|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On August 23 2025 17:23 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2025 17:12 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2025 16:55 Introvert wrote:On August 23 2025 16:43 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2025 16:27 Introvert wrote:On August 23 2025 15:37 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2025 08:44 Introvert wrote:On August 23 2025 08:09 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2025 07:52 Introvert wrote:On August 23 2025 07:40 Magic Powers wrote:
[quote]
These illegal immigrants literally get jury trials to receive visa extensions or citizenship to prevent being deported. That's the top spot where ICE generally abducts them nowadays.
Joke country. No? Immigration trials are before immigration judges which are article 2 judges (executive branch) not article 3 (judicial branch). At no point in American history had it been required to have a criminal jury trial to deport someone in the country illegally unless there was some other factor. A joke is thinking that sneaking across the border entitles you to the delays, due process, and legal protections of the criminal system. It'd be overwhelmed instantly. Just imagine if eveyone who Biden, being derelict at the border, let in, had to have a full jury trial to be deported. It's rediculous and easy to see why. Bruh. You brought up jury trials, not me. I thought you were talking about whatever regular trials they get summoned to. That's where ICE picks them up and abducts them. You know this. Imagine being an illegal person in a country that you take nothing from. You respect the law, you work, you even pay taxes, you're better than the typical citizen. And yet you get treated like trash. Well you said it was a joke he could be deported without a trial, but when we talked about this before I pointed out that he already had his normal immigration adjudication process and it was determined he could be deported. So I assumed you were talking about something else because otherwise what you said was just wrong. Imagine being someone who broke American law, lives in the country illegally and thinks that you shouldn't be concerned about being deported at any moment. How many countries, that presumably are not jokes, even puts up with illegal immigration as much as the US does. I've asked before, but you claim to not be for open borders yet it's hard to find a policy you support that isn't effectively open borders. 1) Abrego Garcia had well-founded fears of gang persecution in El Salvador, hence his initial deportation was wrongful. 2) Was instead abducted and held in notorious El Salvador prison. Alledges he was beaten brutally. 3) Then rightfully freed and returned. 4) Possibly facing immediate deportation again despite having a strong case against the state. Joke country. He was rightfully returned so now he can be rightfully deported. He has no legal case for his continued presence in the US. He is still here entirely at the sufferance of the federal government and that has been true almost every day since he crossed the border illegally. The initial deportation was wrongful to begin with. Not just the abduction. Now he has a strong case because he shouldn't have been deported and he shouldn't have been abducted and he was allegedly abused. Why do you make excuses for this? Read more carefully. He should not have been deported to El Salvador because an immigration judge, based on their best judgement, said not to (a thing they are allowed to do). What the judge did not do is say he can't be deported. In fact, he had an active deportation order already. It would have been perfectly lawful to have sent him anywhere else that would have taken him. That is what they should have done. Calling it "abduction" again makes me wonder who you think *should* ever be deported. He has no legal case to stay in the US. Being deported to the wrong country isn't a get-out-of-deportation-free card. This also isn't a criminal proceeding with double jeopardy concerns. He should not have been deported at all. Not just not abducted. Not deported. At all. Here, let me help you gain some actual, real, truthful understanding of the case. Not the nonsense that you've read at a cursory glance somewhere. https://copilot.microsoft.com/chats/SqLkxq542vYVJEGdLF5Cy I don't get anything when I click on that. Maybe it's because I'm on mobile. But he had a withholding order that only prevented him from being deported to *El Salvador.* We already talked about this. It doesn't prevent him from being deported anywhere else. His continued presence in the country could lawfully end the moment the federal government decides it should end. We went over this last time. I seem to recall you were not the only one confused but I really thought we had cleared that up. Perhaps this is all useless then.
![[image loading]](https://i.gyazo.com/f34f5bf12d56c713de691146bbcdc618.png)
You can't lawfully deport a Salvadoran to a different country other than El Salvador. If he can't be deported to El Salvador because of gang persecution, then that means he can't be deported at all. He was in the right, the state was in the wrong. He couldn't be deported. It was wrongful.
Then he was abducted, which is an even more unlawful act.
He was then allegedly physically abused. This further strengthens his case.
You're wrong.
|
On August 23 2025 17:28 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2025 17:23 Introvert wrote:On August 23 2025 17:12 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2025 16:55 Introvert wrote:On August 23 2025 16:43 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2025 16:27 Introvert wrote:On August 23 2025 15:37 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2025 08:44 Introvert wrote:On August 23 2025 08:09 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2025 07:52 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
No? Immigration trials are before immigration judges which are article 2 judges (executive branch) not article 3 (judicial branch). At no point in American history had it been required to have a criminal jury trial to deport someone in the country illegally unless there was some other factor.
A joke is thinking that sneaking across the border entitles you to the delays, due process, and legal protections of the criminal system. It'd be overwhelmed instantly. Just imagine if eveyone who Biden, being derelict at the border, let in, had to have a full jury trial to be deported. It's rediculous and easy to see why. Bruh. You brought up jury trials, not me. I thought you were talking about whatever regular trials they get summoned to. That's where ICE picks them up and abducts them. You know this. Imagine being an illegal person in a country that you take nothing from. You respect the law, you work, you even pay taxes, you're better than the typical citizen. And yet you get treated like trash. Well you said it was a joke he could be deported without a trial, but when we talked about this before I pointed out that he already had his normal immigration adjudication process and it was determined he could be deported. So I assumed you were talking about something else because otherwise what you said was just wrong. Imagine being someone who broke American law, lives in the country illegally and thinks that you shouldn't be concerned about being deported at any moment. How many countries, that presumably are not jokes, even puts up with illegal immigration as much as the US does. I've asked before, but you claim to not be for open borders yet it's hard to find a policy you support that isn't effectively open borders. 1) Abrego Garcia had well-founded fears of gang persecution in El Salvador, hence his initial deportation was wrongful. 2) Was instead abducted and held in notorious El Salvador prison. Alledges he was beaten brutally. 3) Then rightfully freed and returned. 4) Possibly facing immediate deportation again despite having a strong case against the state. Joke country. He was rightfully returned so now he can be rightfully deported. He has no legal case for his continued presence in the US. He is still here entirely at the sufferance of the federal government and that has been true almost every day since he crossed the border illegally. The initial deportation was wrongful to begin with. Not just the abduction. Now he has a strong case because he shouldn't have been deported and he shouldn't have been abducted and he was allegedly abused. Why do you make excuses for this? Read more carefully. He should not have been deported to El Salvador because an immigration judge, based on their best judgement, said not to (a thing they are allowed to do). What the judge did not do is say he can't be deported. In fact, he had an active deportation order already. It would have been perfectly lawful to have sent him anywhere else that would have taken him. That is what they should have done. Calling it "abduction" again makes me wonder who you think *should* ever be deported. He has no legal case to stay in the US. Being deported to the wrong country isn't a get-out-of-deportation-free card. This also isn't a criminal proceeding with double jeopardy concerns. He should not have been deported at all. Not just not abducted. Not deported. At all. Here, let me help you gain some actual, real, truthful understanding of the case. Not the nonsense that you've read at a cursory glance somewhere. https://copilot.microsoft.com/chats/SqLkxq542vYVJEGdLF5Cy I don't get anything when I click on that. Maybe it's because I'm on mobile. But he had a withholding order that only prevented him from being deported to *El Salvador.* We already talked about this. It doesn't prevent him from being deported anywhere else. His continued presence in the country could lawfully end the moment the federal government decides it should end. We went over this last time. I seem to recall you were not the only one confused but I really thought we had cleared that up. Perhaps this is all useless then.
That doesn't disagree with what I said, I even agree that his lawyers will try whatever they can.
"He can't be deported anywhere else" is just not true.
Edit2: it may be that his attempted asylum claim makes it easier to deport him to a third country lol
Edit3: particularly thanks to some judges in recent weeks, he will of course challenge his potential deportation. But the law allows his deportation to other countries and his asylum claim was denied years ago. In some refresher reading just now (should be asleep) I haven't seen anything that changes that assessment. Though again I suppose the judges could decide to block the move to a particular country, and the government would challenge. So I suppose in this instance there is more legal play. But they are not attempting to do something illegal.
|
On August 23 2025 17:33 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2025 17:28 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2025 17:23 Introvert wrote:On August 23 2025 17:12 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2025 16:55 Introvert wrote:On August 23 2025 16:43 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2025 16:27 Introvert wrote:On August 23 2025 15:37 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2025 08:44 Introvert wrote:On August 23 2025 08:09 Magic Powers wrote:
[quote]
Bruh. You brought up jury trials, not me. I thought you were talking about whatever regular trials they get summoned to. That's where ICE picks them up and abducts them. You know this.
Imagine being an illegal person in a country that you take nothing from. You respect the law, you work, you even pay taxes, you're better than the typical citizen. And yet you get treated like trash. Well you said it was a joke he could be deported without a trial, but when we talked about this before I pointed out that he already had his normal immigration adjudication process and it was determined he could be deported. So I assumed you were talking about something else because otherwise what you said was just wrong. Imagine being someone who broke American law, lives in the country illegally and thinks that you shouldn't be concerned about being deported at any moment. How many countries, that presumably are not jokes, even puts up with illegal immigration as much as the US does. I've asked before, but you claim to not be for open borders yet it's hard to find a policy you support that isn't effectively open borders. 1) Abrego Garcia had well-founded fears of gang persecution in El Salvador, hence his initial deportation was wrongful. 2) Was instead abducted and held in notorious El Salvador prison. Alledges he was beaten brutally. 3) Then rightfully freed and returned. 4) Possibly facing immediate deportation again despite having a strong case against the state. Joke country. He was rightfully returned so now he can be rightfully deported. He has no legal case for his continued presence in the US. He is still here entirely at the sufferance of the federal government and that has been true almost every day since he crossed the border illegally. The initial deportation was wrongful to begin with. Not just the abduction. Now he has a strong case because he shouldn't have been deported and he shouldn't have been abducted and he was allegedly abused. Why do you make excuses for this? Read more carefully. He should not have been deported to El Salvador because an immigration judge, based on their best judgement, said not to (a thing they are allowed to do). What the judge did not do is say he can't be deported. In fact, he had an active deportation order already. It would have been perfectly lawful to have sent him anywhere else that would have taken him. That is what they should have done. Calling it "abduction" again makes me wonder who you think *should* ever be deported. He has no legal case to stay in the US. Being deported to the wrong country isn't a get-out-of-deportation-free card. This also isn't a criminal proceeding with double jeopardy concerns. He should not have been deported at all. Not just not abducted. Not deported. At all. Here, let me help you gain some actual, real, truthful understanding of the case. Not the nonsense that you've read at a cursory glance somewhere. https://copilot.microsoft.com/chats/SqLkxq542vYVJEGdLF5Cy I don't get anything when I click on that. Maybe it's because I'm on mobile. But he had a withholding order that only prevented him from being deported to *El Salvador.* We already talked about this. It doesn't prevent him from being deported anywhere else. His continued presence in the country could lawfully end the moment the federal government decides it should end. We went over this last time. I seem to recall you were not the only one confused but I really thought we had cleared that up. Perhaps this is all useless then. That doesn't disagree with what I said, I even agree that his lawyers will try whatever they can. "He can't be deported anywhere else" is just not true. Edit2: it may be that his attempted asylum claim makes it easier to deport him to a third country lol
1) Are you saying a UK citizen being illegally in the US can be deported to Australia?
2) The deportation case was wrongful. He argued for gang persecution, which made deportation unlawful.
|
|
|
On August 23 2025 08:44 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2025 08:09 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2025 07:52 Introvert wrote:On August 23 2025 07:40 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2025 07:06 Introvert wrote:On August 23 2025 06:48 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2025 04:14 LightSpectra wrote:Kilmar Abrego Garcia is free. Turns out MS Painting the words "MS-13" on a picture of someone isn't enough evidence to detain them indefinitely. What's wild is that now he can be deported again without trial. Constitutionally. What a joke country. He's still in the country illegally. That hasn't changed and was always the basis of his deportation. Expecting an entire jury trial for a removal would be the joke. These illegal immigrants literally get jury trials to receive visa extensions or citizenship to prevent being deported. That's the top spot where ICE generally abducts them nowadays. Joke country. No? Immigration trials are before immigration judges which are article 2 judges (executive branch) not article 3 (judicial branch). At no point in American history had it been required to have a criminal jury trial to deport someone in the country illegally unless there was some other factor. A joke is thinking that sneaking across the border entitles you to the delays, due process, and legal protections of the criminal system. It'd be overwhelmed instantly. Just imagine if eveyone who Biden, being derelict at the border, let in, had to have a full jury trial to be deported. It's rediculous and easy to see why. Bruh. You brought up jury trials, not me. I thought you were talking about whatever regular trials they get summoned to. That's where ICE picks them up and abducts them. You know this. Imagine being an illegal person in a country that you take nothing from. You respect the law, you work, you even pay taxes, you're better than the typical citizen. And yet you get treated like trash. Well you said it was a joke he could be deported without a trial, but when we talked about this before I pointed out that he already had his normal immigration adjudication process and it was determined he could be deported. So I assumed you were talking about something else because otherwise what you said was just wrong. Imagine being someone who broke American law, lives in the country illegally and thinks that you shouldn't be concerned about being deported at any moment. How many countries, that presumably are not jokes, even puts up with illegal immigration as much as the US does. I've asked before, but you claim to not be for open borders yet it's hard to find a policy you support that isn't effectively open borders. Show nested quote +On August 23 2025 08:09 Billyboy wrote:On August 23 2025 07:06 Introvert wrote:On August 23 2025 06:48 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2025 04:14 LightSpectra wrote:Kilmar Abrego Garcia is free. Turns out MS Painting the words "MS-13" on a picture of someone isn't enough evidence to detain them indefinitely. What's wild is that now he can be deported again without trial. Constitutionally. What a joke country. He's still in the country illegally. That hasn't changed and was always the basis of his deportation. Expecting an entire jury trial for a removal would be the joke. What do you think the final price tag on this giant fuck up is going to be? And do not forget to add all the new legal costs from the civil suit he will most certainly win. On August 23 2025 07:06 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Canada is removing most retaliatory tariffs against the USA. It'll be a big win once the LCBO opens back up their shelves to American products. The anti-USA hate is waning. The Toronto BLue Jays are a 100% American product and the entire country is just gobbling up their pennant run. Every city the Blue Jays visit has thousands of Canadian fans at the games. The WNBA managed to sell out a full sized NBA arena in a regular season game in Canada. Canadians loves "America's Past Time". They just can't help themselves. The Blue Jays were a much cooler team when they were distinctly un-American. Oh well. LOL. Big Win for the USA today. On August 23 2025 06:48 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2025 04:14 LightSpectra wrote:Kilmar Abrego Garcia is free. Turns out MS Painting the words "MS-13" on a picture of someone isn't enough evidence to detain them indefinitely. What's wild is that now he can be deported again without trial. Constitutionally. What a joke country. meh, like most people who've lived around Toronto, Canada I have a few options in which country I can live. For me, and many hard working Canadians the USA is the best option. All these millions and millions of Albertans and Quebecers whining forever about separating from Canada and it'll prolly never happen. They can just leave for the USA. Big Red Sox//Yankees game tonight! USA! USA!. I'm really mad at the less taxes I'm going to have pay. I sure wish I was down there with you so I could pay more so the ultra rich could pay less! Im not as sure about his chances in the legal system as you are, but he should have been deported to somewhere he could legally be sent and that should have been the end of it.
Seems like people who have been wrongly imprisoned and publicly and obviously falsely defamed do well in civil trials, but I'm no expert.
But here is the thing, this fuck up cost your government millions, and all they needed to do was say. Our mistake we will have him right back. Instead they make up obviously lies and use terrible AI or whatever to pretend he had a tattoo that was clearly a fake and super easy to prove. They admitted they had no idea where he was. They ignored judges and so on bringing him back. Not only was this all wildly expensive and time wasting, but all it accomplished was show that when the other side says they have no idea what they are doing, they lie to cover their mistakes, it is not a serious effort, and so on. They have just proved that beyond a reasonable doubt that it is true.
Like where is your embarrassment and sense of shame? This is why Trump is a joke every where else in the world, and thy know they have to play to him because of the biggest military and biggest economy (which he is likely going to wreck both given his track record and clear incompetence) but no one is listening to him in any serious way about strategy, intelligence, I mean anything?
In business there is a concept of reputational risk, and it is taken very serious because means big dollars. This administration is a walking reputational risk and they just keep publicly fucking up in the stupidest ways, over and over, and completely obvious to everyone who did not grow up Republican and bleed blue.
I mean also look at how massively he is dropping the ball on Ukraine? A big boon for the US economy and getting where they were was supplying the allies in WW2. Somehow with this conflict instead of making big bank and MAGA he is ramping up European arms. The US stuff is the best, but no one wants to deal with the Donald. And Putin continually making him look like a fool while he announces ceasefires and peace deals that Putin clearly did not agree to or is not remotely following. Then Trumps "strategy" is to make big empty threats he never follows through on.
He is the villain of a bad 80's movie that it is so unbelievable that he has supporters it wrecks the movie. But he exists in real life, speed running the greatest world power to laughing stock banana Republic.
|
On August 23 2025 17:51 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2025 17:33 Introvert wrote:On August 23 2025 17:28 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2025 17:23 Introvert wrote:On August 23 2025 17:12 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2025 16:55 Introvert wrote:On August 23 2025 16:43 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2025 16:27 Introvert wrote:On August 23 2025 15:37 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2025 08:44 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
Well you said it was a joke he could be deported without a trial, but when we talked about this before I pointed out that he already had his normal immigration adjudication process and it was determined he could be deported. So I assumed you were talking about something else because otherwise what you said was just wrong.
Imagine being someone who broke American law, lives in the country illegally and thinks that you shouldn't be concerned about being deported at any moment. How many countries, that presumably are not jokes, even puts up with illegal immigration as much as the US does. I've asked before, but you claim to not be for open borders yet it's hard to find a policy you support that isn't effectively open borders. 1) Abrego Garcia had well-founded fears of gang persecution in El Salvador, hence his initial deportation was wrongful. 2) Was instead abducted and held in notorious El Salvador prison. Alledges he was beaten brutally. 3) Then rightfully freed and returned. 4) Possibly facing immediate deportation again despite having a strong case against the state. Joke country. He was rightfully returned so now he can be rightfully deported. He has no legal case for his continued presence in the US. He is still here entirely at the sufferance of the federal government and that has been true almost every day since he crossed the border illegally. The initial deportation was wrongful to begin with. Not just the abduction. Now he has a strong case because he shouldn't have been deported and he shouldn't have been abducted and he was allegedly abused. Why do you make excuses for this? Read more carefully. He should not have been deported to El Salvador because an immigration judge, based on their best judgement, said not to (a thing they are allowed to do). What the judge did not do is say he can't be deported. In fact, he had an active deportation order already. It would have been perfectly lawful to have sent him anywhere else that would have taken him. That is what they should have done. Calling it "abduction" again makes me wonder who you think *should* ever be deported. He has no legal case to stay in the US. Being deported to the wrong country isn't a get-out-of-deportation-free card. This also isn't a criminal proceeding with double jeopardy concerns. He should not have been deported at all. Not just not abducted. Not deported. At all. Here, let me help you gain some actual, real, truthful understanding of the case. Not the nonsense that you've read at a cursory glance somewhere. https://copilot.microsoft.com/chats/SqLkxq542vYVJEGdLF5Cy I don't get anything when I click on that. Maybe it's because I'm on mobile. But he had a withholding order that only prevented him from being deported to *El Salvador.* We already talked about this. It doesn't prevent him from being deported anywhere else. His continued presence in the country could lawfully end the moment the federal government decides it should end. We went over this last time. I seem to recall you were not the only one confused but I really thought we had cleared that up. Perhaps this is all useless then. That doesn't disagree with what I said, I even agree that his lawyers will try whatever they can. "He can't be deported anywhere else" is just not true. Edit2: it may be that his attempted asylum claim makes it easier to deport him to a third country lol 1) Are you saying a UK citizen being illegally in the US can be deported to Australia? 2) The deportation case was wrongful. He argued for gang persecution, which made deportation unlawful.
Third country deportation is both legal and a growing case. I'm not too clued up on the US and maybe there's something specific that goes beyond international law, but as far as any treaties and stuff, it's legal. It's why the UK could set up their whole deportation deal with Rwanda. The problem is mainly finding a country willing to take in the people you want to deport and will treat them in a way that won't instantly break their fundamental rights (e.g. you cannot legally deport someone to somewhere you should reasonably know they'll be used as slave labor). So Qatar is out, but if Australia is willing to take in deported UK citizens, that'd be a legal solution.
|
United States43533 Posts
Billyboy, it wasn't AI.
Someone in ICE used MS Paint to annotate a picture of his hands and label tattoos. Basically ICE decided that tree stands for M and so they had, superimposed and clearly not on his fingers, a big M in Calibri font, on the finger.
The intent by ICE wasn't to make people think that there was literally an M, only an absolute idiot who couldn't recognize text superimposed on a photo, would think that.
Trump is so old, so out of touch, so completely computer illiterate, that he mistook the annotations on the photo for the photo. That was what caught the interviewer completely off guard. He was prepared for Trump to argue that the tattoos were in some way a gang related code but he was blown away when Trump waved the annotated photo and insisted that it says MS-13 right there.
|
On August 24 2025 03:18 KwarK wrote:
Billyboy, it wasn't AI.
Someone in ICE used MS Paint to annotate a picture of his hands and label tattoos. Basically ICE decided that tree stands for M and so they had, superimposed and clearly not on his fingers, a big M in Calibri font, on the finger.
The intent by ICE wasn't to make people think that there was literally an M, only an absolute idiot who couldn't recognize text superimposed on a photo, would think that.
Trump is so old, so out of touch, so completely computer illiterate, that he mistook the annotations on the photo for the photo. That was what caught the interviewer completely off guard. He was prepared for Trump to argue that the tattoos were in some way a gang related code but he was blown away when Trump waved the annotated photo and insisted that it says MS-13 right there.
Look at that I can't even keep up with incompetent he is, and his base because they talked a lot about the Tattoo. This whole loyalty over competency should be freaking Republicans out as much or more than the Dems. What are you going to do when you realize that Trump and his team of loyalists are actually so incompetent that you can't even pretend you are voting from him because the others would be worse.
|
United States24753 Posts
Double-down in denial until you are dead, is what I'm going with.
|
On August 24 2025 01:31 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2025 17:51 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2025 17:33 Introvert wrote:On August 23 2025 17:28 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2025 17:23 Introvert wrote:On August 23 2025 17:12 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2025 16:55 Introvert wrote:On August 23 2025 16:43 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2025 16:27 Introvert wrote:On August 23 2025 15:37 Magic Powers wrote:
[quote]
1) Abrego Garcia had well-founded fears of gang persecution in El Salvador, hence his initial deportation was wrongful.
2) Was instead abducted and held in notorious El Salvador prison. Alledges he was beaten brutally.
3) Then rightfully freed and returned.
4) Possibly facing immediate deportation again despite having a strong case against the state.
Joke country. He was rightfully returned so now he can be rightfully deported. He has no legal case for his continued presence in the US. He is still here entirely at the sufferance of the federal government and that has been true almost every day since he crossed the border illegally. The initial deportation was wrongful to begin with. Not just the abduction. Now he has a strong case because he shouldn't have been deported and he shouldn't have been abducted and he was allegedly abused. Why do you make excuses for this? Read more carefully. He should not have been deported to El Salvador because an immigration judge, based on their best judgement, said not to (a thing they are allowed to do). What the judge did not do is say he can't be deported. In fact, he had an active deportation order already. It would have been perfectly lawful to have sent him anywhere else that would have taken him. That is what they should have done. Calling it "abduction" again makes me wonder who you think *should* ever be deported. He has no legal case to stay in the US. Being deported to the wrong country isn't a get-out-of-deportation-free card. This also isn't a criminal proceeding with double jeopardy concerns. He should not have been deported at all. Not just not abducted. Not deported. At all. Here, let me help you gain some actual, real, truthful understanding of the case. Not the nonsense that you've read at a cursory glance somewhere. https://copilot.microsoft.com/chats/SqLkxq542vYVJEGdLF5Cy I don't get anything when I click on that. Maybe it's because I'm on mobile. But he had a withholding order that only prevented him from being deported to *El Salvador.* We already talked about this. It doesn't prevent him from being deported anywhere else. His continued presence in the country could lawfully end the moment the federal government decides it should end. We went over this last time. I seem to recall you were not the only one confused but I really thought we had cleared that up. Perhaps this is all useless then. That doesn't disagree with what I said, I even agree that his lawyers will try whatever they can. "He can't be deported anywhere else" is just not true. Edit2: it may be that his attempted asylum claim makes it easier to deport him to a third country lol 1) Are you saying a UK citizen being illegally in the US can be deported to Australia? 2) The deportation case was wrongful. He argued for gang persecution, which made deportation unlawful. Third country deportation is both legal and a growing case. I'm not too clued up on the US and maybe there's something specific that goes beyond international law, but as far as any treaties and stuff, it's legal. It's why the UK could set up their whole deportation deal with Rwanda. The problem is mainly finding a country willing to take in the people you want to deport and will treat them in a way that won't instantly break their fundamental rights (e.g. you cannot legally deport someone to somewhere you should reasonably know they'll be used as slave labor). So Qatar is out, but if Australia is willing to take in deported UK citizens, that'd be a legal solution.
This is not something that's explicitly being done against the will of deportees, at least not generally. In most cases they're immediately/soon moved from the third country to their own, so it functions at most as a temporary stay. Sometimes the third country is willing to give them harbor for a while, but this is also meant as assisting the deportee.
Basically it's being done as a favor/offer to the deportee by a third country, not as a decision by the deporting country. The idea that the US just willy nilly ships people to third countries is quite absurd. No country would accept that. It has to be a mutually beneficial decision.
|
On August 24 2025 05:19 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2025 01:31 Acrofales wrote:On August 23 2025 17:51 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2025 17:33 Introvert wrote:On August 23 2025 17:28 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2025 17:23 Introvert wrote:On August 23 2025 17:12 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2025 16:55 Introvert wrote:On August 23 2025 16:43 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2025 16:27 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
He was rightfully returned so now he can be rightfully deported. He has no legal case for his continued presence in the US. He is still here entirely at the sufferance of the federal government and that has been true almost every day since he crossed the border illegally. The initial deportation was wrongful to begin with. Not just the abduction. Now he has a strong case because he shouldn't have been deported and he shouldn't have been abducted and he was allegedly abused. Why do you make excuses for this? Read more carefully. He should not have been deported to El Salvador because an immigration judge, based on their best judgement, said not to (a thing they are allowed to do). What the judge did not do is say he can't be deported. In fact, he had an active deportation order already. It would have been perfectly lawful to have sent him anywhere else that would have taken him. That is what they should have done. Calling it "abduction" again makes me wonder who you think *should* ever be deported. He has no legal case to stay in the US. Being deported to the wrong country isn't a get-out-of-deportation-free card. This also isn't a criminal proceeding with double jeopardy concerns. He should not have been deported at all. Not just not abducted. Not deported. At all. Here, let me help you gain some actual, real, truthful understanding of the case. Not the nonsense that you've read at a cursory glance somewhere. https://copilot.microsoft.com/chats/SqLkxq542vYVJEGdLF5Cy I don't get anything when I click on that. Maybe it's because I'm on mobile. But he had a withholding order that only prevented him from being deported to *El Salvador.* We already talked about this. It doesn't prevent him from being deported anywhere else. His continued presence in the country could lawfully end the moment the federal government decides it should end. We went over this last time. I seem to recall you were not the only one confused but I really thought we had cleared that up. Perhaps this is all useless then. That doesn't disagree with what I said, I even agree that his lawyers will try whatever they can. "He can't be deported anywhere else" is just not true. Edit2: it may be that his attempted asylum claim makes it easier to deport him to a third country lol 1) Are you saying a UK citizen being illegally in the US can be deported to Australia? 2) The deportation case was wrongful. He argued for gang persecution, which made deportation unlawful. Third country deportation is both legal and a growing case. I'm not too clued up on the US and maybe there's something specific that goes beyond international law, but as far as any treaties and stuff, it's legal. It's why the UK could set up their whole deportation deal with Rwanda. The problem is mainly finding a country willing to take in the people you want to deport and will treat them in a way that won't instantly break their fundamental rights (e.g. you cannot legally deport someone to somewhere you should reasonably know they'll be used as slave labor). So Qatar is out, but if Australia is willing to take in deported UK citizens, that'd be a legal solution. This is not something that's explicitly being done against the will of deportees, at least not generally. In most cases they're immediately/soon moved from the third country to their own, so it functions at most as a temporary stay. Sometimes the third country is willing to give them harbor for a while, but this is also meant as assisting the deportee. Basically it's being done as a favor/offer to the deportee by a third country, not as a decision by the deporting country. The idea that the US just willy nilly ships people to third countries is quite absurd. No country would accept that. It has to be a mutually beneficial decision.
You were arguing that it was illegal to do just that, not that it was hard to do. Do you have a source for the statement that a third country is only doing it as a favour to the deportee? Genuinely curious.
|
On August 24 2025 05:19 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2025 01:31 Acrofales wrote:On August 23 2025 17:51 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2025 17:33 Introvert wrote:On August 23 2025 17:28 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2025 17:23 Introvert wrote:On August 23 2025 17:12 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2025 16:55 Introvert wrote:On August 23 2025 16:43 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2025 16:27 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
He was rightfully returned so now he can be rightfully deported. He has no legal case for his continued presence in the US. He is still here entirely at the sufferance of the federal government and that has been true almost every day since he crossed the border illegally. The initial deportation was wrongful to begin with. Not just the abduction. Now he has a strong case because he shouldn't have been deported and he shouldn't have been abducted and he was allegedly abused. Why do you make excuses for this? Read more carefully. He should not have been deported to El Salvador because an immigration judge, based on their best judgement, said not to (a thing they are allowed to do). What the judge did not do is say he can't be deported. In fact, he had an active deportation order already. It would have been perfectly lawful to have sent him anywhere else that would have taken him. That is what they should have done. Calling it "abduction" again makes me wonder who you think *should* ever be deported. He has no legal case to stay in the US. Being deported to the wrong country isn't a get-out-of-deportation-free card. This also isn't a criminal proceeding with double jeopardy concerns. He should not have been deported at all. Not just not abducted. Not deported. At all. Here, let me help you gain some actual, real, truthful understanding of the case. Not the nonsense that you've read at a cursory glance somewhere. https://copilot.microsoft.com/chats/SqLkxq542vYVJEGdLF5Cy I don't get anything when I click on that. Maybe it's because I'm on mobile. But he had a withholding order that only prevented him from being deported to *El Salvador.* We already talked about this. It doesn't prevent him from being deported anywhere else. His continued presence in the country could lawfully end the moment the federal government decides it should end. We went over this last time. I seem to recall you were not the only one confused but I really thought we had cleared that up. Perhaps this is all useless then. That doesn't disagree with what I said, I even agree that his lawyers will try whatever they can. "He can't be deported anywhere else" is just not true. Edit2: it may be that his attempted asylum claim makes it easier to deport him to a third country lol 1) Are you saying a UK citizen being illegally in the US can be deported to Australia? 2) The deportation case was wrongful. He argued for gang persecution, which made deportation unlawful. Third country deportation is both legal and a growing case. I'm not too clued up on the US and maybe there's something specific that goes beyond international law, but as far as any treaties and stuff, it's legal. It's why the UK could set up their whole deportation deal with Rwanda. The problem is mainly finding a country willing to take in the people you want to deport and will treat them in a way that won't instantly break their fundamental rights (e.g. you cannot legally deport someone to somewhere you should reasonably know they'll be used as slave labor). So Qatar is out, but if Australia is willing to take in deported UK citizens, that'd be a legal solution. This is not something that's explicitly being done against the will of deportees, at least not generally. In most cases they're immediately/soon moved from the third country to their own, so it functions at most as a temporary stay. Sometimes the third country is willing to give them harbor for a while, but this is also meant as assisting the deportee. Basically it's being done as a favor/offer to the deportee by a third country, not as a decision by the deporting country. The idea that the US just willy nilly ships people to third countries is quite absurd. No country would accept that. It has to be a mutually beneficial decision.
That wasn't your question, though. You didn't ask if it was usual, normal or ethical. You asked if it was legal.
If you want to keep having a discussion with introvert about whether it's ethical to deport Abrego Garcia to some third country he has no ties with whatsoever, you're welcome to. I personally see very little point in such a discussion because it'd depend very much on what the deal with such a country would look like. And even then, I've said before I am very pro freedom of movement. I basically think everyone has a right to live anywhere and nations are a particularly problematic level of government. But I know I'm both in the minority in thinking this and that I have no idea how to transition from nations to more empowered local and regional governments with varying levels and some kind of global governing body that acts basically just as a safeguard of fundamental rights. So until such time, I'll watch other people argue about whether a person has a right to move across arbitrary lines on maps.
|
On August 24 2025 15:57 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2025 05:19 Magic Powers wrote:On August 24 2025 01:31 Acrofales wrote:On August 23 2025 17:51 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2025 17:33 Introvert wrote:On August 23 2025 17:28 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2025 17:23 Introvert wrote:On August 23 2025 17:12 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2025 16:55 Introvert wrote:On August 23 2025 16:43 Magic Powers wrote:
[quote]
The initial deportation was wrongful to begin with. Not just the abduction. Now he has a strong case because he shouldn't have been deported and he shouldn't have been abducted and he was allegedly abused.
Why do you make excuses for this? Read more carefully. He should not have been deported to El Salvador because an immigration judge, based on their best judgement, said not to (a thing they are allowed to do). What the judge did not do is say he can't be deported. In fact, he had an active deportation order already. It would have been perfectly lawful to have sent him anywhere else that would have taken him. That is what they should have done. Calling it "abduction" again makes me wonder who you think *should* ever be deported. He has no legal case to stay in the US. Being deported to the wrong country isn't a get-out-of-deportation-free card. This also isn't a criminal proceeding with double jeopardy concerns. He should not have been deported at all. Not just not abducted. Not deported. At all. Here, let me help you gain some actual, real, truthful understanding of the case. Not the nonsense that you've read at a cursory glance somewhere. https://copilot.microsoft.com/chats/SqLkxq542vYVJEGdLF5Cy I don't get anything when I click on that. Maybe it's because I'm on mobile. But he had a withholding order that only prevented him from being deported to *El Salvador.* We already talked about this. It doesn't prevent him from being deported anywhere else. His continued presence in the country could lawfully end the moment the federal government decides it should end. We went over this last time. I seem to recall you were not the only one confused but I really thought we had cleared that up. Perhaps this is all useless then. That doesn't disagree with what I said, I even agree that his lawyers will try whatever they can. "He can't be deported anywhere else" is just not true. Edit2: it may be that his attempted asylum claim makes it easier to deport him to a third country lol 1) Are you saying a UK citizen being illegally in the US can be deported to Australia? 2) The deportation case was wrongful. He argued for gang persecution, which made deportation unlawful. Third country deportation is both legal and a growing case. I'm not too clued up on the US and maybe there's something specific that goes beyond international law, but as far as any treaties and stuff, it's legal. It's why the UK could set up their whole deportation deal with Rwanda. The problem is mainly finding a country willing to take in the people you want to deport and will treat them in a way that won't instantly break their fundamental rights (e.g. you cannot legally deport someone to somewhere you should reasonably know they'll be used as slave labor). So Qatar is out, but if Australia is willing to take in deported UK citizens, that'd be a legal solution. This is not something that's explicitly being done against the will of deportees, at least not generally. In most cases they're immediately/soon moved from the third country to their own, so it functions at most as a temporary stay. Sometimes the third country is willing to give them harbor for a while, but this is also meant as assisting the deportee. Basically it's being done as a favor/offer to the deportee by a third country, not as a decision by the deporting country. The idea that the US just willy nilly ships people to third countries is quite absurd. No country would accept that. It has to be a mutually beneficial decision. You were arguing that it was illegal to do just that, not that it was hard to do. Do you have a source for the statement that a third country is only doing it as a favour to the deportee? Genuinely curious.
It is illegal in cases such as that of Abrego Garcia. There's no legal basis for it. And I was arguing about deportation cases like that one, not the whole breadth of all possible types of deportations. Deporting someone to a third country permanently is very rare and requires a very special case. It's not commonly used for illegal immigrants, especially not for those who've already stayed in the host country and worked jobs. It's far more common for asylum seekers travelling through multiple countries and being sent back to one of those countries that they travelled through. And even in those instances it has to be argued why the target country is the best choice, it can't just be done willy nilly. But asylum seekers are completely different cases from illegal immigrants. One flees a circumstance such as war or domestic violence, the other may or may not flee anything.
When an illegal immigrant is deported to a third country, it's mainly for the purpose of then immediately sending them to their home country. It's generally temporary and not a permanent solution.
![[image loading]](https://i.gyazo.com/677291b10cac7ca45d041d6e59d25164.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.gyazo.com/f214c19fdb593940097c883dc188d6ff.png)
If you read the last sentence, you can see that deporting people to third countries more often faces legal opposition. This is also another reason why it's not among the preferred practices - besides the more common reason that it requires consent from the third country, as well as the requirement of safety, etc.
This shows the illegality of it in many instances, such as the one of Abrego Garcia. He cannot be legally deported to El Salvador. But in order to deport him elsewhere, there must be a legal basis for that. If no country accepts him, then the US is required to keep him. Again, they can't just deport him willy nilly. That'd be illegal. A whole bunch of formalities such as an agreement between countries has to be established, and a reason must be given as to why deportation to a third country is necessary or the best choice - a reason such as seeking asylum. Not just being illegally in a country. If I don't seek asylum but rather a work visa, for example, then I'm not necessarily an asylum seeker. In that case I would not be fleeing a circumstance, which means I cannot be deported to a third country.
It's basically very circular. The status of the migrant changes according to their motive, the situation in their home country, etc. And that status changes the entire legal argumentation.
|
MP, you were making a statement about how deportations to third countries were done as a favour to the deportee.
Also, I wouldn't trust ChatGPT as an authoritative source of what is legal or illegal. Please, if you are going to make these kinds of statements, at least read the source material.
|
On August 24 2025 18:31 EnDeR_ wrote:
MP, you were making a statement about how deportations to third countries were done as a favour to the deportee.
Also, I wouldn't trust ChatGPT as an authoritative source of what is legal or illegal. Please, if you are going to make these kinds of statements, at least read the source material.
The argument was about the fact that Abrego Garcia's deportation was wrongful to begin with. I don't know where you want to bring this discussion, but it has nothing to do with the point of contention between Introvert and I. He argued that Garcia's deportation was fine, and only the way it was done was wrong. This is false, the deportation was wrong from the start regardless of how it would've been done. That's the point of contention, not whether or not you can deport people to third countries.
Furthermore, you're asking me for a source and I provide the source. You can't just dismiss what I'm providing and act like that counts as an argument. You've wasted my time, and I don't enjoy people wasting my time.
|
On August 24 2025 20:47 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2025 18:31 EnDeR_ wrote:
MP, you were making a statement about how deportations to third countries were done as a favour to the deportee.
Also, I wouldn't trust ChatGPT as an authoritative source of what is legal or illegal. Please, if you are going to make these kinds of statements, at least read the source material. The argument was about the fact that Abrego Garcia's deportation was wrongful to begin with. I don't know where you want to bring this discussion, but it has nothing to do with the point of contention between Introvert and I. He argued that Garcia's deportation was fine, and only the way it was done was wrong. This is false, the deportation was wrong from the start regardless of how it would've been done. That's the point of contention, not whether or not you can deport people to third countries. Furthermore, you're asking me for a source and I provide the source. You can't just dismiss what I'm providing and act like that counts as an argument. You've wasted my time, and I don't enjoy people wasting my time.
A screenshot of your chat with ChatGPT is not a source. You can get the bot to agree with what you are saying no matter how incoherent. It was designed to maximise engagement, not accuracy.
|
On August 24 2025 21:07 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2025 20:47 Magic Powers wrote:On August 24 2025 18:31 EnDeR_ wrote:
MP, you were making a statement about how deportations to third countries were done as a favour to the deportee.
Also, I wouldn't trust ChatGPT as an authoritative source of what is legal or illegal. Please, if you are going to make these kinds of statements, at least read the source material. The argument was about the fact that Abrego Garcia's deportation was wrongful to begin with. I don't know where you want to bring this discussion, but it has nothing to do with the point of contention between Introvert and I. He argued that Garcia's deportation was fine, and only the way it was done was wrong. This is false, the deportation was wrong from the start regardless of how it would've been done. That's the point of contention, not whether or not you can deport people to third countries. Furthermore, you're asking me for a source and I provide the source. You can't just dismiss what I'm providing and act like that counts as an argument. You've wasted my time, and I don't enjoy people wasting my time. A screenshot of your chat with ChatGPT is not a source. You can get the bot to agree with what you are saying no matter how incoherent. It was designed to maximise engagement, not accuracy.
It's a valid source, it literally uses sources. Argue the actual point about Garcia or I will stop caring to respond.
|
On August 24 2025 21:14 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2025 21:07 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 24 2025 20:47 Magic Powers wrote:On August 24 2025 18:31 EnDeR_ wrote:
MP, you were making a statement about how deportations to third countries were done as a favour to the deportee.
Also, I wouldn't trust ChatGPT as an authoritative source of what is legal or illegal. Please, if you are going to make these kinds of statements, at least read the source material. The argument was about the fact that Abrego Garcia's deportation was wrongful to begin with. I don't know where you want to bring this discussion, but it has nothing to do with the point of contention between Introvert and I. He argued that Garcia's deportation was fine, and only the way it was done was wrong. This is false, the deportation was wrong from the start regardless of how it would've been done. That's the point of contention, not whether or not you can deport people to third countries. Furthermore, you're asking me for a source and I provide the source. You can't just dismiss what I'm providing and act like that counts as an argument. You've wasted my time, and I don't enjoy people wasting my time. A screenshot of your chat with ChatGPT is not a source. You can get the bot to agree with what you are saying no matter how incoherent. It was designed to maximise engagement, not accuracy. It's a valid source, it literally uses sources. Argue the actual point about Garcia or I will stop caring to respond.
I am on board with EnDeR here. If i wanted to chat with AI, i would chat with AI. Forums are for chatting with humans. I see this as something very similar to what some people did a while back, where instead of making an argument, they were posting a video of someone else making an argument.
Make the point you want to make yourself, with real sources. Don't post an image of a chat with ChatGPT.
|
Hi MP, I invite you to argue with the bot here:
|
On August 24 2025 21:14 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2025 21:07 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 24 2025 20:47 Magic Powers wrote:On August 24 2025 18:31 EnDeR_ wrote:
MP, you were making a statement about how deportations to third countries were done as a favour to the deportee.
Also, I wouldn't trust ChatGPT as an authoritative source of what is legal or illegal. Please, if you are going to make these kinds of statements, at least read the source material. The argument was about the fact that Abrego Garcia's deportation was wrongful to begin with. I don't know where you want to bring this discussion, but it has nothing to do with the point of contention between Introvert and I. He argued that Garcia's deportation was fine, and only the way it was done was wrong. This is false, the deportation was wrong from the start regardless of how it would've been done. That's the point of contention, not whether or not you can deport people to third countries. Furthermore, you're asking me for a source and I provide the source. You can't just dismiss what I'm providing and act like that counts as an argument. You've wasted my time, and I don't enjoy people wasting my time. A screenshot of your chat with ChatGPT is not a source. You can get the bot to agree with what you are saying no matter how incoherent. It was designed to maximise engagement, not accuracy. It's a valid source
No, it is not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.postimg.cc/d1FCY5Vq/Screenshot-20250824-141809-Chrome.jpg)
