Trump's promised ICE raids have begun

[dirtywick]

You don't have to be a legal resident to be here legally. If it were so easy to be deported then they should have deported him properly in the first place. They had 4 years to do it, why didn't they?

every time they try and deport him a judge says they can’t and that he needs to remain here. i’m not going to sit here and entertain that’s a difficult concept to understand or that i meant something other than that.

 

[dirtywick]

So according to Xinis, the government can still initiate removal proceedings, they just need to give him notice and go through the proper steps of those proceedings. Nothing about this ruling gives Garcia status as a legal resident.

does he have a legal right to be here until they give him notice and go through the proper steps?

for a guy a accusing me of fundamental misunderstandings lol

 

[plague311]

Sure, within appropriate legal time limits. Garcia has exceeded those. He is an illegal alien. That isn't actually under dispute.

Assuredly whenever you say "That isn't actually under dispute" my first line of thought is that it very much is under dispute, and Trump has told you to say this.

Do you actually understand why he wasn't?

No, honestly. I really don't care now that he's getting the proper process allowed to him by the due process we have in the US.

No, I don't think you do.

Behold the field where I grow my ◊◊◊◊◊, and notice that it is, indeed, barren.

The reason he wasn't deported in 2019 has nothing to do with him having any right to be here. The judge who made that ruling said so explicitly.

Great story, Zigg. I don't really care about any of it, and you didn't even answer my question. Why didn't you answer my question? Because you have no ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ idea why he wasn't deported in the years between 2019 and 2025. You have no idea. At all. So instead you'll just do this song and dance and I'll laugh, and laugh.

 

[plague311]

every time they try and deport him a judge says they can’t and that he needs to remain here. i’m not going to sit here and entertain that’s a difficult concept to understand or that i meant something other than that.

Yeah, that's where I was going with it. If he was illegal and it was so easy to deport him then why haven't they done it in the interim. There's got to be a reason somewhere.

 

[dirtywick]

Yeah, that's where I was going with it. If he was illegal and it was so easy to deport him then why haven't they done it in the interim. There's got to be a reason somewhere.

it might turn out that he can be deported at the end of the day. the guy has his rights until then, period.

 

[Ziggurat]

every time they try and deport him a judge says they can’t and that he needs to remain here.

And why do they say that?

Because of the 2019 order granting him a "Withholding of removal". The same order that points out explicitly that a withholding of removal DOES NOT grant the right to remain in the US.

i’m not going to sit here and entertain that’s a difficult concept to understand or that i meant something other than that.

I don't care what you meant, your opinion isn't relevant. The judge's ruling is relevant. And no, it's not difficult to understand the ruling. And yet, you still can't actually grasp it. You clearly do not understand what a withholding of removal actually means, even though the judge spelled it out pretty plainly.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yeah, that's where I was going with it. If he was illegal and it was so easy to deport him then why haven't they done it in the interim. There's got to be a reason somewhere.

Indeed, there is a reason. And I already told you the reason: the 2019 court order granting Garcia a withholding of removal, which I linked to and quoted from. But both you and dirtywick don't seem to understand what that actually means. It doesn't mean what you think it means.

 

[Ziggurat]

it might turn out that he can be deported at the end of the day. the guy has his rights until then, period.

Yes. He has a right to due process. He does NOT have a right to not be deported. The 2019 ruling (which has not been superceded) makes that quite clear.

 

[theprestige]

every time they try and deport him a judge says they can’t and that he needs to remain here. i’m not going to sit here and entertain that’s a difficult concept to understand or that i meant something other than that.

Every time they try to deport him, a judge says, yes, but not like that. They never ever say he has a right or a privilege or an entitlement to live here legally. The foundational ruling even says exactly the opposite. I'm going to sit here and entertain that's a difficult concept to understand, for people who want it to mean something other than that.

 

[dirtywick]

And why do they say that?

Because of the 2019 order granting him a "Withholding of removal". The same order that points out explicitly that a withholding of removal DOES NOT grant the right to remain in the US.

I don't care what you meant, your opinion isn't relevant. The judge's ruling is relevant. And no, it's not difficult to understand the ruling. And yet, you still can't actually grasp it. You clearly do not understand what a withholding of removal actually means, even though the judge spelled it out pretty plainly.

lol well agree to disagree i guess. really not a lot to be gained by continuing this with you.

 

[Ziggurat]

lol well agree to disagree i guess.

You can indeed disagree with the 2019 court order if you want to.

None of the other judges do, though.

 

[theprestige]

lol well agree to disagree i guess. really not a lot to be gained by continuing this with you.

There's really not a lot to be gained by you continuing this at all, or even beginning it to begin with.

If there's so many illegal detentions and deportations happening, why is your poster child not more clear cut and obvious? Do you not have any stronger example you can work with? Why is this the strongest example your preferred media outlets can feed you?

 

[dirtywick]

There's really not a lot to be gained by you continuing this at all, or even beginning it to begin with.

If there's so many illegal detentions and deportations happening, why is your poster child not more clear cut and obvious? Do you not have any stronger example you can work with? Why is this the strongest example your preferred media outlets can feed you?

because i don’t think it’s right that a corrupt administration is violating a guys civil rights and when that didn’t work they smeared his reputation and then drummed up some bogus human trafficking charges against a guy who as far as i can see really hasn’t done anything wrong.

 

[theprestige]

because i don’t think it’s right that a corrupt administration is violating a guys civil rights and when that didn’t work they smeared his reputation and then drummed up some bogus human trafficking charges against a guy who as far as i can see really hasn’t done anything wrong.

He has done something wrong, though.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Punting to epistemological relativism in debates about justice and human rights seems like a capitulation.

Sounds like a lyric in a G&S song!

 

[Hercules56]

i’ve already explained my reasoning and linked relevant articles. you can read it yourself and come to your own conclusions on the meaning as it relates to what i said.

Ziggurat pretty much proved he is not a legal resident and can be deported to a third country.

 

[Hercules56]

every time they try and deport him a judge says they can’t and that he needs to remain here...

Thats cuz they have so far only tried to deport him to El Salvador.

 

[Ziggurat]

Then ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ explain it to me genius. How come he hasn't been removed in the last 5 years?

I did explain it to you. He cannot be removed to El Salvador because of the threat that Barrio 18 might harm him. That judgement EXPLICITLY did not prohibit his removal to anywhere else, and it EXPLICITLY did not give him the legal right to stay in the US. I provided the relevant quotes from the actual 2019 court order, quotes which you seem to be ignoring.

Now, actually arranging for deportation to 3rd countries isn't usually easy, because in general 3rd countries don't want to accept people we're deporting because those deportees don't generally have legal status in those 3rd countries either. And we cannot deport someone to a 3rd country without that 3rd country's agreement. So we don't usually bother trying to arrange for 3rd country deportations. And the Biden admin especially had no interest in doing that. So it didn't happen. But nothing about the court order prohibited it.

So he had a withholding of removal, but he's not here legally. Break down oh master of immigration and Trump waterboy.

I already did.

 

[Hercules56]

Immigration agents told a teenage US citizen: ‘You’ve got no rights.’ He secretly recorded his brutal arrest

Video from Kenny Laynez-Ambrosio, 18, puts fresh scrutiny on the harsh tactics used to reach the Trump administration’s ambitious enforcement targets

www.theguardian.com

Some ICE agents are real Nazis.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I don't care what you meant, your opinion isn't relevant. The judge's ruling is relevant. And no, it's not difficult to understand the ruling.

It's good to know that @Ziggurat has more respect for court rulings than does Donald J Trump, et al. Notably, admitting that the judge's ruling is relevant shows more respect for how courts rule than has been shown by Trump's nominee for a lifetime appointment to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

Document 81 in Case 1:25-cv-00766-JEB, filed 04/16/25, in the DC District Court, concerning J.G.G., et al. v. Donald J Trump, et al.:

As this Opinion will detail, the Court ultimately determines that the Government’s
actions on that day demonstrate a willful disregard for its Order, sufficient for the Court to
conclude that probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt. The Court
does not reach such conclusion lightly or hastily; indeed, it has given Defendants ample
opportunity to rectify or explain their actions. None of their responses has been satisfactory.

ETA: That's from my first link. This is from my second link:

On April 4, 2025, after raising concerns internally to his chain of command for nearly three
weeks regarding the government's compliance with court orders and candor to the courts, Mr.
Reuveni appeared before Judge Paula Xinis, United States District Court Judge in the District of
Maryland, on behalf of the government in the case of Mr. Kilmar Abrego Garcia. During that
appearance, Mr. Reuveni candidly and truthfully informed the court, based on the evidentiary
record, that Mr. Abrego Garcia's removal from the United States was a mistake. Later that evening,
Mr. Reuveni refused directions from his superiors to file a brief misrepresenting those facts to the
court. As a result, Mr. Reuveni was put on administrative leave on April 5 , 2025, and his
employment was ultimately terminated on April 11 , 2025.