, but perhaps not. Regardless, he is still entitled to due process. If the government is confident of its position, it should be assured that position will prevail in proceedings to terminate the withholding of removal order. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.24(f) (requiring that the government prove “by a preponderance of evidence” that the alien is no longer entitled to a withholding of removal). Moreover, the government has conceded that Abrego Garcia was wrongly or “mistakenly” deported. Why then should it not make what was wrong, right?
The Supreme Court’s decision remains, as always, our guidepost. That decision rightly requires the lower federal courts to give “due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.” Noem v. Abrego Garcia, No. 24A949, slip op. at 2 (U.S. Apr. 10, 2025); see also United States v. Curtiss-Wright Exp. Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 319 (1936). That would allow sensitive diplomatic negotiations to be removed from public view. It would recognize as well that the “facilitation” of Abrego Garcia’s return leaves the Executive Branch with options in the execution to which the courts in
- - - - -
[3]
accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision should extend a genuine deference. That decision struck a balance that does not permit lower courts to leave Article II by the wayside.
The Supreme Court’s decision does not, however, allow the government to do essentially nothing. It 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.” Abrego Garcia, supra, slip op. at 2. “Facilitate” is an active verb. It requires that steps be taken as the Supreme Court has made perfectly clear. See Abrego Garcia, supra, slip op. at 2 (“[T]he Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps.”). The plain and active meaning of the word cannot be diluted by its constriction, as the government would have it, to a narrow term of art. We are not bound in this context by a definition crafted by an administrative agency and contained in a mere policy directive. Cf. Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 400 (2024); Christensen v. Harris Cnty., 529 U.S. 576, 587 (2000). Thus, the government’s argument that all it must do is “remove any domestic barriers to [Abrego Garcia’s] return,” Mot. for Stay at 2, is not well taken in light of the Supreme Court’s command that the government facilitate Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador.
“Facilitation” does not permit the admittedly erroneous deportation of an individual to the one country’s prisons that the withholding order forbids and, further, to do so in disregard of a court order that the government not so subtly spurns. “Facilitation” does not sanction the abrogation of habeas corpus through the transfer of custody to foreign
- - - - -
[4]
detention centers in the manner attempted here. Allowing all this would “facilitate” foreign detention more than it would domestic return. It would reduce the rule of law to lawlessness and tarnish the very values for which Americans of diverse views and persuasions have always stood.
The government is obviously frustrated and displeased with the rulings of the court. Let one thing be clear. Court rulings are not above criticism. Criticism keeps us on our toes and helps us do a better job. See Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 24 (1958) (Frankfurter, J., concurring) (“Criticism need not be stilled. Active obstruction or defiance is barred.”). Court rulings can overstep, and they can further intrude upon the prerogatives of other branches. Courts thus speak with the knowledge of their imperfections but also with a sense that they instill a fidelity to law that would be sorely missed in their absence.
“Energy in the [E]xecutive” is much to be respected. FEDERALIST NO. 70, at 423 (1789) (Alexander Hamilton) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961). It can rescue government from its lassitude and recalibrate imbalances too long left unexamined. The knowledge that executive energy is a perishable quality understandably breeds impatience with the courts. Courts, in turn, are frequently attuned to caution and are often uneasy with the Executive Branch’s breakneck pace.
And the differences do not end there. The Executive is inherently focused upon ends; the Judiciary much more so upon means. Ends are bestowed on the Executive by electoral outcomes. Means are entrusted to all of government, but most especially to the Judiciary by the Constitution itself.
- - - - -
[5]
The Executive possesses enormous powers to prosecute and to deport, but with powers come restraints. If today the Executive claims the right to deport without due process and in disregard of court orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that it will not deport American citizens and then disclaim responsibility to bring them home?∗ And what assurance shall there be that the Executive will not train its broad discretionary powers upon its political enemies? The threat, even if not the actuality, would always be present, and the Executive’s obligation to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” would lose its meaning. U.S. CONST. art. II, § 3; see also id. art. II, § 1, cl. 8.
Today, both the United States and the El Salvadoran governments disclaim any authority and/or responsibility to return Abrego Garcia. See President Trump Participates in a Bilateral Meeting with the President of El Salvador, WHITE HOUSE (Apr. 14, 2025). We are told that neither government has the power to act. The result will be to leave matters generally and Abrego Garcia specifically in an interminable limbo without recourse to law of any sort.
The basic differences between the branches mandate a serious effort at mutual respect. The respect that courts must accord the Executive must be reciprocated by the Executive’s respect for the courts. Too often today this has not been the case, as calls for impeachment of judges for decisions the Executive disfavors and exhortations to disregard court orders sadly illustrate.
____________________
* See, e.g., Michelle Stoddart, ‘Homegrowns are Next’: Trump Doubles Down on Sending American ‘Criminals’ to Foreign Prisons, ABC NEWS (Apr. 14, 2025, 6:04 PM); David Rutz, Trump Open to Sending Violent American Criminals to El Salvador Prisons, FOX NEWS (Apr. 15, 2025, 11:01 AM EDT).
- - - - -
[6]
It is in this atmosphere that we are reminded of President Eisenhower’s sage example. Putting his “personal opinions” aside, President Eisenhower honored his “inescapable” duty to enforce the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education II to desegregate schools “with all deliberate speed.” Address by the President of the United States, Delivered from his Office at the White House 1-2 (Sept. 24, 1957); 349 U.S. 294, 301 (1955). This great man expressed his unflagging belief that “[t]he very basis of our individual rights and freedoms is the certainty that the President and the Executive Branch of Government will support and [e]nsure the carrying out of the decisions of the Federal Courts.” Id. at 3. Indeed, in our late Executive’s own words, “[u]nless the President did so, anarchy would result.” Id.
Now the branches come too close to grinding irrevocably against one another in a conflict that promises to diminish both. This is a losing proposition all around. The Judiciary will lose much from the constant intimations of its illegitimacy, to which by dent of custom and detachment we can only sparingly reply. The Executive will lose much from a public perception of its lawlessness and all of its attendant contagions. The Executive may succeed for a time in weakening the courts, but over time history will script the tragic gap between what was and all that might have been, and law in time will sign its epitaph. It is, as we have noted, all too possible to see in this case an incipient crisis, but it may present an opportunity as well. We yet cling to the hope that it is not naïve to believe our good brethren in the Executive Branch perceive the rule of law as vital to the American ethos. This case presents their unique chance to vindicate that value and to summon the best that is within us while there is still time.
- - - - -
[7]
In sum, and for the reasons foregoing, we deny the motion for the stay pending appeal and the writ of mandamus in this case. It is so ordered. For the Court
/s/ Nwamaka Anowi, Clerk
Abrego was removed as a member of a terrorist gang. The process due is set in statute law.
https://law.justia.com/codes/us/title-8/chapter-12/subchapter-ii/part-ix/sec-1362/
2023 U.S. Code
Title 8 - Aliens and Nationality
Chapter 12 - Immigration and Nationality
Subchapter II - Immigration
Part IX - MiscellaneousSec. 1362 - Right to counsel
In any removal proceedings before an immigration judge and in any appeal proceedings before the Attorney General from any such removal proceedings, the person concerned shall have the privilege of being represented (at no expense to the Government) by such counsel, authorized to practice in such proceedings, as he shall choose.
https://law.justia.com/codes/us/title-8/chapter-12/subchapter-v/sec-1532/
2023 U.S. Code
Title 8 - Aliens and Nationality
Chapter 12 - Immigration and Nationality
Subchapter V - Alien Terrorist Removal ProceduresSec. 1532 - Establishment of removal court
(a) Designation of judges
The Chief Justice of the United States shall publicly designate 5 district court judges from 5 of the United States judicial circuits who shall constitute a court that shall have jurisdiction to conduct all removal proceedings. The Chief Justice may, in the Chief Justice's discretion, designate the same judges under this section as are designated pursuant to section 103(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803(a)).
(b) Terms
Each judge designated under subsection (a) shall serve for a term of 5 years and shall be eligible for redesignation, except that of the members first designated—
(1) 1 member shall serve for a term of 1 year;
(2) 1 member shall serve for a term of 2 years;
(3) 1 member shall serve for a term of 3 years; and
(4) 1 member shall serve for a term of 4 years. (c) Chief judge (1) Designation
The Chief Justice shall publicly designate one of the judges of the removal court to be the chief judge of the removal court.
(2) Responsibilities
The chief judge shall—
(A) promulgate rules to facilitate the functioning of the removal court; and
(B) assign the consideration of cases to the various judges on the removal court.
(d) Expeditious and confidential nature of proceedings
The provisions of section 103(c) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803(c)) shall apply to removal proceedings in the same manner as they apply to proceedings under that Act [50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.].
(e) Establishment of panel of special attorneys
The removal court shall provide for the designation of a panel of attorneys each of whom—
(1) has a security clearance which affords the attorney access to classified information, and
(2) has agreed to represent permanent resident aliens with respect to classified information under section 1534(e)(3) of this title in accordance with (and subject to the penalties under) this subchapter.
https://law.justia.com/codes/us/title-8/chapter-12/subchapter-v/sec-1533/
2023 U.S. Code
Title 8 - Aliens and Nationality
Chapter 12 - Immigration and Nationality
Subchapter V - Alien Terrorist Removal ProceduresSec. 1533 - Removal court procedure
(a) Application (1) In general
In any case in which the Attorney General has classified information that an alien is an alien terrorist, the Attorney General may seek removal of the alien under this subchapter by filing an application with the removal court that contains—
(A) the identity of the attorney in the Department of Justice making the application;
(B) a certification by the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General that the application satisfies the criteria and requirements of this section;
(C) the identity of the alien for whom authorization for the removal proceeding is sought; and
(D) a statement of the facts and circumstances relied on by the Department of Justice to establish probable cause that—
(i) the alien is an alien terrorist;
(ii) the alien is physically present in the United States; and
(iii) with respect to such alien, removal under subchapter II would pose a risk to the national security of the United States.
[...]
https://law.justia.com/codes/us/title-8/chapter-12/subchapter-v/sec-1534/
2023 U.S. Code
Title 8 - Aliens and Nationality
Chapter 12 - Immigration and Nationality
Subchapter V - Alien Terrorist Removal ProceduresSec. 1534 - Removal hearing
(a) In general
(1) Expeditious hearing
In any case in which an application for an order is approved under section 1533(c)(2) of this title, a removal hearing shall be conducted under this section as expeditiously as practicable for the purpose of determining whether the alien to whom the order pertains should be removed from the United States on the grounds that the alien is an alien terrorist.
(2) Public hearing
The removal hearing shall be open to the public.
(b) Notice
An alien who is the subject of a removal hearing under this subchapter shall be given reasonable notice of—
(1) the nature of the charges against the alien, including a general account of the basis for the charges; and
(2) the time and place at which the hearing will be held.
(c) Rights in hearing
(1) Right of counsel
The alien shall have a right to be present at such hearing and to be represented by counsel. Any alien financially unable to obtain counsel shall be entitled to have counsel assigned to represent the alien. Such counsel shall be appointed by the judge pursuant to the plan for furnishing representation for any person financially unable to obtain adequate representation for the district in which the hearing is conducted, as provided for in section 3006A of title 18. All provisions of that section shall apply and, for purposes of determining the maximum amount of compensation, the matter shall be treated as if a felony was charged.
(2) Introduction of evidence
Subject to the limitations in subsection (e), the alien shall have a reasonable opportunity to introduce evidence on the alien's own behalf.
(3) Examination of witnesses
Subject to the limitations in subsection (e), the alien shall have a reasonable opportunity to examine the evidence against the alien and to cross-examine any witness.
(4) Record
A verbatim record of the proceedings and of all testimony and evidence offered or produced at such a hearing shall be kept.
(5) Removal decision based on evidence at hearing
The decision of the judge regarding removal shall be based only on that evidence introduced at the removal hearing.
(d) Subpoenas
(1) Request
At any time prior to the conclusion of the removal hearing, either the alien or the Department of Justice may request the judge to issue a subpoena for the presence of a named witness (which subpoena may also command the person to whom it is directed to produce books, papers, documents, or other objects designated therein) upon a satisfactory showing that the presence of the witness is necessary for the determination of any material matter. Such a request may be made ex parte except that the judge shall inform the Department of Justice of any request for a subpoena by the alien for a witness or material if compliance with such a subpoena would reveal classified evidence or the source of that evidence. The Department of Justice shall be given a reasonable opportunity to oppose the issuance of such a subpoena.
[...]
https://law.justia.com/codes/us/title-8/chapter-12/subchapter-v/sec-1537/
2023 U.S. Code
Title 8 - Aliens and Nationality
Chapter 12 - Immigration and Nationality
Subchapter V - Alien Terrorist Removal ProceduresSec. 1537 - Custody and release after removal hearing
(a) Release
(1) In general
Subject to paragraph (2), if the judge decides that an alien should not be removed, the alien shall be released from custody.
(2) Custody pending appeal
If the Attorney General takes an appeal from such decision, the alien shall remain in custody, subject to the provisions of section 3142 of title 18.
(b) Custody and removal
(1) Custody
If the judge decides that an alien shall be removed, the alien shall be detained pending the outcome of any appeal. After the conclusion of any judicial review thereof which affirms the removal order, the Attorney General shall retain the alien in custody and remove the alien to a country specified under paragraph (2).
(2) Removal
(A) In general
The removal of an alien shall be to any country which the alien shall designate if such designation does not, in the judgment of the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State, impair the obligation of the United States under any treaty (including a treaty pertaining to extradition) or otherwise adversely affect the foreign policy of the United States.
(B) Alternate countries
If the alien refuses to designate a country to which the alien wishes to be removed or if the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State, determines that removal of the alien to the country so designated would impair a treaty obligation or adversely affect United States foreign policy, the Attorney General shall cause the alien to be removed to any country willing to receive such alien.
(C) Continued detention
If no country is willing to receive such an alien, the Attorney General may, notwithstanding any other provision of law, retain the alien in custody. The Attorney General, in coordination with the Secretary of State, shall make periodic efforts to reach agreement with other countries to accept such an alien and at least every 6 months shall provide to the attorney representing the alien at the removal hearing a written report on the Attorney General's efforts. Any alien in custody pursuant to this subparagraph shall be released from custody solely at the discretion of the Attorney General and subject to such conditions as the Attorney General shall deem appropriate.
(D) Fingerprinting
Before an alien is removed from the United States pursuant to this subsection, or pursuant to an order of removal because such alien is inadmissible under section 1182(a)(3)(B) of this title, the alien shall be photographed and fingerprinted, and shall be advised of the provisions of section 1326(b) of this title.
(c) Continued detention pending trial
(1) Delay in removal
The Attorney General may hold in abeyance the removal of an alien who has been ordered removed, pursuant to this subchapter, to allow the trial of such alien on any Federal or State criminal charge and the service of any sentence of confinement resulting from such a trial.
(2) Maintenance of custody
Pending the commencement of any service of a sentence of confinement by an alien described in paragraph (1), such an alien shall remain in the custody of the Attorney General, unless the Attorney General determines that temporary release of the alien to the custody of State authorities for confinement in a State facility is appropriate and would not endanger national security or public safety.
(3) Subsequent removal
Following the completion of a sentence of confinement by an alien described in paragraph (1), or following the completion of State criminal proceedings which do not result in a sentence of confinement of an alien released to the custody of State authorities pursuant to paragraph (2), such an alien shall be returned to the custody of the Attorney General who shall proceed to the removal of the alien under this subchapter.
(d) Application of certain provisions relating to escape of prisoners
For purposes of sections 751 and 752 of title 18, an alien in the custody of the Attorney General pursuant to this subchapter shall be subject to the penalties provided by those sections in relation to a person committed to the custody of the Attorney General by virtue of an arrest on a charge of a felony.
(e) Rights of aliens in custody
(1) Family and attorney visits
An alien in the custody of the Attorney General pursuant to this subchapter shall be given reasonable opportunity, as determined by the Attorney General, to communicate with and receive visits from members of the alien's family, and to contact, retain, and communicate with an attorney.
(2) Diplomatic contact
An alien in the custody of the Attorney General pursuant to this subchapter shall have the right to contact an appropriate diplomatic or consular official of the alien's country of citizenship or nationality or of any country providing representation services therefore. The Attorney General shall notify the appropriate embassy, mission, or consular office of the alien's detention.
Gillmar Abrego Garcia. That’s what I’ve called him. When I want to be short I use his last name, Garcia, as is customary.
No, you blithering moron. His full name following Spanish convention is Kilmar Abrego Garcia. The short version is Kilmar Abrego. His family name is Abrego, not Garcia. Garcia is his mother's family name. Viewed in American convention, Garcia is his mother's maiden name.
He was only lawfully in the US because he had not yet been deported as ordered - and that was because he claimed he feared for his life if deported back to El Salvador.
You are full of crap. There is no removal order as part of the record of the Abrego case.
Abrego Garcia v. Noem, 4th Circuit No. 25-1345 (7 Apr 2025)
THACKER, Circuit Judge, with whom Judge KING joins, concurring:The panel unanimously agrees that the district court’s order requiring the Government “to facilitate and effectuate the return of Plaintiff Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia to the United States by no later than 11:59 PM on Monday, April 7, 2025,” should not be stayed.
The Government’s motion to stay is, therefore, denied. I write to explain my view.
The United States Government has no legal authority to snatch a person who is lawfully present in the United States off the street and remove him from the country without due process. The Government’s contention otherwise, and its argument that the federal courts are powerless to intervene, are unconscionable.
I.
Abrego Garcia is an El Salvadoran national who has been lawfully present in the United States since 2019, when he was granted withholding of removal to El Salvador. Abrego Garcia has no criminal history and has never even been charged with a crime in the United States, El Salvador, or any other country. On March 12, 2025, agents with United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) took Abrego Garcia into custody without authority. Although ICE agents told Abrego Garcia that his “status had changed,” S.A. 19; 147, that was not true. On March 15, 2025, in what the Government has conceded was “an administrative error,” the Government flew Abrego Garcia from the United States to Tecoluca, El Salvador. Dist. Ct. Op. at 2 n.3 (citing Hr’g Tr., Apr. 4, 2025, at 19:11-13 (Mr. Reuveni: “This person should -- the plaintiff, Abrego Garcia, should not have been removed. That is not in dispute.”)).
Erez Reuveni was the attorney representing the Department of Justice.
At 7, footnote 3: "the Government attorney; appearing before the district court at the April 4 hearing candidly admitted that no order of removal is part of the record in this case. Dist. Ct. Op. at 14 (citing Hr'g Tr. Apr. 4, 2025, at 20 (counsel admitting no order of removal is part of the record)"
Why did he have to be granted a withholding of removal? Why withhold something if it’s never been ordered?
And which Abrego Garcia case are they talking about? The one where his asylum was denied, or the actual one that is before the court right now? His removal order which didn’t happen because there was a withholding is not necessarily germane to the case of whether he needs to be brought back to the US and imprisoned here for being a terrorist.
Your rabid ad hominid attacks reveal your desperation. Sad.
I don’t debate with half-assed jailhouse lawyers or ACLU lawyers. And FU for the infantile insult.
I’ll just add that the 2 judges who wrote that court document were extremely deceptive in saying the fedgov admitted there was no order of deportation submitted in abrego garcia’s “case”, without saying there WAS a deportation order from 2019 that another judge said could not be used to deport him specifically to El Salvador because at that time there was credible fear of a rival gang in El Salvador - but those orders were not submitted in THIS Abrego Garcia case.
The language was so deceptive that it led a poor innocent Freeper to claim that there AS NEVER a deportation order.
Now why would these judges say something so deceptive in a legal filing? I think a case could be made for this being perjury on the part of those judges
And which Abrego Garcia case are they talking about? The one where his asylum was denied, or the actual one that is before the court right now?
I cited and quoted from the 4th Circuit opinion of 7 Apr 2025. NO order of removal is part of the record. In 2019 asylum was not granted, but protected status was granted. After that, Abrego's continued presence in the United States was lawful.
Abrego Garcia v. Noem, 4th Circuit No. 25-1345 (7 Apr 2025)
At 7, footnote 3: "the Government attorney; appearing before the district court at the April 4 hearing candidly admitted that no order of removal is part of the record in this case. Dist. Ct. Op. at 14 (citing Hr'g Tr. Apr. 4, 2025, at 20 (counsel admitting no order of removal is part of the record)"
Your asinine attacks upon the courts would make believe the unanimous Supreme Court was involved in a conspiracy against Trump. Abrego's removal was unlawful. Deal with it.
Infantile is an accurate assessment of your argumentation. But now you know what due process is for an Alien Terrorist Removal.
It was unlawful because the facts of the case had not been updated in the court system. But it is also unlawful for these judges to try to do foreign affairs.
And you are flat=out lying about there being no deportation order. There was a deportation order in 2019 and another judge said it couldn’t be to El Salvador.
I have said nothing about a conspiracy against Trump. You are making stuff up again. What I’ve said is that the reason for the hold on Abrego Garcia’s deportation to El Salvador no longer exists, and the status of that hold needed to be updated. Nothing that Abrego Garcia needs to be in the US for; he already had his due process. The only issue was keeping him safe from the RIVAL GANG, and he is now in the safest place such a man could ever be in on this side of Hell.
You are also a troll, period. I asked questions of you and you totally ignored them because you knew the answers would blow away your argument.
Maybe the judges didn’t commit perjury; maybe you just don’t have a 3rd-grade reading comprehension. You took the judges saying that the deportation order hadn’t been submitted in THIS CASE and made it out to mean there was no deportation order.
You’re not worth my time.
This one’s a real piece of work.
Can’t even get basic facts right.
He knows he’s wrong. He knows he has a small dick. And he takes it all out on everybody else. Not the way to go through life.
I’ll reply to you because I don’t know which Freepers are lawyers who could maybe give more detail. But from what I can see at https://law.justia.com/codes/us/title-8/chapter-12/subchapter-v/sec-1534/ there are procedures for removing an alien based on terrorism charges that are similar to the process for immigration judges to determine that someone is deportable.
In the case of Abrego Garcie, there was first a hearing on whether he should be allowed free on bail while the immigration judge considered the case. Based on the evidence provided against Abrego Garcia which was unrefuted by him, the judge determined that he was a member of MS-13 and should be denied bail. It was later decided that he was deportable because he had entered the country illegally and had not applied for asylum within a year of entering. He then appealed, saying that he feared retaliation from a rival gang because of his membership in MS-13 - and in non-terrorist cases the US won’t deport somebody to a country where they may be in danger because of (among other things) their membership in any group. The judge issued a withholding of removal to El Salvador because that was a country where that danger existed at the time.
But judges are not allowed to stop deportation through withholding in the case of an alien terrorist.
At https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1231 it has the following section:
“(3) Restriction on removal to a country where alien’s life or freedom would be threatened
(A) In general
Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), the Attorney General may not remove an alien to a country if the Attorney General decides that the alien’s life or freedom would be threatened in that country because of the alien’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
(B) Exception Subparagraph (A) does not apply to an alien deportable under section 1227(a)(4)(D) of this title or if the Attorney General decides that—...
(iv) there are reasonable grounds to believe that the alien is a danger to the security of the United States.”
That leaves the legality of a withholding up to the Attorney General, once it’s been determined through due process that the alian is deportable. If the AG believes there is valid reason to believe that the alien presents a security risk to the US, the authorization for a withholding does not apply.
IOW, if Pam Bondi believes that Abrego Garcia - who has already been determined to be deportable - is a danger to the security of the United States (for instance because he belongs to a designated terrorist group), then the authorization for issuing a withholding is vacated. There does not have to be a whole new hearing on whether he is deportable; it is already known that he is. And the issue of whether he is deportable to El Salvador is up to whether the Attorney General believes the alien is a danger to the US. If so, the alien’s safety is not a legal obligation for the US.
If there are any lawyers who could weigh in on this, I’d appreciate it. I hate legalese, and trying to follow all the articles, sections, subsections, etc is near impossible for me at this point, though I’ve tried my best. Am I understanding this correctly?
I’m not seeing any stipulations about when the AG has to decide that the alien is a danger to the US, or that a hearing has to be held or any other process.
If the whole basis for deporting Abrego Garcia was him being a terrorist, then there would have to be the prescribed hearings about that. But that isn’t the reason for deporting him; he was deportable because he entered the country illegally and didn’t apply for asylum within a year. He was deportable to El Salvador because Pam Bondi found good reason to believe he was a danger to the US so he was not eligible for the withholding that had kept him from being deported previously.
Regarding the Venezuelans deported under the Alien Enemies Act, the issue isn’t whether they are terrorists so the requirement for terrorism hearings also doesn’t apply to them. They are accused of invading the US on behalf of the Maduro regime, based on intel about the training, weaponry, and provisions the Maduro regime provided to Tren de Aragua members who then entered the US. Although Tren de Aragua is a designated terrorist group, the basis for deporting is not their terror ties, but the Alien Enemies Act. It was Tren de Aragua that was trained and sent to the US to destabilize us.
“Wow. In the past I have considered that what you’ve presented had some semblance of integrity but you’ve blown your cover on this one.”
why would you have ever considered ANYTHING that SPAMpusher has posted on here to have any integrity? He’s incapable of commenting without his legalese copy/paste spam that he does over and over and over.
look at his posts carefully—Have you ever seen any comment of his that you would think he’s a conservative? Nope. it’s all just legal ranting
He also genuinely believes that Palestine is a country and that Israel is committing genocide on the poor filthy palestinians. And he’ll gladly link to Amnesty Intl and the UN human watch groups as his proof. that right there is proof he’s not functioning in reality
He’s mentally ill and best to avoid his ramblings
It was unlawful because the facts of the case had not been updated in the court system.
Nonsense. There was no court proceeding prior and pursuant to the 2025 removal action. The removal action was unlawful and unconstitutional because Abrego had no opportunity to confront his accusers, nor to contest the action. The due process clause of the Constitution was ignored.
As the 4th Circuit panel ruled unanimously in Abrego at 3:
The government asserts that Abriego Garcia is a terrorist and a member of MS-13. Perhaps, but perhaps not. Regardless, he is still entitled to due process. ... the government has conceded that Abriego Garcia was wrongly or "mistakenly" deported.
The facts of the case cannot be updated when there was no legal case brought against Abrego. There is no judicial record to update. The status of Venezuela could not be updated as the State Department has not changed its publicly stated position on the state of affairs in Venezuela.
You are just making crap up again.
U.S. Constitution
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
- - - - -
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Nobody becomes a criminal by executive proclamation. To legally hold someone to be a criminal entails more than an executive say-so. There is the whole trial, jury, and conviction thing to deal with.
The government is free to proclaim that all members of a class, such as all alien members of MS-13, are removable. It cannot, by declaration of some executive officer, establish what invidivuals are either aliens or members of MS-13. That is where the individual must be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, given a hearing and an opportunity to be heard, authorized assistance of counsel, be able to confront witnesses, and be able to present his own witnesses. The total and complete government failure to provide due process prior to the removal action cannot be cured by a release to the press after the removal.
NATIONAL TPS ALLIANCE v Noem, CAND 25-cv-01766-EMC, Doc 16, ORDER, 31 Mar 2025 at 1:
At issue is whether this Court should temporarily postpone actions by Kristi Noem, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, taken against over 600,000 Venezuelan nationals who have legal status to reside and work temporarily in the United States. The Secretary’s actions will shortly strip nearly 350,000 of these residents of their protection under the Temporary Protected Status (“TPS”) program, subjecting them to possible imminent deportation back to Venezuela, a country so rife with economic and political upheaval and danger that the State Department has categorized Venezuela as a “Level 4: Do Not Travel” country “due to the high risk of wrongful detentions, terrorism, kidnapping, the arbitrary enforcement of local laws, crime, civil unrest, poor health infrastructure.” https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/traveladvisories/venezuela-travel-advisory.html (last visited 3/30/2025).
The State Department today still says:
Do not travel to Venezuela due to the high risk of wrongful detentions, terrorism, kidnapping, the arbitrary enforcement of local laws, crime, civil unrest, poor health infrastructure.
There is nothing to update which would alter that status of Venezuela.
And you are flat=out lying about there being no deportation order. There was a deportation order in 2019 and another judge said it couldn’t be to El Salvador.
Produce the court documentation of what you claim. I quoted the 4th Circuit Court opinion to the effect that "no order of removal is part of the record in this case. Dist. Ct. Op. at 14 (citing Hr'g Tr. Apr. 4, 2025, at 20 (counsel admitting no order of removal is part of the record), and id. at 22."
This is not a 2019 case, it is a 2025 case, of which the Circuit Court stated:
Abrego Garcia v. Noem, 4th Circuit No. 25-1345 (7 Apr 2025)
The United States Government has no legal authority to snatch a person who is lawfully present in the United States off the street and remove him from the country without due process. The Government’s contention otherwise, and its argument that the federal courts are powerless to intervene, are unconscionable.I.
Abrego Garcia is an El Salvadoran national who has been lawfully present in the United States since 2019, when he was granted withholding of removal to El Salvador. Abrego Garcia has no criminal history and has never even been charged with a crime in the United States, El Salvador, or any other country. On March 12, 2025, agents with United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) took Abrego Garcia into custody without authority. Although ICE agents told Abrego Garcia that his “status had changed,” S.A. 19; 147, that was not true. On March 15, 2025, in what the Government has conceded was “an administrative error,” the Government flew Abrego Garcia from the United States to Tecoluca, El Salvador. Dist. Ct. Op. at 2 n.3 (citing Hr’g Tr., Apr. 4, 2025, at 19:11-13 (Mr. Reuveni: “This person should -- the plaintiff, Abrego Garcia, should not have been removed. That is not in dispute.”)).
Erez Reuveni was the attorney representing the Department of Justice.
At 7, footnote 3: "the Government attorney; appearing before the district court at the April 4 hearing candidly admitted that no order of removal is part of the record in this case. Dist. Ct. Op. at 14 (citing Hr'g Tr. Apr. 4, 2025, at 20 (counsel admitting no order of removal is part of the record), and id. at 22 (counsel confirming that "the removal order" from 2019 "cannot be executed" and is not part of the record))."
No 2019 order is part of the record because it is irrelevant. In 2019, the first judge made a preliminary finding. The second judge made a ruling and granted Abrego protected status to remain in the United States. Abrego was lawfully present in the United States after the 2019 grant of protected status.
I have said nothing about a conspiracy against Trump.
You and others of your ilk have constantly whined about the unconstitutional judgments of the leftist judges and justices. In Abrego the Circuit Court panel and the U.S. Supreme Court UNANIMOUSLY condemned that actions of the government in Abrego. Either Thomas and Alito are part of your Vast Left Wing conspiracy of judges and justices, or the lame excuses for the government actions simply fail as a matter of law.
The only issue was keeping him safe from the RIVAL GANG, and he is now in the safest place such a man could ever be in on this side of Hell.
Abrego is now in a prison without the benefit of having been criminally charged or convicted of anything. Some simpletons see nothing legally wrong with that. As the court determined, Abrego has never been charged with a crime in the United States or any other country.
Note that Abrego is now in the El Salvador version of Club Fed tending to cows.
You are also a troll, period. I asked questions of you and you totally ignored them because you knew the answers would blow away your argument.
As is typical, in your #33 you cite no law and no court opinion, and ;make no legal argument, but offer up your personal comments opinions utterly detached from any law. You merely spew your brainfarts contrary to law and in direct conflict with unanimous opinions of the Circuit and Supreme Courts, and expect others to waste their time discussing the juvenile insanity you insert in your posts in place of any reasoned legal argument. I do not feel any obligation to respond to each and every bit of nonsense you spew.
The UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT ruled:
The detainees’ rights against summary removal, however, are not currently in dispute. The Government expressly agrees that “TdA members subject to removal under the Alien Enemies Act get judicial review. ”Reply in Support of Application To Vacate 1. “It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law” in the context of removal proceedings. Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 306 (1993). So, the detainees are entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard “appropriate to the nature of the case.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 313 (1950).
https://law.justia.com/codes/us/title-8/chapter-12/subchapter-v/sec-1534/
2023 U.S. Code
Title 8 - Aliens and Nationality
Chapter 12 - Immigration and Nationality
Subchapter V - Alien Terrorist Removal ProceduresSec. 1534 - Removal hearing
(a) In general
(1) Expeditious hearing
In any case in which an application for an order is approved under section 1533(c)(2) of this title, a removal hearing shall be conducted under this section as expeditiously as practicable for the purpose of determining whether the alien to whom the order pertains should be removed from the United States on the grounds that the alien is an alien terrorist.
(2) Public hearing
The removal hearing shall be open to the public.
(b) Notice
An alien who is the subject of a removal hearing under this subchapter shall be given reasonable notice of—
(1) the nature of the charges against the alien, including a general account of the basis for the charges; and
(2) the time and place at which the hearing will be held.
(c) Rights in hearing
(1) Right of counsel
The alien shall have a right to be present at such hearing and to be represented by counsel. Any alien financially unable to obtain counsel shall be entitled to have counsel assigned to represent the alien. Such counsel shall be appointed by the judge pursuant to the plan for furnishing representation for any person financially unable to obtain adequate representation for the district in which the hearing is conducted, as provided for in section 3006A of title 18. All provisions of that section shall apply and, for purposes of determining the maximum amount of compensation, the matter shall be treated as if a felony was charged.
(2) Introduction of evidence
Subject to the limitations in subsection (e), the alien shall have a reasonable opportunity to introduce evidence on the alien's own behalf.
(3) Examination of witnesses
Subject to the limitations in subsection (e), the alien shall have a reasonable opportunity to examine the evidence against the alien and to cross-examine any witness.
(4) Record
A verbatim record of the proceedings and of all testimony and evidence offered or produced at such a hearing shall be kept.
(5) Removal decision based on evidence at hearing
The decision of the judge regarding removal shall be based only on that evidence introduced at the removal hearing.
(d) Subpoenas
(1) Request
At any time prior to the conclusion of the removal hearing, either the alien or the Department of Justice may request the judge to issue a subpoena for the presence of a named witness (which subpoena may also command the person to whom it is directed to produce books, papers, documents, or other objects designated therein) upon a satisfactory showing that the presence of the witness is necessary for the determination of any material matter. Such a request may be made ex parte except that the judge shall inform the Department of Justice of any request for a subpoena by the alien for a witness or material if compliance with such a subpoena would reveal classified evidence or the source of that evidence. The Department of Justice shall be given a reasonable opportunity to oppose the issuance of such a subpoena.
[...]
In the past he’s posted some links that have led me to find links that have accurate information. And even this time, he linked to the immigration law that deals with terrorism charges. That doesn’t apply because they aren’t deporting him as a terrorist (they’re deporting him as originally ordered because he entered the country illegally and didn’t apply for asylum within a year - which he already had due process for) but it did get me started so that I was eventually able to find the law that does apply, and to find that the reason the withholding no longer applied was because AG Pam Bondi had credible evidence that he was a danger to the US - in which case a withholding cannot apply. And that requires no hearing or anything like that, except for the AG’s determination.
So basically I had never heard him utter an original word - just links that I looked at. Now I see that he uses links to either say what doesn’t apply or to twist the meaning (such as using the judges’ deceptive wording to say that Abrego Garcia never received a deportation order at all). And his personal comments are just disgusting ad hominems - revealing desperation to the point that I wonder if he is an illegal alien himself. Maybe an unhinged tranny.
I’ll look at his/her links but I will do it realizing that they are most likely pointing to the wrong thing and I need to use them to find something that actually applies.
You’ve not read or processed a word I’ve said so I’ve not read what you wrote either, except enough to see that you didn’t process what I said.
Abrego Garcia was ordered deported. That didn’t happen because he was issued a withholding. Immigration law says that a withholding cannot stop deportation if the Attorney General believes there is valid reason to think the alien’s presence is a danger to the US. When that happens there is no process necessary in addition to the due process that already determined that the alien is deportable.
The valid reason to believe Abrego Garcia is a danger is his membership in a terrorist group (which was the basis for the withholding in the first place, since a rival terrorist group would target him in El Salvador). That is the reason for the AG being able to deport him to El Salvador even though there was a withholding - because a withholding cannot forbid deportation when the AG has made that determination. If US lives are put at risk by his presence, we don’t care if his life is put at risk when we remove him. Period. Fearing for your life is not a valid legal reason for forcing us to put our lives at risk by your presence here.
It sounds like these judges have no clue. They are trying to rule on the whole history of Abrego Garcia when the filings are only about whether he has to be allowed back into the US. At this point their only concern - according to SCOTUS’s decision - is what it means for the govt to “facilitate” his return. It isn’t their job to re-litigate all the due process he’s already received which already found him deportable or the reasons for the AG believing the withholding no longer applies because his presence is a danger to the US. There is no prescribed process whereby the AG has to document her reasons; it’s not justiciable or appealable. This court is out of line.
End of story.
If these judges are going to say the removal is on terrorism charges then they need to show that the govt applied for an order of removal under the terrorism laws. They didn’t. They deported him because he entered the country illegally and didn’t file for asylum within a year - and was ordered deported by a judge after due process. They deported him to El Salvador because the AG found his presence here a danger to the US (due most likely to his membership in a terrorist group, his violence to his wife and child, and his prior likely involvement in human trafficking) and that finding allows him to be deported even in a situation that otherwise would have been eligible for a withholding. It is lawful to deport even to a “dangerous” country if the alien’s presence in the US is a danger to the US. THAT is the law that applies and what the judges should be looking at - IF it was their job to re-litigate the removal process that happened with Abrego Garcia.
I’m saying this stuff because it might help somebody else. You’ve already shown that you won’t process anything I say. You are a lost cause. For instance, it makes no difference what the US State Dept says about Venezuela when the US President has invoked the Alien Enemies Act pointing out that Tren de Aragua was trained, armed, and sent into the US to wreak havoc here. You act as if nothing has changed because you can find ANYWHERE within the US govt that doesn’t say the same thing as Trump’s declaration. As if POTUS’s declaration only counts if it is posted EVERYWHERE. That’s just stupid, and not how this stuff works. But it’s the way you know to desperately argue.
You reek of desperation. Ad hominems, red herrings galore, refusal to address what’s already been presented, misrepresenting what judges actually said...
Abrego Garcia has not been charged with a capital or otherwise infamous crime. He entered the country illegally and didn’t file for asylum within a year. He’s not being tried for the same thing twice; he’s not been tried for any crime. He’s been ruled deportable according to immigration law. He’s been removed as a danger to the country according to immigration law.
The original deportation order had to exist in order for there to be a withholding. It is a sad statement on Google, Wikipedia, and all the reporting agencies that I can no longer find the name of the judge and case in which Abrego Garcia was found deportable. I would have to look in my older links about Abrego Garcia to find that information, since it has apparently been scrubbed from the web. Even AI only produces references to the withholding - not of the order that required the withholding. Just trying to find information on this makes me really, really despise all the people with stuff to hide.
spit.
These judges are just plain stepping outside of their lane.
I’m just going to add this as well: Abrego Garcia is in prison in El Salvador because it is illegal to be a gang member in El Salvador; their military rounded up gang members as an internal threat to the country and their country has gone from the most dangerous country in the western hemisphere to the safest.
If Abrego Garcia had self-deported either to El Salvador or to any other country he would be a free man. Or at least as long as he could evade arrest in El Salvador.
The reason he was immediately handed over to Bukele in El Salvador is because the US knows that he IS wanted in El Salvador because of his probable gang membership (El Salvador has its own way for detainees to refute allegations), and the US isn’t into harboring fugitives from the legitimate governing authorities. That is why this is a foreign relations issue. What is our agreement with El Salvador (or any other country, for that matter) when we deport somebody we know is wanted there? And what is their reciprocal agreement with us?
When Bukele says he is not going to smuggle a terrorist into the US that is exactly what he means. MS-13 is a designated terrorist organization now. The only means to get him legally back to the US is through extradition, but Abrego Garcia has not been charged with anything. Do these judges want the DOJ to charge him with a crime so they can ask for extradition? And does a country have to extradite to another country somebody who is already being held as prisoner in his own country? Do we have to wait in line or something, or how does that work? Other countries have to release somebody from their prison to extradite him to another country where he isn’t even facing charges?
This is what the judges are trying to dictate. They are WAY out of line.
This wasn’t - as the judges claim - the case of an innocent man being dragged off the street and thrown in a foreign prison. This is the case of a man already found deportable being found by the AG to also be dangerous to the US and thus deported to his home country, where suspected gang members like himself are detained while their legal charges are being processed. Just as bail was denied Abrego Garcia while his legal case was being processed in the US because of the danger he posed, he is being denied bail in El Salvador. And the whole country is much, much safer because of that.
He received due process here. And he was sent to El Salvador where he will also receive due process.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.