5 ms·

He was ordered deported because he wore a bulls hat and an anonymous informant claimed he was a member of a gang in a city he never lived in? Is that the basi

by duxup 2y ago

He was ordered deported because he wore a bulls hat and an anonymous informant claimed he was a member of a gang in a city he never lived in? Is that the basis we're talking about?

rayiner 2y ago
If a determination by an immigration judge followed by a BIA appeal isn’t sufficient to deport suspected gang members, how can we enforce our immigration laws at all? Do we need a jury trial with proof beyond a reasonable doubt?
- giraffe_lady 2y ago
  Seems like probably yes! The rest of our legal system overwhelmingly favors errors that let the guilty go free over ones that punish the nonguilty. Due process is not just for citizens.
  - ty6853 2y ago
    Due process here is administrative, not criminal, so the non-citizen isn't entitled to the kind of trial you're thinking he would get were he criminally charged. Due process for an administrative action just means the prescribed process under the law must be followed, which in US immigration means being seen by an executive branch (fake) judge in the immigration kangaroo courts.
    - dragonwriter 2y ago
      > Due process here is administrative, not criminal While it remains, sadly, Constitutional for the US to enslave people, and the various iterations of statute law abolishing the export slaves first in 1794 and then the slave trade more generally later probably do not bind the operations of the US government only other persons subject to it, the Constitution does require that those enslaved—and those being committed to CECOT are not merely being removed they are being enslaved and trafficked—may only be so enslaved as a punishment for a crime of which they have been duly committed. So while the actual process in the Alien Enemies Act removals is executive fiat, and the due process under existing law for deportation (which is not afforded in Alien Enemies Act removals) is administrative rather than criminal, the Constitutionally-mandated process for those receiving the sanction being applied in the Alien Enemies Act process is normal criminal process.
      - ty6853 2y ago
        It's an interesting idea, but good luck getting your argument heard. I've been tossed in immigration cell as a US citizen. I filed an FBI records search and there was not even an arrest record or any record of it happening, they just lock you up and that's that without even any process or paperwork. Since it is administrative I did not have the opportunity to talk to a lawyer or even see an immigration judge. They just locked me up and then when they were satisfied with stripping naked and searching me they dumped me on the street.
    - giraffe_lady 2y ago
      Sorry I was using due process in a more lay sense I guess, something along the lines of "the constraints we place on ourselves to limit the risk of accidental harms." None of that will be effective at preventing intentional harms, which is what this is anyway. It wasn't a good word choice on my part I don't think.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    Removal of an illegal alien is not about “guilt” or “non-guilt.” And being expelled from the U.S. when you have no right to be here isn’t a “punishment.” It’s like civil trespass. You don’t need a trial to kick someone off your property. And when the police remove them, they’re not being punished.
    - giraffe_lady 2y ago
      Look it's fine let it go. You think this is good because you can't imagine it happening to you or people you care about and I think it's bad because I can. People stripped of citizenship also have "no right to be here" and that's the obvious direction this is heading. In the many years we've been discussing similar things I've never known you to change your mind on even the smallest point of any subject. I frankly just don't respect you enough to put more energy into this conversation.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    - antifa 2y ago
      Let me offer you these educational links to give you a shallow introduction to some topics you are completely unfamiliar with: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law
- SauciestGNU 2y ago
  Why on earth should people facing extreme legal sanction (deportation) not be entitled to a trial to dispute the claims against them? This is basic rule of law stuff. Currently the admin is trying to deny these people the right to plea their case in front of judges at all.
  - ty6853 2y ago
    Because the law isn't based on justice, morality, or ethics. It is merely a system by which power is wielded. You are basing your judgement on a fictional caricature that is not reality. What 'should' happen has zero bearing there. The immigration judges are merely delegates of the AG, and only empowered to the extent the AG allows. It is an administrative action without protection criminal defendants get.
    - SauciestGNU 2y ago
      Believe me I'm well aware of the distinction between Article II administrative law judges and Article III judiciary. It's just bullshit, and SCOTUS is chipping away at the legality of admin law judges wielding sanctions at corportations, but apparently you can abduct individuals and send them to a place where it's likely they'll be tortured and killed and that's no problem.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    People facing deportation have never been entitled to a trial. What you’re describing would be a vast expansion of the procedural requirements for deportation. Deportation is not an “extreme sanction” if it’s proven that someone is not a U.S. citizen. Non-citizens have no right to remain on U.S. soil except what the government chooses to extend.
    - SauciestGNU 2y ago
      They are in fact currently at least entitled to a hearing to ascertain that they are removable. Absent that, the state could just start snatching anybody and shipping them to CECOT.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  > Do we need a jury trial with proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Before sending someone to an overseas slave camp no one has ever been released from? Uh, yes.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    He’s an El Salvadoran citizen being sent to El Salvador. Any grievance he has he can take up with his own country.
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      > He’s an El Salvadoran citizen being sent to El Salvador… ... in direct violation of an American judge's legal order. Even the White House admits this! We're just gonna keep glossing over that fact, eh?
      - xyzzyz 2y ago
        You missed the point. Imagine we want to deport a British citizen to Britain for felony fraud committed in US, and it just so happens that the same person is wanted in Britain for a completely different crime, say burglary. We know that if we deport him, he will be jailed and prosecuted in Britain according to British laws. Should this prevent us from deporting him? Is him being considered a criminal in his own country somehow protecting him from deportation there? Are we only allowed to deport non-criminals, and must keep foreign criminals in US, lest they get thrown in jail in the countries we deport them to?
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        We have long avoided extradition to countries where someone risks torture or death disproportionate to their crimes. https://www.state.gov/extraditions https://www.state.gov/extraditions > In determining whether a fugitive should be extradited, the Secretary may consider issues properly raised before the extradition court or a habeas court as well as any humanitarian or other considerations for or against surrender, including whether surrender may violate the United States’ obligations under the Convention Against Torture. See 22 C.F.R. 95.1 et seq. Hence the judge’s ruling, and the Administration’s admission of error.
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  > If a determination by an immigration judge followed by a BIA appeal isn’t sufficient to deport suspected gang members Kind of a weird question to ask, given that the deportations to El Salvador pretext on the Alien Enemies Act involve none of that, and this specific individual was granted protection from deportation to El Salvador at his immigration hearing in 2019, and the government chose not to appeal. Note that as well as being in violation of the only decision made by an immigration judge in his individual case, his removal under the Administrations invocation of the Alien Enemies Act also is outside of the authority of invocation of that Act even if one assumes the invocation is valid, as, being invoked on the pretext of an existing war with Venezuela initiated by a Venezuelan invasion of the US (which is preposterous on its face, and the Administration is doing nothing to prosecute the war initiated by this invasion beyond deporting people without due process, demonstrating the lack of seriousness of the claim), it applies only to Venezuelan nationals, and he is Salvadoran. That said, before being enslaved—and those sent to CECOT are both enslaved and trafficked in the international slave trade—under the 13th Amendment, yes, anyone is entitled to criminal trial.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    This specific alien was not deported under the AEA. And the immigration judge and BIA both found him deportable on the basis of ties to MS13. And they denied his asylum claim. So the scope of what’s at issue here is compliance with whatever “protection from deportation” might exist where someone has been found to be deportable due to gang ties, and found to lack a valid asylum claim. What possible justification could there be, and are we going to let all the 22 million illegal aliens in the country invoke such third-string justifications?

by duxup 2y ago

He was ordered deported because he wore a bulls hat and an anonymous informant claimed he was a member of a gang in a city he never lived in? Is that the basis we're talking about?

rayiner 2y ago

If a determination by an immigration judge followed by a BIA appeal isn’t sufficient to deport suspected gang members, how can we enforce our immigration laws at all? Do we need a jury trial with proof beyond a reasonable doubt?

giraffe_lady 2y ago
Seems like probably yes! The rest of our legal system overwhelmingly favors errors that let the guilty go free over ones that punish the nonguilty. Due process is not just for citizens.
- ty6853 2y ago
  Due process here is administrative, not criminal, so the non-citizen isn't entitled to the kind of trial you're thinking he would get were he criminally charged. Due process for an administrative action just means the prescribed process under the law must be followed, which in US immigration means being seen by an executive branch (fake) judge in the immigration kangaroo courts.
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    > Due process here is administrative, not criminal While it remains, sadly, Constitutional for the US to enslave people, and the various iterations of statute law abolishing the export slaves first in 1794 and then the slave trade more generally later probably do not bind the operations of the US government only other persons subject to it, the Constitution does require that those enslaved—and those being committed to CECOT are not merely being removed they are being enslaved and trafficked—may only be so enslaved as a punishment for a crime of which they have been duly committed. So while the actual process in the Alien Enemies Act removals is executive fiat, and the due process under existing law for deportation (which is not afforded in Alien Enemies Act removals) is administrative rather than criminal, the Constitutionally-mandated process for those receiving the sanction being applied in the Alien Enemies Act process is normal criminal process.
    - ty6853 2y ago
      It's an interesting idea, but good luck getting your argument heard. I've been tossed in immigration cell as a US citizen. I filed an FBI records search and there was not even an arrest record or any record of it happening, they just lock you up and that's that without even any process or paperwork. Since it is administrative I did not have the opportunity to talk to a lawyer or even see an immigration judge. They just locked me up and then when they were satisfied with stripping naked and searching me they dumped me on the street.
  - giraffe_lady 2y ago
    Sorry I was using due process in a more lay sense I guess, something along the lines of "the constraints we place on ourselves to limit the risk of accidental harms." None of that will be effective at preventing intentional harms, which is what this is anyway. It wasn't a good word choice on my part I don't think.
- rayiner 2y ago
  Removal of an illegal alien is not about “guilt” or “non-guilt.” And being expelled from the U.S. when you have no right to be here isn’t a “punishment.” It’s like civil trespass. You don’t need a trial to kick someone off your property. And when the police remove them, they’re not being punished.
  - giraffe_lady 2y ago
    Look it's fine let it go. You think this is good because you can't imagine it happening to you or people you care about and I think it's bad because I can. People stripped of citizenship also have "no right to be here" and that's the obvious direction this is heading. In the many years we've been discussing similar things I've never known you to change your mind on even the smallest point of any subject. I frankly just don't respect you enough to put more energy into this conversation.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - antifa 2y ago
    Let me offer you these educational links to give you a shallow introduction to some topics you are completely unfamiliar with: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law
SauciestGNU 2y ago
Why on earth should people facing extreme legal sanction (deportation) not be entitled to a trial to dispute the claims against them? This is basic rule of law stuff. Currently the admin is trying to deny these people the right to plea their case in front of judges at all.
- ty6853 2y ago
  Because the law isn't based on justice, morality, or ethics. It is merely a system by which power is wielded. You are basing your judgement on a fictional caricature that is not reality. What 'should' happen has zero bearing there. The immigration judges are merely delegates of the AG, and only empowered to the extent the AG allows. It is an administrative action without protection criminal defendants get.
  - SauciestGNU 2y ago
    Believe me I'm well aware of the distinction between Article II administrative law judges and Article III judiciary. It's just bullshit, and SCOTUS is chipping away at the legality of admin law judges wielding sanctions at corportations, but apparently you can abduct individuals and send them to a place where it's likely they'll be tortured and killed and that's no problem.
- rayiner 2y ago
  People facing deportation have never been entitled to a trial. What you’re describing would be a vast expansion of the procedural requirements for deportation. Deportation is not an “extreme sanction” if it’s proven that someone is not a U.S. citizen. Non-citizens have no right to remain on U.S. soil except what the government chooses to extend.
  - SauciestGNU 2y ago
    They are in fact currently at least entitled to a hearing to ascertain that they are removable. Absent that, the state could just start snatching anybody and shipping them to CECOT.
ceejayoz 2y ago
> Do we need a jury trial with proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Before sending someone to an overseas slave camp no one has ever been released from? Uh, yes.
- rayiner 2y ago
  He’s an El Salvadoran citizen being sent to El Salvador. Any grievance he has he can take up with his own country.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    > He’s an El Salvadoran citizen being sent to El Salvador… ... in direct violation of an American judge's legal order. Even the White House admits this! We're just gonna keep glossing over that fact, eh?
    - xyzzyz 2y ago
      You missed the point. Imagine we want to deport a British citizen to Britain for felony fraud committed in US, and it just so happens that the same person is wanted in Britain for a completely different crime, say burglary. We know that if we deport him, he will be jailed and prosecuted in Britain according to British laws. Should this prevent us from deporting him? Is him being considered a criminal in his own country somehow protecting him from deportation there? Are we only allowed to deport non-criminals, and must keep foreign criminals in US, lest they get thrown in jail in the countries we deport them to?
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
        We have long avoided extradition to countries where someone risks torture or death disproportionate to their crimes. https://www.state.gov/extraditions https://www.state.gov/extraditions > In determining whether a fugitive should be extradited, the Secretary may consider issues properly raised before the extradition court or a habeas court as well as any humanitarian or other considerations for or against surrender, including whether surrender may violate the United States’ obligations under the Convention Against Torture. See 22 C.F.R. 95.1 et seq. Hence the judge’s ruling, and the Administration’s admission of error.
dragonwriter 2y ago
> If a determination by an immigration judge followed by a BIA appeal isn’t sufficient to deport suspected gang members Kind of a weird question to ask, given that the deportations to El Salvador pretext on the Alien Enemies Act involve none of that, and this specific individual was granted protection from deportation to El Salvador at his immigration hearing in 2019, and the government chose not to appeal. Note that as well as being in violation of the only decision made by an immigration judge in his individual case, his removal under the Administrations invocation of the Alien Enemies Act also is outside of the authority of invocation of that Act even if one assumes the invocation is valid, as, being invoked on the pretext of an existing war with Venezuela initiated by a Venezuelan invasion of the US (which is preposterous on its face, and the Administration is doing nothing to prosecute the war initiated by this invasion beyond deporting people without due process, demonstrating the lack of seriousness of the claim), it applies only to Venezuelan nationals, and he is Salvadoran. That said, before being enslaved—and those sent to CECOT are both enslaved and trafficked in the international slave trade—under the 13th Amendment, yes, anyone is entitled to criminal trial.
- rayiner 2y ago
  This specific alien was not deported under the AEA. And the immigration judge and BIA both found him deportable on the basis of ties to MS13. And they denied his asylum claim. So the scope of what’s at issue here is compliance with whatever “protection from deportation” might exist where someone has been found to be deportable due to gang ties, and found to lack a valid asylum claim. What possible justification could there be, and are we going to let all the 22 million illegal aliens in the country invoke such third-string justifications?