4 ms·

>Which is a long way of saying the executive can blackhole anyone it wants Do you have examples of the executive doing this to citizens or are you being hypoth

>Which is a long way of saying the executive can blackhole anyone it wants Do you have examples of the executive doing this to citizens or are you being hypothetical here? Countries generally grant far fewer rights to non-citizens. Have you considered how allowing non-citizens to spread discontent within a country could be abused?

perihelions 2y ago
- "Do you have examples of the executive doing this to citizens or are you being hypothetical here?" "Do you have examples of this severity-11 CVE being used in the wild, or are you just being hypothetical here?" It's a horrifically exploitable bug, were it left unpatched. It's not some fringe conspiracy theory that this is how the law works and how the law would work on contact with US citizens; the Garcia SCOTUS concurrence explicitly underscored this perversity, - "The Government’s argument, moreover, implies that it could deport and incarcerate any person, including U.S. citizens [sic!], without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene... That view refutes itself." https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf
packetlost 2y ago
Here's the executive branch getting ordered by SCOTUS to bring someone back for doing just that: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c62gnzzeg34o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c62gnzzeg34o
- gs17 2y ago
  They were asking about it happening to citizens. From your article: > Mr Garcia, a Salvadoran
  - miltonlost 2y ago
    He's a permanent resident. Splitting hairs over citizenship when he was here legally massively misses the problem with blackholing people here legally.
    - georgemcbay 2y ago
      > Splitting hairs over citizenship when he was here legally massively misses the problem with blackholing people here legally. And on top of that this case should be horrifying to anyone regardless of whether they want to split hairs because: A) they admitted he was deported in error B) they are now effectively trying to argue there is no way to get him back So even if you believe they would never knowingly do this to an actual citizen they are only one slightly different mistake from disappearing a citizen, whether or not it has happened yet. Nevermind the fact that Trump himself has repeatedly floated the idea of deporting citizens: https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2025/04/10/trump-deportation-us-citizens-legal/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2025/04/10/trump-... And then lastly and most importantly IMO it is wildly un-American to believe anyone (regardless of citizenship or legal status) is not entitled to due process.
    - smcin 2y ago
      He's *not* a permanent resident; he's on "withholding of removal" status since 2019 [*]. It's not splitting hairs to discuss that, but you're right that the govt is (deliberately) pursuing a "camel's-nose-under-the-tent" approach first on a small class of people where Congress and INA haven't defined a direct clear path to PR or becoming a citizen, unlike a GC would since both his wife and child are US citizens. He was granted "withholding of removal" status in 2019, which protected him from deportation to El Salvador (for fear of gang violence/extortion, which is why he came to the US). The current DOJ acknowledges that at the time (2019) the "[first Trump admin] government did not appeal that decision [to grant withholding of removal], so it is final". It also seems like they never previously made any allegation that he was a gang member, and that they don't have any solid proof now that he is (other than supposedly one informant who incorrectly claimed Garcia lived in NY, so basically no credible evidence whatsoever). By jumping the gun on deporting Garcia without due process, the current admin seems to unwittingly be forcing the issue to the Supreme Court very soon. (UPDATE: SC has just ruled unanimously 9-0 that the admin must try to release Garcia.) Looks like the SC's going to be very busy this May-June. [*] Withholding-of-removal is a pretty rare status, rarely granted by court (>99% rejection rate), much rarer than Green Card, and applicants have to demonstrate credible fear. [0] This procedure is defined in INA § 208 (INA = Immigration and Nationality Act) [1] As of 12/2024 there were over 100,000 individuals (from Cuba, China, Venezuela, Mauritania, Nigeria, Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, etc.) with orders of removal remaining free in the US due to various special interest statuses, including withholding of removal, according to a report from FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform). [2] (Does anyone have stats on what historically happened to people in withholding-of-removal (what % became citizens, what % got GC, what % voluntarily left, what % got deported, what % moved to a different status etc.)?) [0]: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/reference-materials/ic/chapter-7/4 https://www.justice.gov/eoir/reference-materials/ic/chapter-... [1]: https://www.uscis.gov/laws-and-policy/legislation/immigration-and-nationality-act https://www.uscis.gov/laws-and-policy/legislation/immigratio... [2]: https://www.fairus.org/news/executive/new-data-show-over-100000-special-interest-aliens-have-orders-removal-remain-free-us https://www.fairus.org/news/executive/new-data-show-over-100... [3]: https://time.com/7276642/kilmar-albrego-garcia-error-deportation-el-salvador-prison-supreme-court-return-ms-13/ https://time.com/7276642/kilmar-albrego-garcia-error-deporta...
  - packetlost 2y ago
    He's married to a citizen which gives him an avenue towards legal residency and full citizenship. It doesn't matter anyways because the government admitted he was deported due to a administrative error and because they actively undermined and sidestepped the courts authority on several occasions, there is effectively nothing stopping them from doing it to full blown citizens. Honestly, it sounds like it's just a matter of time if this keeps up.
    - gs17 2y ago
      I agree it's bad, and yes, the government admitted they shouldn't have done it. But regardless, the question was about if it has happened to a citizen, not a person who maybe could be a citizen one day but is not, and you responded with them "doing just that" when they did not, in fact, "do just that". I'm not sure why there's a need to mislead when what's actually happening is bad enough.
      - ToucanLoucan 2y ago
        It's not a need to mislead. You're grasping at a technicality. Citizenship is irrelevant if you're not given the chance to demonstrate it, which he wasn't, and again, he was actually deported because of the administrative error, not an on-purpose action, the correctness of which is irrelevant. You're arguing whether a car wrapped around a tree has a bad alternator. Surely a fact useful to someone, somewhere, and worth knowing. But also certainly not the reason there's a problem.
        biker142541 2y ago
        100% this. To echo another poster below, it's really important to read the Supreme Court's own words here. >"The Government’s argument, moreover, implies that it could deport and incarcerate any person, including U. S. citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene. " From https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf I suspect that is one of the main reasons behind the order. It's very obvious that citizen vs legal resident matters very little here, if due process is not given.
  - amalcon 2y ago
    Would his being a citizen have mattered to any of the procedures prior to his rendition? The government never made any effort to prove that he was here illegally (which is important since he wasn't), and he never had an opportunity to offer a defense.
  - empath75 2y ago
    It happens to be the case that he's not a citizen or claiming to be a citizen, but he wasn't given due process, and there's absolutely nothing stopping them from picking anybody up off the street, claiming they're here illegally, and shipping them off to an El Salvadoran prison. All people in the us, legal or illegal, citizen or not, have fourth amendment protections, and if you strip those rights from anyone, you remove them from everyone.
    - billfor 2y ago
      Do they? We generally don’t give noncitizens the right to own a gun in the us, so clearly we are selective about applying the 2nd amendment protection. The 4th may need adjudication.
      - empath75 2y ago
        Permanent residents have the right to own a gun in the US. The supreme court has upheld many many times that the fourth amendment applies to all people within the borders of the US.
        NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
        And just what process is due a person under risk of deportation? People say "due process" quite often without even giving any thought to what the term means, and I doubt that 1 in 4 could give a casual definition. One might think that the only process due to such a person would be the opportunity to contest that they were a citizen and to provide evidence to that claim. Was he denied this? Did they slap a muzzle on him as he tried to scream "but my birth certificate's in the sock drawer, just take a look!"? If the agents who detained and deported him ran any sort of check that would have discovered his citizenship in time to prevent a deportation (had he been a citizen), this seems about all the process that could or should be due. PS Am I the only one that notices how the news media always describes him as "from Maryland" when he wasn't born there, didn't attend school there, etc?
        2y ago
- AtlasBarfed 2y ago
  The executive branch is merely going to ignore everything and then apply pardon powers to any sort of actual enforcement by the judiciary branch. But how can this judiciary enforce anything, or the legislative for that matter?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - mmooss 2y ago
    You are believing the trash talk and allowing it to intimidate you. You are helping them by spreading it and legitimizing it. The executive branch is obeying the courts, with some pushback.
    - Braxton1980 2y ago
      Is it an issue that the Executive is trash talking "they aren't going to obey the courts" ? You think that should be ignored?
      - earnestinger 2y ago
        Parent poster is not saying it should be ignored, parent poster is saying that people should not give-up and repeat “courts can be ignore”. Because if enough people chant that, then it will become a real possibility.
        Braxton1980 2y ago
        "You are believing the trash talk and allowing it to intimidate you. You are helping them by spreading it and legitimizing it." I take this as "Just ignore the rhetoric and threats from Republicans because they are empty and you're helping them spread the hate which gets more them support" >Because if enough people chant that, then it will become a real possibility. I'm not sure what you mean. Can you provide an example?
        2y ago
efnx 2y ago
What about that guy who got deported to El Salvador even though he was legally here and the court had also ordered he not be sent back to El Salvador for his own protection? I’m pretty sure the admin admitted it was a mistake then refused to bring him back.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  The Supreme Court resolutely batted that down 9-0 in a few days. >> The [District Court] order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs. For its part, the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf The only question at this point is how detailed in demands the District Court can be. The administration attempted to push the boundaries of executive power and lost in court, as has been happening. Turns out, conservative justices with lifetime appointments aren't too legally thrilled about an unbridled executive either.
  - passive 2y ago
    This order was toothless, and the administration has already flouted it. All John Roberts is doing is asking Trump to go further next time. Whether it's intentional or just cowardice on his part doesn't really matter to the rest of us.
    - ethbr1 2y ago
      It matter to me, since there are 2-3 conservative justices on the current Supreme Court that are likely to tire of administration excesses. A long game player might even say Roberts is angling for that, by tailoring consensus opinions that nonetheless leave room for the administration to demonstrate further stupidity.
zzrrt 2y ago
> Do you have examples of the executive doing this to citizens Feels like moving the goalposts. First they were going to clear out "illegals" by any means, now the line includes any non-citizens. Granted maybe you personally didn't say both though. > Have you considered how allowing non-citizens to spread discontent within a country could be abused? Is it meaningfully different from allowing citizens to "spread discontent"? Why not just start taking everybody's 1st amendment rights, by the same logic? I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure there's long precedent that non-citizens are granted most of the same rights, including freedom of speech and assembly. If non-citizens are being supported, instructed, etc by their government in spreading discontent, there are probably laws like espionage for that; you don't have to take away everybody else's freedom to stop them.
cmurf 2y ago
Does the Constitution provide for due process to persons? Or only citizens? If non-citizen have been human trafficked without due process, what additional protection against it is provided to citizens? Where is that stated?
anigbrowl 2y ago
I am aware of some US citizens being deported by mistake under previous administrations, but there was a general consensus that those were genuine mistakes, examples of negligence rather than policy: https://immigrationimpact.com/2021/07/30/ice-deport-us-citizens/ https://immigrationimpact.com/2021/07/30/ice-deport-us-citiz... However the current administration is explicitly considering the idea of deliberately deporting citizens: https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/trump-leavitt-deporting-us-citizens-el-salvador-sotomayor-rcna200299 https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-bl...
Braxton1980 2y ago
>Countries generally grant far fewer rights to non-citizens. Have you considered how allowing non-citizens to spread discontent within a country could be abused? The most powerful person in the country lied and still is lying about elected fraud, undermining the basis for our Democratic system and was rewarded with a 2nd term.

perihelions 2y ago

- "Do you have examples of the executive doing this to citizens or are you being hypothetical here?" "Do you have examples of this severity-11 CVE being used in the wild, or are you just being hypothetical here?" It's a horrifically exploitable bug, were it left unpatched. It's not some fringe conspiracy theory that this is how the law works and how the law would work on contact with US citizens; the Garcia SCOTUS concurrence explicitly underscored this perversity, - "The Government’s argument, moreover, implies that it could deport and incarcerate any person, including U.S. citizens [sic!], without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene... That view refutes itself." https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf

packetlost 2y ago

Here's the executive branch getting ordered by SCOTUS to bring someone back for doing just that: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c62gnzzeg34o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c62gnzzeg34o

gs17 2y ago
They were asking about it happening to citizens. From your article: > Mr Garcia, a Salvadoran
- miltonlost 2y ago
  He's a permanent resident. Splitting hairs over citizenship when he was here legally massively misses the problem with blackholing people here legally.
  - georgemcbay 2y ago
    > Splitting hairs over citizenship when he was here legally massively misses the problem with blackholing people here legally. And on top of that this case should be horrifying to anyone regardless of whether they want to split hairs because: A) they admitted he was deported in error B) they are now effectively trying to argue there is no way to get him back So even if you believe they would never knowingly do this to an actual citizen they are only one slightly different mistake from disappearing a citizen, whether or not it has happened yet. Nevermind the fact that Trump himself has repeatedly floated the idea of deporting citizens: https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2025/04/10/trump-deportation-us-citizens-legal/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2025/04/10/trump-... And then lastly and most importantly IMO it is wildly un-American to believe anyone (regardless of citizenship or legal status) is not entitled to due process.
  - smcin 2y ago
    He's *not* a permanent resident; he's on "withholding of removal" status since 2019 [*]. It's not splitting hairs to discuss that, but you're right that the govt is (deliberately) pursuing a "camel's-nose-under-the-tent" approach first on a small class of people where Congress and INA haven't defined a direct clear path to PR or becoming a citizen, unlike a GC would since both his wife and child are US citizens. He was granted "withholding of removal" status in 2019, which protected him from deportation to El Salvador (for fear of gang violence/extortion, which is why he came to the US). The current DOJ acknowledges that at the time (2019) the "[first Trump admin] government did not appeal that decision [to grant withholding of removal], so it is final". It also seems like they never previously made any allegation that he was a gang member, and that they don't have any solid proof now that he is (other than supposedly one informant who incorrectly claimed Garcia lived in NY, so basically no credible evidence whatsoever). By jumping the gun on deporting Garcia without due process, the current admin seems to unwittingly be forcing the issue to the Supreme Court very soon. (UPDATE: SC has just ruled unanimously 9-0 that the admin must try to release Garcia.) Looks like the SC's going to be very busy this May-June. [*] Withholding-of-removal is a pretty rare status, rarely granted by court (>99% rejection rate), much rarer than Green Card, and applicants have to demonstrate credible fear. [0] This procedure is defined in INA § 208 (INA = Immigration and Nationality Act) [1] As of 12/2024 there were over 100,000 individuals (from Cuba, China, Venezuela, Mauritania, Nigeria, Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, etc.) with orders of removal remaining free in the US due to various special interest statuses, including withholding of removal, according to a report from FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform). [2] (Does anyone have stats on what historically happened to people in withholding-of-removal (what % became citizens, what % got GC, what % voluntarily left, what % got deported, what % moved to a different status etc.)?) [0]: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/reference-materials/ic/chapter-7/4 https://www.justice.gov/eoir/reference-materials/ic/chapter-... [1]: https://www.uscis.gov/laws-and-policy/legislation/immigration-and-nationality-act https://www.uscis.gov/laws-and-policy/legislation/immigratio... [2]: https://www.fairus.org/news/executive/new-data-show-over-100000-special-interest-aliens-have-orders-removal-remain-free-us https://www.fairus.org/news/executive/new-data-show-over-100... [3]: https://time.com/7276642/kilmar-albrego-garcia-error-deportation-el-salvador-prison-supreme-court-return-ms-13/ https://time.com/7276642/kilmar-albrego-garcia-error-deporta...
- packetlost 2y ago
  He's married to a citizen which gives him an avenue towards legal residency and full citizenship. It doesn't matter anyways because the government admitted he was deported due to a administrative error and because they actively undermined and sidestepped the courts authority on several occasions, there is effectively nothing stopping them from doing it to full blown citizens. Honestly, it sounds like it's just a matter of time if this keeps up.
  - gs17 2y ago
    I agree it's bad, and yes, the government admitted they shouldn't have done it. But regardless, the question was about if it has happened to a citizen, not a person who maybe could be a citizen one day but is not, and you responded with them "doing just that" when they did not, in fact, "do just that". I'm not sure why there's a need to mislead when what's actually happening is bad enough.
    - ToucanLoucan 2y ago
      It's not a need to mislead. You're grasping at a technicality. Citizenship is irrelevant if you're not given the chance to demonstrate it, which he wasn't, and again, he was actually deported because of the administrative error, not an on-purpose action, the correctness of which is irrelevant. You're arguing whether a car wrapped around a tree has a bad alternator. Surely a fact useful to someone, somewhere, and worth knowing. But also certainly not the reason there's a problem.
      - biker142541 2y ago
        100% this. To echo another poster below, it's really important to read the Supreme Court's own words here. >"The Government’s argument, moreover, implies that it could deport and incarcerate any person, including U. S. citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene. " From https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf I suspect that is one of the main reasons behind the order. It's very obvious that citizen vs legal resident matters very little here, if due process is not given.
- amalcon 2y ago
  Would his being a citizen have mattered to any of the procedures prior to his rendition? The government never made any effort to prove that he was here illegally (which is important since he wasn't), and he never had an opportunity to offer a defense.
- empath75 2y ago
  It happens to be the case that he's not a citizen or claiming to be a citizen, but he wasn't given due process, and there's absolutely nothing stopping them from picking anybody up off the street, claiming they're here illegally, and shipping them off to an El Salvadoran prison. All people in the us, legal or illegal, citizen or not, have fourth amendment protections, and if you strip those rights from anyone, you remove them from everyone.
  - billfor 2y ago
    Do they? We generally don’t give noncitizens the right to own a gun in the us, so clearly we are selective about applying the 2nd amendment protection. The 4th may need adjudication.
    - empath75 2y ago
      Permanent residents have the right to own a gun in the US. The supreme court has upheld many many times that the fourth amendment applies to all people within the borders of the US.
      - NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
        And just what process is due a person under risk of deportation? People say "due process" quite often without even giving any thought to what the term means, and I doubt that 1 in 4 could give a casual definition. One might think that the only process due to such a person would be the opportunity to contest that they were a citizen and to provide evidence to that claim. Was he denied this? Did they slap a muzzle on him as he tried to scream "but my birth certificate's in the sock drawer, just take a look!"? If the agents who detained and deported him ran any sort of check that would have discovered his citizenship in time to prevent a deportation (had he been a citizen), this seems about all the process that could or should be due. PS Am I the only one that notices how the news media always describes him as "from Maryland" when he wasn't born there, didn't attend school there, etc?
        2y ago
AtlasBarfed 2y ago
The executive branch is merely going to ignore everything and then apply pardon powers to any sort of actual enforcement by the judiciary branch. But how can this judiciary enforce anything, or the legislative for that matter?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- mmooss 2y ago
  You are believing the trash talk and allowing it to intimidate you. You are helping them by spreading it and legitimizing it. The executive branch is obeying the courts, with some pushback.
  - Braxton1980 2y ago
    Is it an issue that the Executive is trash talking "they aren't going to obey the courts" ? You think that should be ignored?
    - earnestinger 2y ago
      Parent poster is not saying it should be ignored, parent poster is saying that people should not give-up and repeat “courts can be ignore”. Because if enough people chant that, then it will become a real possibility.
      - Braxton1980 2y ago
        "You are believing the trash talk and allowing it to intimidate you. You are helping them by spreading it and legitimizing it." I take this as "Just ignore the rhetoric and threats from Republicans because they are empty and you're helping them spread the hate which gets more them support" >Because if enough people chant that, then it will become a real possibility. I'm not sure what you mean. Can you provide an example?
        2y ago

efnx 2y ago

What about that guy who got deported to El Salvador even though he was legally here and the court had also ordered he not be sent back to El Salvador for his own protection? I’m pretty sure the admin admitted it was a mistake then refused to bring him back.

ethbr1 2y ago
The Supreme Court resolutely batted that down 9-0 in a few days. >> The [District Court] order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs. For its part, the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf The only question at this point is how detailed in demands the District Court can be. The administration attempted to push the boundaries of executive power and lost in court, as has been happening. Turns out, conservative justices with lifetime appointments aren't too legally thrilled about an unbridled executive either.
- passive 2y ago
  This order was toothless, and the administration has already flouted it. All John Roberts is doing is asking Trump to go further next time. Whether it's intentional or just cowardice on his part doesn't really matter to the rest of us.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    It matter to me, since there are 2-3 conservative justices on the current Supreme Court that are likely to tire of administration excesses. A long game player might even say Roberts is angling for that, by tailoring consensus opinions that nonetheless leave room for the administration to demonstrate further stupidity.

zzrrt 2y ago

> Do you have examples of the executive doing this to citizens Feels like moving the goalposts. First they were going to clear out "illegals" by any means, now the line includes any non-citizens. Granted maybe you personally didn't say both though. > Have you considered how allowing non-citizens to spread discontent within a country could be abused? Is it meaningfully different from allowing citizens to "spread discontent"? Why not just start taking everybody's 1st amendment rights, by the same logic? I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure there's long precedent that non-citizens are granted most of the same rights, including freedom of speech and assembly. If non-citizens are being supported, instructed, etc by their government in spreading discontent, there are probably laws like espionage for that; you don't have to take away everybody else's freedom to stop them.

cmurf 2y ago

Does the Constitution provide for due process to persons? Or only citizens? If non-citizen have been human trafficked without due process, what additional protection against it is provided to citizens? Where is that stated?

anigbrowl 2y ago

I am aware of some US citizens being deported by mistake under previous administrations, but there was a general consensus that those were genuine mistakes, examples of negligence rather than policy: https://immigrationimpact.com/2021/07/30/ice-deport-us-citizens/ https://immigrationimpact.com/2021/07/30/ice-deport-us-citiz... However the current administration is explicitly considering the idea of deliberately deporting citizens: https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/trump-leavitt-deporting-us-citizens-el-salvador-sotomayor-rcna200299 https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-bl...

Braxton1980 2y ago

>Countries generally grant far fewer rights to non-citizens. Have you considered how allowing non-citizens to spread discontent within a country could be abused? The most powerful person in the country lied and still is lying about elected fraud, undermining the basis for our Democratic system and was rewarded with a 2nd term.