|
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 |
United States44361 Posts
On August 26 2025 00:27 Magic Powers wrote:
The US cannot just send people to random places in the world. No. That's a complete misrepresentation of these cases where it can happen. It's not as simple as "we'll send you there, we don't wanna hear anything, end of debate". No.
The US is sovereign within its borders. It literally can.
|
On August 26 2025 01:36 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2025 00:31 Magic Powers wrote:On August 25 2025 23:50 Introvert wrote:On August 25 2025 23:38 Magic Powers wrote:On August 25 2025 23:32 Introvert wrote:On August 25 2025 23:04 Magic Powers wrote:On August 25 2025 22:58 Introvert wrote:On August 25 2025 22:30 Magic Powers wrote:On August 25 2025 21:48 Introvert wrote:On August 25 2025 17:46 Magic Powers wrote:
[quote]
Ah yes, because Introvert argued so much better. He did not. If you wanna pick any sides, picking his seems worse. He made a number of false claims and you didn't question him on that.
For example.
[quote]
That was in fact not the basis. It was the smuggling charges. But Introvert simply repeats the misinformation.
[quote]
There was no legal basis for Garcia's deportation because the smuggling charges weren't yet resolved. Wait that's your argument? The smuggling charges didn’t occur until after he was deported. I hate to hop back in here but your argument is worse than I thought. If he was in fact charged with smuggling after being abducted, then his whole deportation case was even more wrongful. That means he was first wrongly accused of gang association, then abducted and imprisoned (where he allegedly faced physical violence) in violation of a court ruling, then wrongfully charged with human smuggling from 2022. No matter how much the information changes, it only looks worse and worse for Trump's America. It looks more and more like a joke country. You can't possibly tell me that you're making a good argument for Garcia's deportation. The way he was treated was blatantly criminal from start to finish. I just don't know how you can take me to task for being wrong on the facts, and specifically cite the smuggling charge, while positing a theory that is impossible because time doesn't run backwards. I suspect you know as little about this case as you do about Ameican immigration law in general. The good argument for his deportation is that he was here illegally and had an active order for his deportation. The potential gang links are just icing on the cake for public consumption. If you wanted to lecture me on this case being even more wrongful than I thought it was, then you made a great effort never to mention that it's even worse. You instead did the exact opposite, trying to paint the deportation case as lawful, which it was not. It was reported that it wasn't lawful. The court ruling made it unlawful. If you just want to argue about things that don't matter, then I'm the wrong person to argue with. I said recently I'm more of a big picture person, and in contrast someone like BJ is more of a fact-oriented person. That means I may get a detail wrong on occasion, but I get the bigger picture right more often. If you just want to argue details, then do it with someone else. The "detail" that I shouldn't argue about is the very thing you cited to contend that I was wrong, you even quoted it to EnDeR as proof of my error. That's not a mere detail. Nonetheless, you are simply wrong about third country deportation. But on the very thing you thought was so important, you had it backwards. We have to at least be operating on the same timeline. I don't know why your mistake is less grievous than whatever you think was my mistake. You got the case fundamentally wrong. You're just the pot calling the kettle black. I don’t know why you are treating deportation as some sort of option that can be refused. There are certain legal challenges that can be raised, but the determination in his case had already been made. Garcia getting a say would be very generous. I'm not sure this is worth continuing, you have a very strange view of American law and I have no idea where it came from. I'm treating it so because it it so. You can choose to refuse a variety of countries. All of them if you like. Under some circumstances you can be deported to one of those countries against your will, but it is not something that's just being done willy nilly. There must be a clear reason for why deportation makes the most sense. If the deportee had no say in the matter, then the Costa Rica offer would've been the end of the debate. Garcia refused and Costa Rica was off the table. Now it's Uganda that's being offered. Garcia refuses again, as he has the right to. His lawyers are arguing that it makes more sense for him to stay in the US. They're probably right. Ah, you are still confused. The current "Uganda or Costa Rica" dealing right now is in the context of his criminal trial. Prosecutors are doing a variant of their normal "plead to this and we'll do X, refuse and we'll do Y" thing. This is not being done in the context of his immigration or (rejected) asylum claims. They charged him when he was sent back from El Salvador and they are now offering him a "deal" as part of his *criminal* proceedings.
And those current offers are also wrongful. He shouldn't be made any offers other than how to stay in the US more permanently. Asylum, visa, citizenship, anything that's realistic. This is now even moreso the correct path precisely because of how he was mistreated. The US owes it to him at this point. Further deportation offers are a hilarity. A joke. In a joke country.
They want Garcia to admit guilt because they need to save face, not because they have a real case against him. From what I can tell they have nothing. And they've lost the optics game really hard, and now they're scrambling because they're power-tripping cunts who can't admit fault.
|
Garcia was tortured at CECOT. But I guess that's less of a pressing issue than the "white genocide" going on in South Africa that Trump thought was enough of an emergency to give asylum to a bunch of people that weren't tortured.
|
On August 26 2025 01:49 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2025 00:27 Magic Powers wrote:
The US cannot just send people to random places in the world. No. That's a complete misrepresentation of these cases where it can happen. It's not as simple as "we'll send you there, we don't wanna hear anything, end of debate". No. The US is sovereign within its borders. It literally can.
Alright, I finally figured out why this debate has been so frustrating.
Firstly, I just learned that deportation law was changed only two months ago by the Supreme Court. I had no idea that this happened, and no one else here brought this up either. So I think I can safely assume that no one here knew that the law used to be different and was changed. That explains why I understood deportation law differently, because I was working with the previous framework.
The Supreme Court on Monday granted President Donald Trump’s emergency request to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their homeland, including places like South Sudan, with minimal notice.
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/23/politics/supreme-court-migrants-south-sudan-turmoil-filled-countries
CNN cites from a document detailing the changes to deportation law and examples of the abuse of deportation law (already prior to the recent change).
Federal law generally permits the Government to deport noncitizens found to be unlawfully in the United States only to countries with which they have a meaningful connection. 8 U. S. C. §1231(b). To that end, Congress specified two default options: noncitizens arrested while entering the country must be returned to the country from which they arrived, and nearly everyone else may designate a country of choice. §§1231(b)(1)(A), (b)(2)(A). If these options prove infeasible, Congress specified which possibilities the Executive should attempt next. These alternatives include the noncitizen’s country of citizenship or her former country of residence. §§1231(b)(1)(C), (2)(E). This case concerns the Government’s ability to conduct what is known as a “third country removal,” meaning a removal to any “country with a government that will accept the alien.” §1231(b)(1)(C)(iv); see §1231(b)(2)(E)(vii). Third-country removals are burdensome for the affected noncitizen, so Congress has sharply limited their use. They are permissible only after the Government tries each and every alternative noted in the statute, and determines they are all “impracticable, inadvisable, or impossible.” §§1231(b)(1)(C)(iv), (2)(E)(vii). Noncitizens facing removal of any sort are entitled under international and domestic law to raise a claim under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, S.Treaty Doc. No. 100–20, 1465 U. N. T. S. 113. Article 3 of the Convention prohibits returning any person “to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.”
If you read further, you'll see how people have been mistreated already under the previous law and it's only gotten worse since the recent changes.
JOKE COUNTRY.
Nuff said.
+ Show Spoiler +Can you guess how I found this CNN article and the legal document it links to? That's right, ChatGPT.
|
Do you read your own sources? That quote says right there that the law allows them to be deported to a third country. But you are finally getting closer. The surpeme court order was about procedural objections that might be raised. The law was always there.
|
On August 26 2025 04:25 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2025 01:49 KwarK wrote:On August 26 2025 00:27 Magic Powers wrote:
The US cannot just send people to random places in the world. No. That's a complete misrepresentation of these cases where it can happen. It's not as simple as "we'll send you there, we don't wanna hear anything, end of debate". No. The US is sovereign within its borders. It literally can. Alright, I finally figured out why this debate has been so frustrating. Firstly, I just learned that deportation law was changed only two months ago by the Supreme Court. I had no idea that this happened, and no one else here brought this up either. So I think I can safely assume that no one here knew that the law used to be different and was changed. That explains why I understood deportation law differently, because I was working with the previous framework. Show nested quote +The Supreme Court on Monday granted President Donald Trump’s emergency request to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their homeland, including places like South Sudan, with minimal notice. https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/23/politics/supreme-court-migrants-south-sudan-turmoil-filled-countriesCNN cites from a document detailing the changes to deportation law and examples of the abuse of deportation law (already prior to the recent change). Show nested quote +Federal law generally permits the Government to deport noncitizens found to be unlawfully in the United States only to countries with which they have a meaningful connection. 8 U. S. C. §1231(b). To that end, Congress specified two default options: noncitizens arrested while entering the country must be returned to the country from which they arrived, and nearly everyone else may designate a country of choice. §§1231(b)(1)(A), (b)(2)(A). If these options prove infeasible, Congress specified which possibilities the Executive should attempt next. These alternatives include the noncitizen’s country of citizenship or her former country of residence. §§1231(b)(1)(C), (2)(E). This case concerns the Government’s ability to conduct what is known as a “third country removal,” meaning a removal to any “country with a government that will accept the alien.” §1231(b)(1)(C)(iv); see §1231(b)(2)(E)(vii). Third-country removals are burdensome for the affected noncitizen, so Congress has sharply limited their use. They are permissible only after the Government tries each and every alternative noted in the statute, and determines they are all “impracticable, inadvisable, or impossible.” §§1231(b)(1)(C)(iv), (2)(E)(vii). Noncitizens facing removal of any sort are entitled under international and domestic law to raise a claim under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, S.Treaty Doc. No. 100–20, 1465 U. N. T. S. 113. Article 3 of the Convention prohibits returning any person “to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.” If you read further, you'll see how people have been mistreated already under the previous law and it's only gotten worse since the recent changes. JOKE COUNTRY. Nuff said. + Show Spoiler +Can you guess how I found this CNN article and the legal document it links to? That's right, ChatGPT.
Glad you learned how to use ChatGPT correctly 
As for the article: pretty sure Trump, and our resident conservatives, are arguing that §1231(b)(1)(C)(iv) is what applies to Kilmar Abrego Garcia, and they can therefore report him to Costa Rica or Uganda. That law isn't new. It has hardly ever been used, but that doesn't mean it isn't legal that Trump uses it. It's untrod ground and it'll take someone far more versed in US law to convince me either way. Maybe farv wants to take a stab at it, but he's probably wiser than that 
As to whether it's ethical? Absolutely nothing about this travesty has been ethical. Sermokala voiced it very well. But Introvert is cleverly staying away from that question. His position appears to be that the US has and should have an absolute right to evict any non-citizens, regardless of what they contribute to the country, and that the law supports that. Inasfar as I have read anything of a moral judgement of the whole situation from him, it's that you have to break some eggs to make an omelette. Obviously, I disagree with him, but he definitely seems to know the law of his country better than you did (until this last post).
|
On August 26 2025 01:14 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2025 00:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2025 00:30 LightSpectra wrote:On August 26 2025 00:16 Sermokala wrote:
Theres a legitimate argument that the immigration system is fundamentally broken because of this situation as a great example.
Garica should be deported under the current laws, the laws also say he can't be deported to the one country that there is a reason to deport them to. The answer isn't to threaten him with deportation to a random African country if he won't take deportation to costa rica in exchange for pleading guilty to a crime. The administration playing with cartoon levels of cruelty to the situation, where they will arrest him again at the meeting he has to go to to avoid being arrested again.
Garica should have a reasonable path to citizenship or at least the ability to stay in the country legally. He should also be treated just like any other person under the law and not get constantly fucked with by an administration thats trying to distract from the most infamous pedophile in history.
Most of the people here illegally are here beacuse the system is broken. Staffing the assylum courts and streamlining the process would be the reasonable moral response to wanting to combat assylum seekers. Random gangs roving the streets looking for brown people are not. Having a shred of empathy or humanity is woke now, sorry. All we have is cruelty and MS Paint. One problem is that Democrats sound like the extreme, divisive, elitist, and obfuscatory, enforcers of wokeness. In an effort to please the few, they have alienated the many. This is especially true on culture issues, where their language sounds superior, haughty and arrogant. They need to stop using words/language like: privilege … violence (as in “environmental violence”) … dialoguing … triggering … othering … microaggression … holding space … body shaming … subverting norms … systems of oppression … cultural appropriation … Overton window … existential threat to [the climate, democracy, economy] … radical transparency … stakeholders … the unhoused … food insecurity … housing insecurity … person who immigrated … birthing person … cisgender … deadnaming … heteronormative … patriarchy … LGBTQIA+ … BIPOC … allyship … incarcerated people... genocide enablers* (thanks Wombat!)... etc...The Democratic Party brand is toxic across the country at this point with way too many people, enough that there’s no way for them to win a governing majority without changing that. That starts with getting rid of all this rhetoric that isn't helping. Much of the language above is a red flag for a sizable segment of the American public. It is not because they are bigots, but because they fear cancellation, doxing, or trouble with HR if they make a mistake. Or they simply don’t understand what these terms mean and become distrustful of those who use them. So instead, they keep quiet. They don’t join the conversation, they leave it. + Show Spoiler +It's not even elected Democrats using most of this terminology the most. It's lingo used in universities and social media that Republicans start using (usually in a willfully misunderstood way). At that point some elected Democrats start defending the terminology because facts are supposed to matter.
Like, the term "woke" was African-American vernacular lingo, Republicans started calling things "woke" as an insult. "DEI" was used in big businesses and universities a million years before Republicans adopted it as the new n-word. GH is basically saying Republicans should control all of the terminology we use because Democrats even discussing it on a meta level is "elitist". Maybe he's going to defend white people saying the n-word next to be more inclusive. Edit: I notice the phrase "alt-right" isn't on his list. Maybe it's because he doesn't want people looking up the origin of that phase. Hint: it wasn't Democrats who coined that one.
Seems like a pretty harsh interpretation. We all sure that's fair?
|
On August 26 2025 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2025 01:14 LightSpectra wrote:On August 26 2025 00:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2025 00:30 LightSpectra wrote:On August 26 2025 00:16 Sermokala wrote:
Theres a legitimate argument that the immigration system is fundamentally broken because of this situation as a great example.
Garica should be deported under the current laws, the laws also say he can't be deported to the one country that there is a reason to deport them to. The answer isn't to threaten him with deportation to a random African country if he won't take deportation to costa rica in exchange for pleading guilty to a crime. The administration playing with cartoon levels of cruelty to the situation, where they will arrest him again at the meeting he has to go to to avoid being arrested again.
Garica should have a reasonable path to citizenship or at least the ability to stay in the country legally. He should also be treated just like any other person under the law and not get constantly fucked with by an administration thats trying to distract from the most infamous pedophile in history.
Most of the people here illegally are here beacuse the system is broken. Staffing the assylum courts and streamlining the process would be the reasonable moral response to wanting to combat assylum seekers. Random gangs roving the streets looking for brown people are not. Having a shred of empathy or humanity is woke now, sorry. All we have is cruelty and MS Paint. One problem is that Democrats sound like the extreme, divisive, elitist, and obfuscatory, enforcers of wokeness. In an effort to please the few, they have alienated the many. This is especially true on culture issues, where their language sounds superior, haughty and arrogant. They need to stop using words/language like: privilege … violence (as in “environmental violence”) … dialoguing … triggering … othering … microaggression … holding space … body shaming … subverting norms … systems of oppression … cultural appropriation … Overton window … existential threat to [the climate, democracy, economy] … radical transparency … stakeholders … the unhoused … food insecurity … housing insecurity … person who immigrated … birthing person … cisgender … deadnaming … heteronormative … patriarchy … LGBTQIA+ … BIPOC … allyship … incarcerated people... genocide enablers* (thanks Wombat!)... etc...The Democratic Party brand is toxic across the country at this point with way too many people, enough that there’s no way for them to win a governing majority without changing that. That starts with getting rid of all this rhetoric that isn't helping. Much of the language above is a red flag for a sizable segment of the American public. It is not because they are bigots, but because they fear cancellation, doxing, or trouble with HR if they make a mistake. Or they simply don’t understand what these terms mean and become distrustful of those who use them. So instead, they keep quiet. They don’t join the conversation, they leave it. + Show Spoiler +It's not even elected Democrats using most of this terminology the most. It's lingo used in universities and social media that Republicans start using (usually in a willfully misunderstood way). At that point some elected Democrats start defending the terminology because facts are supposed to matter.
Like, the term "woke" was African-American vernacular lingo, Republicans started calling things "woke" as an insult. "DEI" was used in big businesses and universities a million years before Republicans adopted it as the new n-word. GH is basically saying Republicans should control all of the terminology we use because Democrats even discussing it on a meta level is "elitist". Maybe he's going to defend white people saying the n-word next to be more inclusive. Edit: I notice the phrase "alt-right" isn't on his list. Maybe it's because he doesn't want people looking up the origin of that phase. Hint: it wasn't Democrats who coined that one. Seems like a pretty harsh interpretation. We all sure that's fair?
I don't know where you got that list, but it seems like something Matthew Inglesias or some other neo-liberal centrist blowhard would write in their blog.
It's funny that you'd use the language and framing of the people who are the ones that are actively fucking up the Democratic party in order to attack them, just shows that your hate for them has no ideological backing, you are basically acting as a scorned lover, using any and all arguments you can find to attack your ex.
I personally think that attacking people for trying to shape language to be more inclusive and less cruel is a pretty shitty thing to do, and I think that the major problem with Democratic party is that it's been (for decades) captured by corporate interests, not that it's using wrong words.
But that's just me, I ain't no American so I might be completely off.
|
On August 26 2025 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2025 01:14 LightSpectra wrote:On August 26 2025 00:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2025 00:30 LightSpectra wrote:On August 26 2025 00:16 Sermokala wrote:
Theres a legitimate argument that the immigration system is fundamentally broken because of this situation as a great example.
Garica should be deported under the current laws, the laws also say he can't be deported to the one country that there is a reason to deport them to. The answer isn't to threaten him with deportation to a random African country if he won't take deportation to costa rica in exchange for pleading guilty to a crime. The administration playing with cartoon levels of cruelty to the situation, where they will arrest him again at the meeting he has to go to to avoid being arrested again.
Garica should have a reasonable path to citizenship or at least the ability to stay in the country legally. He should also be treated just like any other person under the law and not get constantly fucked with by an administration thats trying to distract from the most infamous pedophile in history.
Most of the people here illegally are here beacuse the system is broken. Staffing the assylum courts and streamlining the process would be the reasonable moral response to wanting to combat assylum seekers. Random gangs roving the streets looking for brown people are not. Having a shred of empathy or humanity is woke now, sorry. All we have is cruelty and MS Paint. One problem is that Democrats sound like the extreme, divisive, elitist, and obfuscatory, enforcers of wokeness. In an effort to please the few, they have alienated the many. This is especially true on culture issues, where their language sounds superior, haughty and arrogant. They need to stop using words/language like: privilege … violence (as in “environmental violence”) … dialoguing … triggering … othering … microaggression … holding space … body shaming … subverting norms … systems of oppression … cultural appropriation … Overton window … existential threat to [the climate, democracy, economy] … radical transparency … stakeholders … the unhoused … food insecurity … housing insecurity … person who immigrated … birthing person … cisgender … deadnaming … heteronormative … patriarchy … LGBTQIA+ … BIPOC … allyship … incarcerated people... genocide enablers* (thanks Wombat!)... etc...The Democratic Party brand is toxic across the country at this point with way too many people, enough that there’s no way for them to win a governing majority without changing that. That starts with getting rid of all this rhetoric that isn't helping. Much of the language above is a red flag for a sizable segment of the American public. It is not because they are bigots, but because they fear cancellation, doxing, or trouble with HR if they make a mistake. Or they simply don’t understand what these terms mean and become distrustful of those who use them. So instead, they keep quiet. They don’t join the conversation, they leave it. + Show Spoiler +It's not even elected Democrats using most of this terminology the most. It's lingo used in universities and social media that Republicans start using (usually in a willfully misunderstood way). At that point some elected Democrats start defending the terminology because facts are supposed to matter.
Like, the term "woke" was African-American vernacular lingo, Republicans started calling things "woke" as an insult. "DEI" was used in big businesses and universities a million years before Republicans adopted it as the new n-word. GH is basically saying Republicans should control all of the terminology we use because Democrats even discussing it on a meta level is "elitist". Maybe he's going to defend white people saying the n-word next to be more inclusive. Edit: I notice the phrase "alt-right" isn't on his list. Maybe it's because he doesn't want people looking up the origin of that phase. Hint: it wasn't Democrats who coined that one. Seems like a pretty harsh interpretation. We all sure that's fair?
Can you just skip to the part where you make the point that you actually want to make instead of waiting for people to play along with the bait?
|
On August 26 2025 04:42 Introvert wrote:
Do you read your own sources? That quote says right there that the law allows them to be deported to a third country. But you are finally getting closer. The surpeme court order was about procedural objections that might be raised. The law was always there.
No, the quote doesn't say that. It says literally that this is not permissible unless specific conditions are met. Those conditions weren't met for Garcia.
Third-country removals are burdensome for the affected noncitizen, so Congress has sharply limited their use. They are permissible only after the Government tries each and every alternative noted in the statute, and determines they are all “impracticable, inadvisable, or impossible.”
|
On August 26 2025 06:33 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2025 04:42 Introvert wrote:
Do you read your own sources? That quote says right there that the law allows them to be deported to a third country. But you are finally getting closer. The surpeme court order was about procedural objections that might be raised. The law was always there. No, the quote doesn't say that. It says literally that this is not permissible unless specific conditions are met. Those conditions weren't met for Garcia. Show nested quote +Third-country removals are burdensome for the affected noncitizen, so Congress has sharply limited their use. They are permissible only after the Government tries each and every alternative noted in the statute, and determines they are all “impracticable, inadvisable, or impossible.” And what are those alternatives noted in the statute?
|
On August 26 2025 05:34 Acrofales wrote:As for the article: pretty sure Trump, and our resident conservatives, are arguing that §1231(b)(1)(C)(iv) is what applies to Kilmar Abrego Garcia, and they can therefore report him to Costa Rica or Uganda. That law isn't new. It has hardly ever been used, but that doesn't mean it isn't legal that Trump uses it. It's untrod ground and it'll take someone far more versed in US law to convince me either way. Maybe farv wants to take a stab at it, but he's probably wiser than that
Costa Rica is relatively safe but Uganda and South Sudan are not, which I'm sure Garcia's lawyers won't have a difficult time arguing. I'd be more worried about the nameless people that don't get his level of attention and representation.
Fun fact, when the UK deportation plan to Rwanda was thwarted by safety concerns, parliament passed an act declaring that Rwanda is totes safe. It didn't help. Overall they spent almost a billion on the plan and they didn't manage to actually deport a single person there. A couple of people left the UK for Rwanda voluntarily in exchange for money and that was it.
|
On August 26 2025 06:42 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2025 06:33 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2025 04:42 Introvert wrote:
Do you read your own sources? That quote says right there that the law allows them to be deported to a third country. But you are finally getting closer. The surpeme court order was about procedural objections that might be raised. The law was always there. No, the quote doesn't say that. It says literally that this is not permissible unless specific conditions are met. Those conditions weren't met for Garcia. Third-country removals are burdensome for the affected noncitizen, so Congress has sharply limited their use. They are permissible only after the Government tries each and every alternative noted in the statute, and determines they are all “impracticable, inadvisable, or impossible.” And what are those alternatives noted in the statute?
I don't know, I'm not a legal expert or anything. It was reported that there was no due process before his deportation. That alone makes it wrongful. He couldn't be deported under that circumstance, and they called it an "administrative error".
Of course it wasn't an error, but they call it that to cover their asses.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-el-salvador-prison-father-maryland-deported-b2728899.html
Now the story gets worse again. Garcia is back in US government custody. His lawyers describe the whole situation as "vindictive prosecution".
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/abrego-garcia-detained-again-uganda-1.7616850
|
On August 26 2025 07:04 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2025 06:42 Gorsameth wrote:On August 26 2025 06:33 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2025 04:42 Introvert wrote:
Do you read your own sources? That quote says right there that the law allows them to be deported to a third country. But you are finally getting closer. The surpeme court order was about procedural objections that might be raised. The law was always there. No, the quote doesn't say that. It says literally that this is not permissible unless specific conditions are met. Those conditions weren't met for Garcia. Third-country removals are burdensome for the affected noncitizen, so Congress has sharply limited their use. They are permissible only after the Government tries each and every alternative noted in the statute, and determines they are all “impracticable, inadvisable, or impossible.” And what are those alternatives noted in the statute? I don't know, I'm not a legal expert or anything. It was reported that there was no due process before his deportation. That alone makes it wrongful. He couldn't be deported under that circumstance, and they called it an "administrative error". Of course it wasn't an error, but they call it that to cover their asses. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-el-salvador-prison-father-maryland-deported-b2728899.htmlNow the story gets worse again. Garcia is back in US government custody. His lawyers describe the whole situation as "vindictive prosecution". https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/abrego-garcia-detained-again-uganda-1.7616850 His deportation was unlawful and deeply wrong. he is being vindictively prosecuted.
None of those things are what people are questioning you about.
You keep saying its illegal to now deport him, You link a statement saying he can't be deported now to a 3e country unless a series of listed alternatives are considered. So I ask the very natural follow up, what are those alternatives. If you don't know that list, and don't know if the government has reasonably considered them impractical or impossible, how can you say he cannot now be legally deported to a 3e country?
Again we are not talking about the moral or ethical question of if he should be deported. But whether he legally can be.
|
On August 26 2025 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2025 01:14 LightSpectra wrote:On August 26 2025 00:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2025 00:30 LightSpectra wrote:On August 26 2025 00:16 Sermokala wrote:
Theres a legitimate argument that the immigration system is fundamentally broken because of this situation as a great example.
Garica should be deported under the current laws, the laws also say he can't be deported to the one country that there is a reason to deport them to. The answer isn't to threaten him with deportation to a random African country if he won't take deportation to costa rica in exchange for pleading guilty to a crime. The administration playing with cartoon levels of cruelty to the situation, where they will arrest him again at the meeting he has to go to to avoid being arrested again.
Garica should have a reasonable path to citizenship or at least the ability to stay in the country legally. He should also be treated just like any other person under the law and not get constantly fucked with by an administration thats trying to distract from the most infamous pedophile in history.
Most of the people here illegally are here beacuse the system is broken. Staffing the assylum courts and streamlining the process would be the reasonable moral response to wanting to combat assylum seekers. Random gangs roving the streets looking for brown people are not. Having a shred of empathy or humanity is woke now, sorry. All we have is cruelty and MS Paint. One problem is that Democrats sound like the extreme, divisive, elitist, and obfuscatory, enforcers of wokeness. In an effort to please the few, they have alienated the many. This is especially true on culture issues, where their language sounds superior, haughty and arrogant. They need to stop using words/language like: privilege … violence (as in “environmental violence”) … dialoguing … triggering … othering … microaggression … holding space … body shaming … subverting norms … systems of oppression … cultural appropriation … Overton window … existential threat to [the climate, democracy, economy] … radical transparency … stakeholders … the unhoused … food insecurity … housing insecurity … person who immigrated … birthing person … cisgender … deadnaming … heteronormative … patriarchy … LGBTQIA+ … BIPOC … allyship … incarcerated people... genocide enablers* (thanks Wombat!)... etc...The Democratic Party brand is toxic across the country at this point with way too many people, enough that there’s no way for them to win a governing majority without changing that. That starts with getting rid of all this rhetoric that isn't helping. Much of the language above is a red flag for a sizable segment of the American public. It is not because they are bigots, but because they fear cancellation, doxing, or trouble with HR if they make a mistake. Or they simply don’t understand what these terms mean and become distrustful of those who use them. So instead, they keep quiet. They don’t join the conversation, they leave it. + Show Spoiler +It's not even elected Democrats using most of this terminology the most. It's lingo used in universities and social media that Republicans start using (usually in a willfully misunderstood way). At that point some elected Democrats start defending the terminology because facts are supposed to matter.
Like, the term "woke" was African-American vernacular lingo, Republicans started calling things "woke" as an insult. "DEI" was used in big businesses and universities a million years before Republicans adopted it as the new n-word. GH is basically saying Republicans should control all of the terminology we use because Democrats even discussing it on a meta level is "elitist". Maybe he's going to defend white people saying the n-word next to be more inclusive. Edit: I notice the phrase "alt-right" isn't on his list. Maybe it's because he doesn't want people looking up the origin of that phase. Hint: it wasn't Democrats who coined that one. Seems like a pretty harsh interpretation. We all sure that's fair?
You didn't propose nicer-sounding synonyms or alternative terminology that is equally accurate, for us to use when talking to people who apparently need to be treated with kid gloves. If we're getting rid of relevant and useful words because they might offend Republicans, all that would remain is whatever words the Republicans use.
|
On August 26 2025 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2025 01:14 LightSpectra wrote:On August 26 2025 00:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2025 00:30 LightSpectra wrote:On August 26 2025 00:16 Sermokala wrote:
Theres a legitimate argument that the immigration system is fundamentally broken because of this situation as a great example.
Garica should be deported under the current laws, the laws also say he can't be deported to the one country that there is a reason to deport them to. The answer isn't to threaten him with deportation to a random African country if he won't take deportation to costa rica in exchange for pleading guilty to a crime. The administration playing with cartoon levels of cruelty to the situation, where they will arrest him again at the meeting he has to go to to avoid being arrested again.
Garica should have a reasonable path to citizenship or at least the ability to stay in the country legally. He should also be treated just like any other person under the law and not get constantly fucked with by an administration thats trying to distract from the most infamous pedophile in history.
Most of the people here illegally are here beacuse the system is broken. Staffing the assylum courts and streamlining the process would be the reasonable moral response to wanting to combat assylum seekers. Random gangs roving the streets looking for brown people are not. Having a shred of empathy or humanity is woke now, sorry. All we have is cruelty and MS Paint. One problem is that Democrats sound like the extreme, divisive, elitist, and obfuscatory, enforcers of wokeness. In an effort to please the few, they have alienated the many. This is especially true on culture issues, where their language sounds superior, haughty and arrogant. They need to stop using words/language like: privilege … violence (as in “environmental violence”) … dialoguing … triggering … othering … microaggression … holding space … body shaming … subverting norms … systems of oppression … cultural appropriation … Overton window … existential threat to [the climate, democracy, economy] … radical transparency … stakeholders … the unhoused … food insecurity … housing insecurity … person who immigrated … birthing person … cisgender … deadnaming … heteronormative … patriarchy … LGBTQIA+ … BIPOC … allyship … incarcerated people... genocide enablers* (thanks Wombat!)... etc...The Democratic Party brand is toxic across the country at this point with way too many people, enough that there’s no way for them to win a governing majority without changing that. That starts with getting rid of all this rhetoric that isn't helping. Much of the language above is a red flag for a sizable segment of the American public. It is not because they are bigots, but because they fear cancellation, doxing, or trouble with HR if they make a mistake. Or they simply don’t understand what these terms mean and become distrustful of those who use them. So instead, they keep quiet. They don’t join the conversation, they leave it. + Show Spoiler +It's not even elected Democrats using most of this terminology the most. It's lingo used in universities and social media that Republicans start using (usually in a willfully misunderstood way). At that point some elected Democrats start defending the terminology because facts are supposed to matter.
Like, the term "woke" was African-American vernacular lingo, Republicans started calling things "woke" as an insult. "DEI" was used in big businesses and universities a million years before Republicans adopted it as the new n-word. GH is basically saying Republicans should control all of the terminology we use because Democrats even discussing it on a meta level is "elitist". Maybe he's going to defend white people saying the n-word next to be more inclusive. Edit: I notice the phrase "alt-right" isn't on his list. Maybe it's because he doesn't want people looking up the origin of that phase. Hint: it wasn't Democrats who coined that one. Seems like a pretty harsh interpretation. We all sure that's fair?
Policing the language of the democratic party when you don't support the democratic party and don't seem to want them to succeed (in their current form, at least) makes me feel as though fairness doesn't come in to it. I don't believe you were suggesting this in earnest, so I see no reason to bemoan an exaggerated take on your position.
|
On August 26 2025 07:32 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2025 07:04 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2025 06:42 Gorsameth wrote:On August 26 2025 06:33 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2025 04:42 Introvert wrote:
Do you read your own sources? That quote says right there that the law allows them to be deported to a third country. But you are finally getting closer. The surpeme court order was about procedural objections that might be raised. The law was always there. No, the quote doesn't say that. It says literally that this is not permissible unless specific conditions are met. Those conditions weren't met for Garcia. Third-country removals are burdensome for the affected noncitizen, so Congress has sharply limited their use. They are permissible only after the Government tries each and every alternative noted in the statute, and determines they are all “impracticable, inadvisable, or impossible.” And what are those alternatives noted in the statute? I don't know, I'm not a legal expert or anything. It was reported that there was no due process before his deportation. That alone makes it wrongful. He couldn't be deported under that circumstance, and they called it an "administrative error". Of course it wasn't an error, but they call it that to cover their asses. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-el-salvador-prison-father-maryland-deported-b2728899.htmlNow the story gets worse again. Garcia is back in US government custody. His lawyers describe the whole situation as "vindictive prosecution". https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/abrego-garcia-detained-again-uganda-1.7616850 His deportation was unlawful and deeply wrong. he is being vindictively prosecuted. None of those things are what people are questioning you about. You keep saying its illegal to now deport him, You link a statement saying he can't be deported now to a 3e country unless a series of listed alternatives are considered. So I ask the very natural follow up, what are those alternatives. If you don't know that list, and don't know if the government has reasonably considered them impractical or impossible, how can you say he cannot now be legally deported to a 3e country? Again we are not talking about the moral or ethical question of if he should be deported. But whether he legally can be.
I didn't say anything about now. But if you're asking: I think deporting him now would be wrongful for the same reason it was wrongful before. What has changed? Nothing has changed. There must be due process. That's all.
That being said, I think since the situation has changed, because Garcia has been treated like literal dirt for so long by the US, in my opinion the only ethical choice now would be to allow him to stay in the country permanently. How long exactly or under what conditions I don't know, but the offer should be made and all charges dropped.
|
On August 26 2025 05:34 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2025 04:25 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2025 01:49 KwarK wrote:On August 26 2025 00:27 Magic Powers wrote:
The US cannot just send people to random places in the world. No. That's a complete misrepresentation of these cases where it can happen. It's not as simple as "we'll send you there, we don't wanna hear anything, end of debate". No. The US is sovereign within its borders. It literally can. Alright, I finally figured out why this debate has been so frustrating. Firstly, I just learned that deportation law was changed only two months ago by the Supreme Court. I had no idea that this happened, and no one else here brought this up either. So I think I can safely assume that no one here knew that the law used to be different and was changed. That explains why I understood deportation law differently, because I was working with the previous framework. The Supreme Court on Monday granted President Donald Trump’s emergency request to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their homeland, including places like South Sudan, with minimal notice. https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/23/politics/supreme-court-migrants-south-sudan-turmoil-filled-countriesCNN cites from a document detailing the changes to deportation law and examples of the abuse of deportation law (already prior to the recent change). Federal law generally permits the Government to deport noncitizens found to be unlawfully in the United States only to countries with which they have a meaningful connection. 8 U. S. C. §1231(b). To that end, Congress specified two default options: noncitizens arrested while entering the country must be returned to the country from which they arrived, and nearly everyone else may designate a country of choice. §§1231(b)(1)(A), (b)(2)(A). If these options prove infeasible, Congress specified which possibilities the Executive should attempt next. These alternatives include the noncitizen’s country of citizenship or her former country of residence. §§1231(b)(1)(C), (2)(E). This case concerns the Government’s ability to conduct what is known as a “third country removal,” meaning a removal to any “country with a government that will accept the alien.” §1231(b)(1)(C)(iv); see §1231(b)(2)(E)(vii). Third-country removals are burdensome for the affected noncitizen, so Congress has sharply limited their use. They are permissible only after the Government tries each and every alternative noted in the statute, and determines they are all “impracticable, inadvisable, or impossible.” §§1231(b)(1)(C)(iv), (2)(E)(vii). Noncitizens facing removal of any sort are entitled under international and domestic law to raise a claim under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, S.Treaty Doc. No. 100–20, 1465 U. N. T. S. 113. Article 3 of the Convention prohibits returning any person “to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.” If you read further, you'll see how people have been mistreated already under the previous law and it's only gotten worse since the recent changes. JOKE COUNTRY. Nuff said. + Show Spoiler +Can you guess how I found this CNN article and the legal document it links to? That's right, ChatGPT. Glad you learned how to use ChatGPT correctly As for the article: pretty sure Trump, and our resident conservatives, are arguing that §1231(b)(1)(C)(iv) is what applies to Kilmar Abrego Garcia, and they can therefore report him to Costa Rica or Uganda. That law isn't new. It has hardly ever been used, but that doesn't mean it isn't legal that Trump uses it. It's untrod ground and it'll take someone far more versed in US law to convince me either way. Maybe farv wants to take a stab at it, but he's probably wiser than that As to whether it's ethical? Absolutely nothing about this travesty has been ethical. Sermokala voiced it very well. But Introvert is cleverly staying away from that question. His position appears to be that the US has and should have an absolute right to evict any non-citizens, regardless of what they contribute to the country, and that the law supports that. Inasfar as I have read anything of a moral judgement of the whole situation from him, it's that you have to break some eggs to make an omelette. Obviously, I disagree with him, but he definitely seems to know the law of his country better than you did (until this last post).
I've said before he shouldn't have been deported to El Salvador. I don’t have a lot of sympathy for someone who tried to claim asylum and persecution only when he got caught. He played a game to avoid getting deported and now he might get sent somewhere that isn't home. That was his risk. Moreover, we know he was involved in shady stuff, he was caught in TN seemingly trafficking people around.
Finally, there is a reason that the law allows the government to be se aggressive in deporting people. If you cross the border in an illegal manner that's on you. And it is the nation's interest to be able to exclude people.
On August 26 2025 07:04 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2025 06:42 Gorsameth wrote:On August 26 2025 06:33 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2025 04:42 Introvert wrote:
Do you read your own sources? That quote says right there that the law allows them to be deported to a third country. But you are finally getting closer. The surpeme court order was about procedural objections that might be raised. The law was always there. No, the quote doesn't say that. It says literally that this is not permissible unless specific conditions are met. Those conditions weren't met for Garcia. Third-country removals are burdensome for the affected noncitizen, so Congress has sharply limited their use. They are permissible only after the Government tries each and every alternative noted in the statute, and determines they are all “impracticable, inadvisable, or impossible.” And what are those alternatives noted in the statute? I don't know, I'm not a legal expert or anything. It was reported that there was no due process before his deportation. That alone makes it wrongful. He couldn't be deported under that circumstance, and they called it an "administrative error". Of course it wasn't an error, but they call it that to cover their asses. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-el-salvador-prison-father-maryland-deported-b2728899.htmlNow the story gets worse again. Garcia is back in US government custody. His lawyers describe the whole situation as "vindictive prosecution". https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/abrego-garcia-detained-again-uganda-1.7616850
We went over this before too. What was against the law was him being sent to El Salvador. He already had his due process before that. The "administrative error" was NOT the deportation, it was going to El Salvador.
It's amusing that you think not being deportable to his home country couldn't plausibly be one of those conditions allowing him to be deported somewhere else. He found the magic bullet! He's not in the country legally, but he can't be removed. Truly remarkable.
|
On August 26 2025 07:36 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2025 07:32 Gorsameth wrote:On August 26 2025 07:04 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2025 06:42 Gorsameth wrote:On August 26 2025 06:33 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2025 04:42 Introvert wrote:
Do you read your own sources? That quote says right there that the law allows them to be deported to a third country. But you are finally getting closer. The surpeme court order was about procedural objections that might be raised. The law was always there. No, the quote doesn't say that. It says literally that this is not permissible unless specific conditions are met. Those conditions weren't met for Garcia. Third-country removals are burdensome for the affected noncitizen, so Congress has sharply limited their use. They are permissible only after the Government tries each and every alternative noted in the statute, and determines they are all “impracticable, inadvisable, or impossible.” And what are those alternatives noted in the statute? I don't know, I'm not a legal expert or anything. It was reported that there was no due process before his deportation. That alone makes it wrongful. He couldn't be deported under that circumstance, and they called it an "administrative error". Of course it wasn't an error, but they call it that to cover their asses. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-el-salvador-prison-father-maryland-deported-b2728899.htmlNow the story gets worse again. Garcia is back in US government custody. His lawyers describe the whole situation as "vindictive prosecution". https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/abrego-garcia-detained-again-uganda-1.7616850 His deportation was unlawful and deeply wrong. he is being vindictively prosecuted. None of those things are what people are questioning you about. You keep saying its illegal to now deport him, You link a statement saying he can't be deported now to a 3e country unless a series of listed alternatives are considered. So I ask the very natural follow up, what are those alternatives. If you don't know that list, and don't know if the government has reasonably considered them impractical or impossible, how can you say he cannot now be legally deported to a 3e country? Again we are not talking about the moral or ethical question of if he should be deported. But whether he legally can be. I didn't say anything about now. But if you're asking: I think deporting him now would be wrongful for the same reason it was wrongful before. What has changed? Nothing has changed. There must be due process. That's all. That being said, I think since the situation has changed, because Garcia has been treated like literal dirt for so long by the US, in my opinion the only ethical choice now would be to allow him to stay in the country permanently. How long exactly or under what conditions I don't know, but the offer should be made and all charges dropped. I'm done. you again ignore everything said to you.
No one is asking you if its ethically wrong to deport him, is it legal to send him to a 3e country, assuming due process is followed?
I can't wait for your next evasion.
|
United States24803 Posts
After how he was treated with his previous "deportation" he really does deserve to just be granted residency at this point. Any sane administration would do that. This administration's philosophy is "cruelty to anyone not my friend is good" so we won't get that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
