Trump admin. concedes Maryland man from El Salvador was mistakenly deported/sent to mega prison - shrugs 'nothing can be done' [ETA: oh but it can!]

[hedrick]

There's another problem with using tattoos. It's not uncommon for people to be forced into gangs. Suppose one flees to the US to get away. I'd like to see some evidence of actual gang participation in the US before we send someone to prison.

 

[LizaMarie]

Read Full Wilkinson Opinion Rebuking Trump Admin in Abrego Garcia Case

“This should be shocking,” wrote a conservative appeals court judge of the Administration’s defiance, warning that it is “all too possible to see in this case an incipient crisis.”

time.com

Everyone should take time to read this. This is a conservative judge appointed by Ronald Reagan, not a liberal judge.
He brings up the point that if this is allowed to stand, then there is nothing stopping American Citizens being deported to this prison in the future. ( Ipersonally am of the opinion that Trump means to deport American citizens there that he doesn't like if he can get around the legality.)
Garcia may be MS13 or he may not be. But he had a withholding of removal, and he was deported by error(that should have been removed.)He is a test case, A guy that is seemingly not easy to defend, but he deserves due process just like we all do.

 

[hedrick]

I am really concerned about the discussiolns in this site on this and related issues. We seem to have a lot of people in the US who don't agree with basic principles of our country. Due process is seen as an excuse to protect bad people. As long as the government alleges that someone has done something bad, or even holds an unpopular opinion, they don't care what happenes. That attitude could quickly turn us into Russia. Oh, wait. A lot of people think Putin is just fine.

How did we get here? Are conservatives so convinced that they were persecuted that they don't care what happens when they get in power? When the Supreme Court said Colorado was prejudiced against the baker, he was let off. When they changed their mind on abortion, states were allowed to prohibit it, and even make miscarriages into potential murders. Surely people should realize that our courts are an important protection against ideologically based attacks. A king can protect his supporters, but what happens when he turns on them? Or we get a different king?

I think the Supreme Court is going to try to protect us against some of this. But it's not yet clear whether the administration will follow their decisions. I would have said this is paranoid, but I think at this point there's a serious question whether we're going to have a free election in 2028. Free meaning all the votes are counted and both parties are free of attacks against the candidates and funding.

 

[Goonie]

I am really concerned about the discussiolns in this site on this and related issues. We seem to have a lot of people in the US who don't agree with basic principles of our country. Due process is seen as an excuse to protect bad people. As long as the government alleges that someone has done something bad, or even holds an unpopular opinion, they don't care what happenes. That attitude could quickly turn us into Russia. Oh, wait. A lot of people think Putin is just fine.

How did we get here? Are conservatives so convinced that they were persecuted that they don't care what happens when they get in power? When the Supreme Court said Colorado was prejudiced against the baker, he was let off. When they changed their mind on abortion, states were allowed to prohibit it, and even make miscarriages into potential murders. Surely people should realize that our courts are an important protection against ideologically based attacks. A king can protect his supporters, but what happens when he turns on them? Or we get a different king?

I'm just waiting for trump to enact the insurrection act, I believe he has already commissioned Vance and Hegseth to look into it.

 

[Goonie]

I am really concerned about the discussiolns in this site on this and related issues. We seem to have a lot of people in the US who don't agree with basic principles of our country. Due process is seen as an excuse to protect bad people. As long as the government alleges that someone has done something bad, or even holds an unpopular opinion, they don't care what happenes. That attitude could quickly turn us into Russia. Oh, wait. A lot of people think Putin is just fine.

How did we get here? Are conservatives so convinced that they were persecuted that they don't care what happens when they get in power? When the Supreme Court said Colorado was prejudiced against the baker, he was let off. When they changed their mind on abortion, states were allowed to prohibit it, and even make miscarriages into potential murders. Surely people should realize that our courts are an important protection against ideologically based attacks. A king can protect his supporters, but what happens when he turns on them? Or we get a different king?

I think the Supreme Court is going to try to protect us against some of this. But it's not yet clear whether the administration will follow their decisions. I would have said this is paranoid, but I think at this point there's a serious question whether we're going to have a free election in 2028. Free meaning all the votes are counted and both parties are free of attacks against the candidates and funding.

Ah Hegseth and Norm, and it won't be enacted yet.

Redirect Notice

 

[hedrick]

While the Founding Fathers were a bit paranoid about the power of kings, it appears in retrospect that they weren't careful enough to prevent use of emergency powers. They depended upon Congress to act as a brake. It appears that Republicans in congress are afraid to do that. But to be fair, they're afraid because they think they will be replaced by people who are worse. In the end it depends upon our people. If we don't want a free country, we won't get one.

I'm actualy sort of upset that Trump will be stopped for the wrong reason. He's becoming unpopular because of the economy, not because people are worried that he's violating the constitution. That suggests that in the future, a smarter tyrant might succeed.

 

[NxNW]

Considering the Supreme Court does not have the authority to dictate foreign policies or affairs, Trump is doing exactly what the Supreme Court ordered.

This is not a foreign policy matter.

 

[NxNW]

His gang membership has been proven based on the preponderance of evidence in a court of law.

Never happened.

So Garcia's deportation was not illegal.

It violated a court order.

 

[NxNW]

Two courts have found that he is a member of MS-13.

No they didn't. Never happened.

So deporting him to El Salvador was wrong but I'm not sure how you correct it.

We can invade Panama, Canada, and Greenland, but can't fix this? Hmmm.

 

[NxNW]

How about.
1. Person enters US illegally.
2. Person is subject to deportation for violating immigration laws.
3. They are sent to their own country, and that country can does whatever they wish with their citizens in their own jurisdiction.

Don't forget due process.

 

[BPPLEE]

No they didn't. Never happened.

We can invade Panama, Canada, and Greenland, but can't fix this? Hmmm.

Never happened

 

[JSRG]

While the Founding Fathers were a bit paranoid about the power of kings, it appears in retrospect that they weren't careful enough to prevent use of emergency powers. They depended upon Congress to act as a brake. It appears that Republicans in congress are afraid to do that. But to be fair, they're afraid because they think they will be replaced by people who are worse. In the end it depends upon our people. If we don't want a free country, we won't get one.

The error they made in regards to the President is, just like the error that causes a lot of problems, is not realizing the power of political parties. What does congress do if they want to limit the power of the President? Well, pass a law doing so. But since no President wants to lose power, they veto it. Then you need 2/3 of each house of congress to override it. Since the President's party doesn't want to weaken the power of their guy, and since it's virtually never that one party has 2/3 of each house, any attempt to dial back the President's power fails.

I have been persuaded by this article that the best way to reign in the power of the President would be to abolish the veto power, which gives the President absurd power over the legislature (quite frankly, the President has stronger power over the passage of legislation than the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader combined--how much sense does that make?). I wish there would be some movement in that direction. Such an amendment would not even be more beneficial to a particular party, as it would diminish the power of both Democrat and Republican presidents.

 

[hedrick]

The error they made in regards to the President is, just like the error that causes a lot of problems, is not realizing the power of political parties. What does congress do if they want to limit the power of the President? Well, pass a law doing so. But since no President wants to lose power, they veto it. Then you need 2/3 of each house of congress to override it. Since the President's party doesn't want to weaken the power of their guy, and since it's virtually never that one party has 2/3 of each house, any attempt to dial back the President's power fails.

I have been persuaded by this article that the best way to reign in the power of the President would be to abolish the veto power, which gives the President absurd power over the legislature (quite frankly, the President has stronger power over the passage of legislation than the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader combined--how much sense does that make?). I wish there would be some movement in that direction. Such an amendment would not even be more beneficial to a particular party, as it would diminish the power of both Democrat and Republican presidents.

They knew the problems with parties. They hoped to prevent them from happening. That overconfidence kept them from building in the necessary protections.

 

[Laodicean60]

reign in the power of the President would be to abolish the veto power

Amen, or at least give them a line-item veto instead of trashing the whole thing.

 

[durangodawood]

Amen, or at least give them a line-item veto instead of trashing the whole thing.

Thats even worse that the current situation.

 

[JSRG]

They knew the problems with parties. They hoped to prevent them from happening. That overconfidence kept them from building in the necessary protections.

How did they know the problem with parties, considering political parties didn't exist? It wasn't until towards the end of Washington's Presidential term that the Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Party--the first political parties in history--came to be.

In fairness, the parties didn't come out of nowhere. There were obviously political factions before that, like the Whigs in Britain. The framers of the Constitution obviously expected some factions. But prior to the Constitution, factions weren't as formalized as political parties would become. More importantly, the idea that political parties would be as national as they would become (rather than a bunch of small regional factions) was not anticipated.

At any rate, the possibility of such a high percentage of each house of congress being controlled by people of the same explicit faction as the President was something that was clearly not expected, which is exactly what causes the problem of the President being so powerful, as it creates strong shared goals between a significant portion of congress and the President.

 

[JSRG]

Amen, or at least give them a line-item veto instead of trashing the whole thing.

But a line-item veto only strengthens the power of the President's veto, giving them more power over congress. It exacerbates the problem rather than solving it.

 

[hedrick]

How did they know the problem with parties, considering political parties didn't exist? It wasn't until towards the end of Washington's Presidential term that the Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Party--the first political parties in history--came to be.

In fairness, the parties didn't come out of nowhere. There were obviously political factions before that, like the Whigs in Britain. The framers of the Constitution obviously expected some factions. But prior to the Constitution, factions weren't as formalized as political parties would become. More importantly, the idea that political parties would be as national as they would become (rather than a bunch of small regional factions) was not anticipated.

At any rate, the possibility of such a high percentage of each house of congress being controlled by people of the same explicit faction as the President was something that was clearly not expected, which is exactly what causes the problem of the President being so powerful, as it creates strong shared goals between a significant portion of congress and the President.

There were parties in England.

 

[NxNW]

Never happened

What never happened?

 

[NxNW]

Amen, or at least give them a line-item veto instead of trashing the whole thing.

That was ruled unconstitutional years ago. It would take an amendment.