ICE admits to an 'administrative error' after Maryland man sent to El Salvador prison

ABC News ^

[Kleon]

A Maryland man with protected legal status was sent to the notorious prison in El Salvador following an "administrative error," a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) official admitted in a sworn declaration on Monday.

Kilmer Armado Abrego-Garcia who has a U.S. citizen wife and 5-year-old child is currently at CECOT, the notorious prison in El Salvador.

The filing is part of a new lawsuit filed by Abrego-Garcia's attorneys who are requesting that the government of El Salvador return him to the U.S. after being sent there "because of an administrative error."

In response, the government has acknowledged the error but said in a filing that because Abrego-Garcia is no longer in U.S. custody, the court cannot order him to be returned to the U.S. nor can the court order El Salvador to return him.

[Ex-Con777]

If I read it correctly, he already had exhausted all legal avenues and was ordered deported. Then he filed for asylum and gained “ legal status “.

EC

[cuz1961]

man with protected legal status

aka

illegal

aka

criminal

aka

dem voter

\/

your honor, i cannot be charged with bank robbery, im a
simonsaysboarsberg protected legal status democrat.

no one is above the law and im someone, so there.

/s

[nathanbedford]

According to Abrego-Garcia's attorneys, in 2019, a confidential informant "had advised that Abrego Garcia was an active member" of the gang MS-13. He later filed an I-589 application for asylum and although Abrego-Garcia was found removable, an immigration judge "granted him withholding of removal to El Salvador."

So which is it, found removable but "granted him withholding of removal to El Salvador."?

the government said Abrego-Garcia had the opportunity to present evidence to show he was not a part of MS-13. "Abrego Garcia had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue," the government said. "He had the opportunity to give evidence tending to show he was not part of MS-13, which he did not proffer."

Yet apparently the immigration judge, "granted him withholding of removal to El Salvador." Then, a responsible immigration official admits the removal was "in error."

With this mish-mash decency requires a full and plenary hearing to sort out his actual status and this alleged gang affiliation and then a determination made whether he can stay or must go.

[1Old Pro]

These kinds of government errors don’t bother me in the least.

[cuz1961]

warped weasel prog dem commie logic

[nathanbedford]

What you have is navel-gazing concern trolling, feigned as a moral position which imo is intended to create an emotional appeal with the desire to interfere with Trump’s effective campaign in deporting illegal immigrants

That is an unwarranted comment. I could just as easily accuse you of drinking Trump's Kool-Aid and it would be equally unwarranted.

[logi_cal869]

All ‘Bout Crap.

Read the whole piece, folks.

Horrible excerpt.

[Skwor]

That particular statement was meant of those in the news making such arguments, but I can see why it comes across as a more personal comment.

[HamiltonJay]

And there we have it...

The first big mistake in the immigration crackdown.

The left and the media are going to try to spin this and rally support against the deportations etc of Trump... It was going to happen sooner or later...

I doubt they are going to be successful, but better believe they will be using this to try to shift the public attitudes.

[Skwor]

No it does not, constitutionally the courts have been in error for years violating the separation of powers. The Executive branch is vested constitutionally in immigration and the control of those illegally entering, it should not even be justiciable.

The current state where the court has interjected itself over the years as the arbitrator of the Executive constitutional authority is prima facie unconstitutional. The Executive branch has ever right to refuse the courts any say in those articles specifically addressing the Executive powers, of which immigration is one of.

As such I will not accept nor ague your premise and give no credence to the courts in such decisions.

[Kleon]

The left and the media are going to try to spin this and rally support against the deportations etc of Trump... It was going to happen sooner or later...

It will blow up in their faces if they do. The fact is, he was a known gang member (this is not denied) and here illegally. I doubt anyone outside the rabid left cares he's gone.

[Skwor]

That they will only because people will not learn the facts and many will intentionally play this up obfuscating the facts, we are already seeing some here post such nonsense.

This particular issue lends itself to the virtue signaling moral preeners and their appeals to emotion fallacies.

[vikingd00d]

>>Feel free to propound upon what the “error” actually was.

It’s vague from the article, but there is this:
“He later filed an I-589 application for asylum and although Abrego-Garcia was found removable, an immigration judge “granted him withholding of removal to El Salvador.””

So I think the “error” was ignoring the “withholding of removal” pending the asylum application. He’s still an illegal, he still had an order of removel before, and he’s still a gang member, so, to my mind it’s a very minor mistake.

[nathanbedford]

As such I will not accept nor ague your premise and give no credence to the courts in such decisions.

You can, of course, dismiss my premise as only the opinion of an individual but it is well that you give no credence to the courts in such decisions because the trend of the courts is presently running against your argument.

With opinions going both ways, the courts on the whole have tended to constrict the executives power in this area since Korematsu.

[Skwor]

Exactly a minor non substantial mistake. His deportation is warranted and well within the power of the Executive branch to execute.

The fact that he was sent to a high security prison is irrelevant as no one has identified that prison as a basic human rights issue. Therefore where he is incarcerated is not relevant to his deportation.

That some have the opinion it is to hard core of a prison is also not relevant. He is a member of a gang that is a terrorist organization, state sponsored as well, he was here illegally. End of story.

[Skwor]

And how does that make the courts right?

Simple question, if the courts have a say in all constitutional articles as to how they may be executed, how then do we have separate co-equal branches, as such a position places the courts above all others.

Yes the courts are wrong, yes they are trending wrong, how does that then make them right? Are there no articles within the constitution to which the legislative and executive branches have no obligation to defer to the courts?

Your argument know amounts to, (paraphrased) “Well the courts are doing it so we must accept it as right.” There is another path and it has been used before by Andrew Jackson and the courts may soon be forcing that choice and their shame again.

Jefferson knew this well, to quote:
“You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

[FlingWingFlyer]

I think the same way also. Just because he comes here and knocks up a U.S. citizen and starts pumping out tax exemptions doesn’t make him legal.

[fruser1]

"in 2019, a confidential informant "had advised that Abrego Garcia was an active member" of the gang MS-13. He later filed an I-589 application for asylum and although Abrego-Garcia was found removable, "

Regardless of what the story implies, the money quote above is most relevant. His status did not change after that ruling. If married to an American, he should've applied for citizenship that way. He had 5 years to do so. ICE would have seen that application if present.

[nathanbedford]

Some (good news bad news) propositions:

1. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

2. The Constitution provides for due process to all "persons."

3. Not the legislative branch, the judicial branch, nor the executive branch has the power to violate the Constitution.

4. Since Marbury v. Madison (1803?) It is the accepted law of America that the Supreme Court, although there is no explicit constitutional provision authorizing it to do so, has the power to declare government action unconstitutional. The power of the court in this respect has only grown more accepted because it has been uniformly accepted by the executive branch, consider by way of illustration only when Dwight Eisenhower federalized the National Guard to enforce Supreme Court mandates on the constitutionality of denying black children admission to school.

5. That does not make the courts right in every application but it does make them powerful (that is the bad news)

6. To do away with the principle of judicial review is to do away with the architecture of the Constitution itself, by doing away with checks and balances. It leaves us open to a runaway executive who, alone among the branches possesses power of the gun, might, for example, loose press gangs on the people seizing them arbitrarily off the streets with no remedy apart from the condescension of the executive branch.-A practice done by the British that caused us to go to war with them in 1775 and again in 1812.

This is why I say you have to have some sort of due process but it must not be the kind or of the extent Democrats would contrive to frustrate efficient deportation of millions of illegals.

[ridesthemiles]

SO WHAT IF WIFE IS A CITIZEN???

IS THAT A FREE PASS???