• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trump's promised ICE raids have begun

Ziggurat said:
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.
Click to expand...

I wasn't ignoring a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ thing and you didn't explain it to me because, frankly, there are things you seem to be ignoring so lets make this perfectly clear, ok?

I think we need to familiarize ourselves with what a "Withholding of Removal" provides the recipient. Why? Because it explicitly DOES give him the legal right to stay in the United States until a 3rd party country agrees to take him in. In fact, I'm not sure if you're aware of this but "In order to be granted withholding of removal, the applicant must meet a higher standard than for asylum....An applicant who has won withholding of removal does not receive as many benefits as an asylee. The individual can seek work authorization; however, they will not be able adjust their status to become a legal permanent resident, nor can they become a citizen."

Just so we're clear a withholding of removal does not provide a path to a green card or permanent residency but it does mean the recipient is in this country legally, can acquire work, and can't be removed to their country of origin. It is also, at times, granted in combination with asylum. Now, I don't know what Mr. Kilmar's plans are for his currently held immigration status but it's entirely possible he could apply for asylum (I'm not sure if being deported and then coming back resets that timer or not), but we'll have to see after these childish charges from the Feds get tossed. He's basically stuck until then.
Ziggurat said:
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.
Click to expand...

No one here, as far as I can tell, has claimed that the court order prohibited Kilmar from being deported to a 3rd party country. What I am claiming is that a) he wasn't deported under Trump's first administration b) he wasn't deported under Biden's administration and c) he was illegally deported under Trump's second administration and d) if we have no 3rd country to deport him to then there is nothing illegall about him living and working in the US.

Now that we've got all the facts laid out here on the table, why don't we try again, shall we?
 
Last edited:
plague311 said:
I wasn't ignoring a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ thing and you didn't explain it to me because, frankly, there are things you seem to be ignoring so lets make this perfectly clear, ok?

I think we need to familiarize ourselves with what a "Withholding of Removal" provides the recipient. Why? Because it explicitly DOES give him the legal right to stay in the United States until a 3rd party country agrees to take him in. In fact, I'm not sure if you're aware of this but "In order to be granted withholding of removal, the applicant must meet a higher standard than for asylum....An applicant who has won withholding of removal does not receive as many benefits as an asylee. The individual can seek work authorization; however, they will not be able adjust their status to become a legal permanent resident, nor can they become a citizen."

Just so we're clear a withholding of removal does not provide a path to a green card or permanent residency but it does mean the recipient is in this country legally, can acquire work, and can't be removed to their country of origin. It is also, at times, granted in combination with asylum. Now, I don't know what Mr. Kilmar's plans are for his currently held immigration status but it's entirely possible he could apply for asylum (I'm not sure if being deported and then coming back resets that timer or not), but we'll have to see after these childish charges from the Feds get tossed. He's basically stuck until then.


No one here, as far as I can tell, as claimed that the court order prohibited Kilmar from being deported to a 3rd party country. What I am claiming is that a) he wasn't deported under Trump's first administration b) he wasn't deported under Biden's administration and c) he was illegally deported under Trump's second administration and d) if we have no 3rd country to deport him to then there is nothing illegall about him living and working in the US.

Now that we've got all the facts laid out here on the table, why don't we try again, shall we?
Click to expand...
Garcia cannot be removed to El Salvador. But he can legally be sent to another country.

So says the judge that ordered that he cannot be deported to El Salvador.

If no other country agrees to accept him, then the USA will have to issue him some sort of work permission so he can legally work here.
 
Last edited:
This could just as easily go into the thread concerned with Due process in the US, but it certainly counts as news about how the promised and now ongoing ICE raids are being conducted.

On Friday, 1 August, in response to an appeal filed by DHS Secretary Kristi Noem (et al.) of a district court's Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the plaintiffs "are likely to succeed in proving that seizures requiring—but not supported by—reasonable suspicion have occurred as part of Operation At Large in Los Angeles, and that Defendants have authorized or approved that practice."

The TRO therefore remains in effect, apart from striking the phrase “except as permitted by law” on account of vagueness. It might be worth noting here that striking that phrase has the practical effect of strengthening the TRO, because the vague phrase was intended to suggest there might be some lawful exceptions to the TRO's restraints on ICE raids.

The TRO says (as "required by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution") Kristi Noem et al. are not allowed to conduct "detentive stops" in Los Angeles "unless the agent or officer has reasonable suspicion that the person to be stopped is within the United States in violation of U.S. immigration law."

In particular, Kristi Noem et al. "may not rely solely" on any combination of the following factors as justification for reasonable suspicion:

i. Apparent race or ethnicity;​
ii. Speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent;​
iii. Presence at a particular location (e.g., bus stop, car wash, tow yard, day laborer pick up site, agricultural site, etc.); or​
iv. The type of work one does.​

In footnote 2 on page 4, the three-judge panel noted plaintiffs' contention that ICE's illegal "practices stem in part from an official target of 3,000 arrests per day by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)." Quoting from that footnote, with my highlighting of a juvenile equivocation to which the court responded with incontrovertible fact:
During oral argument, we asked Defendants’ counsel whether the federal government has a policy of directing ICE field offices to make 3,000 arrests or deportations per day—whether that directive may come from ICE, the President, or some other official in the administration. Defense counsel replied that he was aware of no such policy. We asked him to look into the matter and submit a 28(j) letter with an answer.

Defendants submitted a 28(j) letter, which states:

In response to the Court’s inquiry at oral argument, DHS has confirmed that neither ICE leadership nor its field offices have been directed to meet any numerical quota or target for arrests, detentions, removals, field encounters, or any other operational activities that ICE or its components undertake in the course of enforcing federal immigration law.​
​
Plaintiffs’ allegation that the government maintains a policy mandating 3,000 arrests per day appears to originate from media reports quoting a White House advisor who described that figure as a “goal” that the Administration was “looking to set.” That quotation may have been accurate, but no such goal has been set as a matter of policy, and no such directive has been issued to or by DHS or ICE. [....]​

We note that, on May 28, 2025, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller stated during an interview with Fox News: “Under President Trump’s leadership, we are looking to set a goal of a minimum of 3,000 arrests for ICE every day, and President Trump is going to keep pushing to get that number up higher each and every single day.”
Click to expand...
 
W.D.Clinger said:
In footnote 2 on page 4, the three-judge panel noted plaintiffs' contention that ICE's illegal "practices stem in part from an official target of 3,000 arrests per day by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)." Quoting from that footnote, with my highlighting of a juvenile equivocation to which the court responded with incontrovertible fact:
Click to expand...
The "incontrovertible fact" you refer to is a statement someone made to the press. A statement which did not even claim to represent what current ICE policy was, and was not made by someone with the authority to set or direct ICE policy. That "incontrovertible fact" is not actually evidence of what the official ICE policy at the moment actually is. Nothing about this footnote indicates that the official ICE policy is to get 3,000 arrests per day.
 
Ziggurat said:
The "incontrovertible fact" you refer to is a statement someone made to the press. A statement which did not even claim to represent what current ICE policy was, and was not made by someone with the authority to set or direct ICE policy.
Click to expand...
Yeah, because if there's one guy who's totally out of the loop and without influence wrt to Trump's immigration policy, it's Stephen Miller.
 
Reformed Offlian said:
Yeah, because if there's one guy who's totally out of the loop and without influence wrt to Trump's immigration policy, it's Stephen Miller.
Click to expand...
I didn't say he was out of the loop, and I didn't say he had no influence. That's not the question. But there's a difference between ambitions or goals and actual current official policy. The plaintiffs claimed that the 3,000 arrest target was an official policy. But Miller's statement does not indicate that there is such an official policy, and his statement to the press does not in any way create such a policy either.
 
Ziggurat said:
The "incontrovertible fact" you refer to is a statement someone made to the press. A statement which did not even claim to represent what current ICE policy was, and was not made by someone with the authority to set or direct ICE policy. That "incontrovertible fact" is not actually evidence of what the official ICE policy at the moment actually is. Nothing about this footnote indicates that the official ICE policy is to get 3,000 arrests per day.
Click to expand...
If you were to read and to understand what I wrote and quoted, you would discover that the "incontrovertible fact" noted by the court is the incontrovertible fact that Stephen Miller made the statement he made. The "juvenile equivocation" was the one I highlighted, in which Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Yaakov M. Roth wrote "That quotation may have been accurate".

Of course it was accurate. The three-judge panel responded to Roth's juvenility by stating the incontrovertible fact that Stephen Miller said exactly what he said to Fox News, including the parts Roth omitted, notably that Miller said “and President Trump is going to keep pushing to get that number up higher each and every single day.”

By responding as it did, the appeals court did not affirm the plaintiffs' contention that ICE's illegal conduct was motivated "in part from an official target of 3,000 arrests per day by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)." The court did, however, draw attention to the possibility that ICE's illegal conduct was motivated by an unofficial policy with that same target, or with even higher targets for which "President Trump is going to keep pushing."

It's fairly clear to me that Roth annoyed the court, and it cannot be denied that Roth's 28(j) letter and the court's response received press coverage over the weekend. That coverage is likely to continue today. Roth would have done better to acknowledge Stephen Miller's statement when Roth was first asked whether there was any such directive "—whether that directive may come from ICE, the President, or some other official in the administration" —while pointing out that Miller's target was, so far as Roth was aware, not official policy. But Roth just said he "was aware of no such policy", thereby inviting the court's request for a clarifying 28(j). In that 28(j), Roth has gone on record with a definitive statement that "no such goal has been set as a matter of policy, and no such directive has been issued to or by DHS or ICE."
 
Ziggurat said:
I didn't say he was out of the loop, and I didn't say he had no influence. That's not the question. But there's a difference between ambitions or goals and actual current official policy. The plaintiffs claimed that the 3,000 arrest target was an official policy. But Miller's statement does not indicate that there is such an official policy, and his statement to the press does not in any way create such a policy either.
Click to expand...
No, but a judge might find it sufficient to infer an imminent risk of harm. When dealing with the current administration, the line between "ambition or goal" and "current official policy" isn't a particularly meaningful quibble.
 
Reformed Offlian said:
No, but a judge might find it sufficient to infer an imminent risk of harm.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but he's still inferring something that hasn't been proven.
W.D.Clinger said:
It's fairly clear to me that Roth annoyed the court,
Click to expand...
Possibly. That doesn't concern me very much. The judge and Roth can hash that out themselves.
W.D.Clinger said:
and it cannot be denied that Roth's 28(j) letter and the court's response received press coverage over the weekend. That coverage is likely to continue today. Roth would have done better to acknowledge Stephen Miller's statement when Roth was first asked whether there was any such directive "—whether that directive may come from ICE, the President, or some other official in the administration" —while pointing out that Miller's target was, so far as Roth was aware, not official policy.
Click to expand...
Not only is it not official policy, it's not a directive, official or otherwise. You give directives to the people carrying out the directive, not to unrelated third parties.
W.D.Clinger said:
But Roth just said he "was aware of no such policy", thereby inviting the court's request for a clarifying 28(j). In that 28(j), Roth has gone on record with a definitive statement that "no such goal has been set as a matter of policy, and no such directive has been issued to or by DHS or ICE."
Click to expand...
And that's true, as far as we can tell. What Miller said in an interview is not policy, and does not constitute a directive by or to DHS or ICE.
 
The 9th circuit court's footnote 2 does not itself address the central question, which is whether ICE has been acting in flagrant disregard for the fourth amendment of the US Constitution.

Both the district court and the appeals court have ruled that the plaintiffs are likely to prevail on that central question, which is why the Temporary Restraining Order remains in effect.

The circuit court's footnote 2 addresses an alleged motive for ICE's illegal conduct, but identifying ICE's motive(s) is not particularly germane to recognizing its illegality.

On the other hand, it is fair to wonder what the Trump administration's motive for its illegal conduct might be, if that conduct cannot be connected to Trump's promise to deport "millions" and to Stephen Miller's and Tom Homan's and others' apparent recognition, in multiple statements to multiple media outlets, that deporting one million people per year implies deporting almost three thousand per day.
 
Ziggurat said:
Perhaps, but he's still inferring something that hasn't been proven.

Possibly. That doesn't concern me very much. The judge and Roth can hash that out themselves.

Not only is it not official policy, it's not a directive, official or otherwise. You give directives to the people carrying out the directive, not to unrelated third parties.

And that's true, as far as we can tell. What Miller said in an interview is not policy, and does not constitute a directive by or to DHS or ICE.
Click to expand...

Sounds like Miller, and others, should shut the ◊◊◊◊ up then, eh? I don't know why you're bitching about the judges' opinion. Take it out on Miller, he's the one that sucks.
 
plague311 said:
Sounds like Miller, and others, should shut the ◊◊◊◊ up then, eh? I don't know why you're bitching about the judges' opinion. Take it out on Miller, he's the one that sucks.
Click to expand...
I'm not objecting to anything the judge said. I'm pointing out the limits to what one can conclude based on what the judge said.
 
You are didn't read it : yes, they increased the top age But Also reduced the minimum age from 21 to 18.
So the idea that this is about experience is just a lie.
It's about desperation that ICE, with way more power, money and man cannot get near the deportation numbers of an Obama
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
You are didn't read it : yes, they increased the top age But Also reduced the minimum age from 21 to 18.
So the idea that this is about experience is just a lie.
Click to expand...
You're the only one who claimed it was about experience. I just pointed out that the effects won't be what you claimed.
The Great Zaganza said:
It's about desperation that ICE, with way more power, money and man cannot get near the deportation numbers of an Obama
Click to expand...
Obama deportation numbers were a scam. He changed what counted as a deportation to include turn aways at the border, thus artificially inflating his numbers compared to previous administrations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom