5 ms·

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9vedkm7w2do https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9vedkm7w2do I'm assuming the response to this is going to be along the lines

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9vedkm7w2do https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9vedkm7w2do I'm assuming the response to this is going to be along the lines of 'oh this doesnt prove he was innocent, they say he was a member of ms-13 etc etc etc' because evidently innocent until proven guilty (which they provided no proof of) isn't a thing anymore

flanked-evergl 2y ago
[flagged]
- alabastervlog 2y ago
  I can’t find any proof you’re innocent, only a complete lack or evidence that you are guilty. Guess we better send you to CECOT. Have fun with your 0.6m^2 of living space. Too bad you weren’t innocent.
- VoidWhisperer 2y ago
  "The US government has conceded Mr Ábrego García was deported because of an "administrative error", though it also says he is a member of the MS-13 gang - something his lawyer denies. " Try actually reading the article next time. Again, the burden of proof here should be falling on PROVING he is a member of ms-13, not proving he isn't. You are obviously arguing this in bad faith.
  - flanked-evergl 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - shadowfacts 2y ago
      They did not have "every right to remove him." As the article you linked says, Abrego Garcia was specifically granted a withholding of removal order.
      - flanked-evergl 2y ago
        To only one specific country. Not in general.
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      Your link says the opposite of what you claim. > Although the asylum claim proved to be time-barred—aliens are required to bring such claims within a year of entering the country—in October 2019 Judge Jones did grant his request for “withholding of removal” based on his “well-founded” fear of persecution by Barrio 18. The government did not appeal, so Jones’s ruling is now final. > The removal being in error does not make him innocent. Innocent is the default. That's a fundamental part of how our legal system works. The government must prove you guilty.
- potato3732842 2y ago
  He's an illegal who had a credible (like actually credible, like you could pitch it to someone in the year 2002, not the flimsy 2020s BS) claim for asylum but didn't file in time. He was eventually caught up in the system for reasons not related to the commission of any crime. ICE looked at his case, and gave him a "we won't deport you because your case is pending" status.
  - viraptor 2y ago
    > He's an illegal ... Edit; see below for details
    - potato3732842 2y ago
      I don't disagree, but I bet ICE doesn't see it that way. I mean why else would someone who's been granted a legal status pending his case wind up on their list of people to roll up on.
    - flanked-evergl 2y ago
      This is false. He has no legal status [1]. He could be removed, just not to El Salvador. That does not give him legal status or make him a resident. [1]: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/abrego-garcia-and-ms-13--what-do-we-know https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/abrego-garcia-and-ms-13...
      - viraptor 2y ago
        Interesting. More details about that status can be found here https://immigrationequality.org/asylum/asylum-manual/immigration-basics-withholding-of-removal/ https://immigrationequality.org/asylum/asylum-manual/immigra... I've heard the legal status mentioned by an online-person-who-should-know-better. I'll let them know.
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        "Withholding of removal" is a form of legal status. They can deport you (if they find a willing third party nation), as it's not a path to permanent resident status, but until they do so, you're allowed to reside and work. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/the_difference_between_asylum_and_withholding_of_removal.pdf https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/fil... > As in the case of asylum, a person who is granted withholding of removal is protected from being returned to his or her home country and receives the right to remain in the United States and work legally. But at the end of the court process, an immigration judge enters a deportation order and then tells the government they cannot execute that order. That is, the “removal” to a person’s home country is “withheld.” However, the government is still allowed to deport that person to a different country if the other country agrees to accept them. > Withholding of removal provides a form of protection that is less certain than asylum, leaving its recipients in a sort of limbo. A person who is granted withholding of removal may never leave the United States without executing that removal order, cannot petition to bring family members to the United States, and does not gain a path to citizenship. And unlike asylum, when a family seeks withholding of removal together a judge may grant protection to the parent while denying it to the children, leading to family separation.

flanked-evergl 2y ago

[flagged]

alabastervlog 2y ago
I can’t find any proof you’re innocent, only a complete lack or evidence that you are guilty. Guess we better send you to CECOT. Have fun with your 0.6m^2 of living space. Too bad you weren’t innocent.
VoidWhisperer 2y ago
"The US government has conceded Mr Ábrego García was deported because of an "administrative error", though it also says he is a member of the MS-13 gang - something his lawyer denies. " Try actually reading the article next time. Again, the burden of proof here should be falling on PROVING he is a member of ms-13, not proving he isn't. You are obviously arguing this in bad faith.
- flanked-evergl 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - shadowfacts 2y ago
    They did not have "every right to remove him." As the article you linked says, Abrego Garcia was specifically granted a withholding of removal order.
    - flanked-evergl 2y ago
      To only one specific country. Not in general.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    Your link says the opposite of what you claim. > Although the asylum claim proved to be time-barred—aliens are required to bring such claims within a year of entering the country—in October 2019 Judge Jones did grant his request for “withholding of removal” based on his “well-founded” fear of persecution by Barrio 18. The government did not appeal, so Jones’s ruling is now final. > The removal being in error does not make him innocent. Innocent is the default. That's a fundamental part of how our legal system works. The government must prove you guilty.
potato3732842 2y ago
He's an illegal who had a credible (like actually credible, like you could pitch it to someone in the year 2002, not the flimsy 2020s BS) claim for asylum but didn't file in time. He was eventually caught up in the system for reasons not related to the commission of any crime. ICE looked at his case, and gave him a "we won't deport you because your case is pending" status.
- viraptor 2y ago
  > He's an illegal ... Edit; see below for details
  - potato3732842 2y ago
    I don't disagree, but I bet ICE doesn't see it that way. I mean why else would someone who's been granted a legal status pending his case wind up on their list of people to roll up on.
  - flanked-evergl 2y ago
    This is false. He has no legal status [1]. He could be removed, just not to El Salvador. That does not give him legal status or make him a resident. [1]: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/abrego-garcia-and-ms-13--what-do-we-know https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/abrego-garcia-and-ms-13...
    - viraptor 2y ago
      Interesting. More details about that status can be found here https://immigrationequality.org/asylum/asylum-manual/immigration-basics-withholding-of-removal/ https://immigrationequality.org/asylum/asylum-manual/immigra... I've heard the legal status mentioned by an online-person-who-should-know-better. I'll let them know.
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
        "Withholding of removal" is a form of legal status. They can deport you (if they find a willing third party nation), as it's not a path to permanent resident status, but until they do so, you're allowed to reside and work. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/the_difference_between_asylum_and_withholding_of_removal.pdf https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/fil... > As in the case of asylum, a person who is granted withholding of removal is protected from being returned to his or her home country and receives the right to remain in the United States and work legally. But at the end of the court process, an immigration judge enters a deportation order and then tells the government they cannot execute that order. That is, the “removal” to a person’s home country is “withheld.” However, the government is still allowed to deport that person to a different country if the other country agrees to accept them. > Withholding of removal provides a form of protection that is less certain than asylum, leaving its recipients in a sort of limbo. A person who is granted withholding of removal may never leave the United States without executing that removal order, cannot petition to bring family members to the United States, and does not gain a path to citizenship. And unlike asylum, when a family seeks withholding of removal together a judge may grant protection to the parent while denying it to the children, leading to family separation.