MS-13 Gang Member Kilmar Abrego Garcia to be Deported to African Country of Eswatini

[Hans Blaster]

The statue of limitations may have run out on human trafficking. It was the Biden administration, the Biden FBI, that told state police to release him.

The standard federal statute of limitations is 5 years. Most federal crimes committed during the presidency of Joe Biden are prosecutable. (As would be the Jan 6th crimes for a few more months.)

There is no such things as the Biden FBI. Biden didn't appoint the FBI director during his presidency. He was a Trump appointee.

No charges for not producing a valid license or speeding. A number of MS-13 gang members have been caught that don't have any crimes on record, they are being quickly deported and at least the administration is implementing some fines. If the Democrats can flood the country with criminals and the Republicans put them each of them through long criminal prosecution processes which back up our judicial system for many years than those Democrats have won. That sends the wrong message--that elites can violate our border laws and get away with it.

 

[Bradskii]

Liberals want to let him go. Conservatives were happy when he was rotting in an El Salvadorian prison. Get that straight. If Democrats had it their way, he would be released back into the United States with a statue and awards. Seems like a fair compromise.

Why would he be rotting in a prison? What crime was he convicted of?

I'll save you some time and tell you. There wasn't any conviction. There was no due process. The administration made no attempt at it. Which is why they were compelled to bring him back.

Now they're sending him to Africa with no attempt at any conviction for being an alleged terrorist, drug dealer and human trafficker.

Is this now going to be par for the course? Is this what you want? Gang members, drug dealers, rapists, terrorists being simply sent back where they came from with no other punishment for their alleged crimes?

What an absolute clown show this is. It's an open invitation to break the law because all you'll get is a free trip home.

A number of MS-13 gang members have been caught that don't have any crimes on record, they are being quickly deported and at least the administration is implementing some fines.

What a joke. The administration is classing MS-13 as a terrorist organisation. And now you're saying that they haven't committed any crimes. But hey, law and order! Fine them a few bucks for...what exactly?

This administration is making it up as they go. You support one thing, then they do another. You demand one thing and they do something different. Whatever they do is right even when their supporters have previously argued for the opposite.

It would be hilarious if it didn't concern human rights.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Why would he be rotting in a prison? What crime was he convicted of?

An illegal immigrant wife beating human trafficking child molester. That was what he was convicted of.

 

[wing2000]

An illegal immigrant wife beating human trafficking child molester. That was what he was convicted of.

Cite the court case detailing his conviction.

 

[Bradskii]

An illegal immigrant wife beating human trafficking child molester. That was what he was convicted of.

You are doing nothing for your credibility when you have to say things that you know aren't true to try to support the administration. We know Trump does it. Why do you feel the need?

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Why would it be if they are willing to take them?

They're getting a lot of money from the United States to detain them. That's why they're doing it.

 

[Bradskii]

They're getting a lot of money from the United States to detain them. That's why they're doing it.

But is he going to be detained? Is that what the admin says? He's not been convicted of anything at all. He's not even been charged with anything

 

[HARK!]

Why would he be rotting in a prison? What crime was he convicted of?

https://www.justice.gov/ag/media/1396906/dl

I'll save you some time and tell you. There wasn't any conviction. There was no due process.

Immigration Proceedings: Criminal vs. Civil Actions​

Regardless of their legal status, aliens are entitled to the same constitutional due process rights provided to criminal defendants who are citizens when they are being criminally prosecuted for assault, rape, burglary, kidnapping, murder, or other crimes.


However, immigration proceedings to bar an alien’s entry or to remove or deport1

“Deport” and “remove” are synonymous in federal immigration law.





an alien present inside the United States are not criminal proceedings. As the Supreme Court of the United States first outlined in 1893 in Fong Yue Ting v. U.S., a decision in which it rejected habeas corpus petitions filed by Chinese citizens who claimed that they were being unlawfully detained by U.S. marshals “without due process of law”:

The [immigration] proceeding…is in no proper sense a trial and sentence for a crime or offense. It is simply the ascertainment, by appropriate and lawful means, of the fact whether the conditions exist upon which Congress has enacted that an alien of this class may remain within the country. The order of deportation is not a punishment for crime.… It is but a method of enforcing the return to his own country of an alien who has not complied with the conditions upon the performance of which the Government of the nation, acting within its constitutional authority, and through the proper departments, has determined that his continuing to reside here shall depend.2
Fong Yue Ting v. U.S., 149 U.S. 698, 730 (1893).

The Court added that an alien being removed by the government is not being “deprived of life, liberty, or property” and that “the provisions of the Constitution securing the right to trial by jury and prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures and cruel and unusual punishments [therefore] have no application.”3

Id.




That is also why federal immigration officers do not need a warrant issued by a judge before arresting and detaining aliens and why aliens are not entitled to be advised of their Miranda rights or to the assistance of a government-appointed lawyer during their deportation proceedings.4
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). The Supreme Court held that under the Fifth Amendment, criminal defendants must be warned that they have a right to be silent, that anything they say can be used against them in a court of law, that they are entitled to an attorney, and that if they cannot afford an attorney, one has to be appointed by the government to represent them before they can be questioned.







The fact that the removal process is a civil proceeding was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in 2010 in Padilla v. Kentucky.5

Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010).




The Court held in that case that a criminal defense attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel when he misinformed his client, a permanent resident alien charged with transporting drugs, of the possible immigration consequences of pleading guilty. While that guilty plea in his criminal prosecution made “his deportation virtually mandatory” under federal immigration law, the Court noted that it had “long recognized that deportation is a particularly severe ‘penalty’” and is not “in a strict sense, a criminal sanction.” The Court emphasized that “[r]emoval proceedings are civil in nature.”6
Id. at 365 (citing INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984)).







Aliens are not even entitled to the protection of the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution. Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 provides that no “ex post facto Law shall be passed” by Congress.7

See The Heritage Foundation, The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, The Heritage Guide to the Constitution.




Ex post facto laws impose criminal punishments on conduct that was lawful when it was done. In 1954, in a case involving the deportation of an alien who had been a member of the Communist Party before such membership had been made a deportable offense, the Supreme Court held that “it has been the unbroken rule of this Court that [the Ex Post Facto Clause] has no application to deportation.”8
Galvan v. Press, 347 U.S. 522, 531 (1954). The alien was a member of the Communist Party from 1944 to 1946, and membership in the Communist Party was not made a deportable offense until Congress passed the Internal Security Act of 1950.







Aliens also cannot claim “selective prosecution” when they are contesting removal. In 1999, the Supreme Court held that “an alien unlawfully in this country has no constitutional right to assert selective enforcement as a defense against his deportation.”9

Reno v. American–Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, 525 U.S. 471, 488 (1999).








The due process rights in civil immigration proceedings are far more limited, as outlined and defined by Congress in federal immigration laws and the procedural rules promulgated by the Attorney General for the conduct of federal immigration proceedings. In addition, federal immigration courts are not Article III courts in which judges must be confirmed by the Senate and enjoy life tenure; rather, they are administrative “courts” within the Department of Justice. Immigration “judges” are not federal judges at all; they are employees of the Justice Department who are selected by the Attorney General and who act as the Attorney General’s “delegates in the cases that come before them.”10

Due Process and Aliens: What They Are and Are Not Entitled to in Immigration Proceedings

Some critics of the Trump Administration’s enforcement of federal immigration law, including members of the public, the media, and Congress, have made misleading claims about the due process rights that apply in immigration proceedings. Those who claim that non-citizens, referred to in our...

www.heritage.org

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

But is he going to be detained? Is that what the admin says? He's not been convicted of anything at all. He's not even been charged with anything

With The Trump administration. Who cares , out of sight out of mind. And that's what they want.

 

[Bradskii]

https://www.justice.gov/ag/media/1396906/dl

What on earth was that post meant to be? Garcia has not been convicted of any crime and has not even been charged with any crime. He's an undocumented immigrant. Period.

If he is sent to Africa then there is nothing that says that he can be held in custody when he gets there. So we have a case when the White House is accusing him of multiple serious crimes yet are effectively releasing him without any attempt to charge or convict him for those alleged crimes.

If you are an illegal immigrant then that tells you that you now have carte blanche to break any laws you choose because this admin isn't interesting in punishing you. They just want to send you home. Ah, isn't that nice of them. A free trip back to where you came from. And justice for anyone raped, shot or has lost family members due to drug overdoses? Hah!

What an absolute joke.

 

[Bradskii]

With The Trump administration. Who cares , out of sight out of mind. And that's what they want.

Someone ought to sit members of the administration down and give them a quick heads up on what justice means. They seem to be totally unaware of the term.

 

[HARK!]

Garcia has not been convicted of any crime and has not even been charged with any crime.

Exactly. It's better that way. He won't be clogging up our prisons. You should read the law again.

He's an undocumented immigrant.

Exactly. Better just to remove the problem, than to clog up our prisons.

 

[HARK!]

Someone ought to sit members of the administration down and give them a quick heads up on what justice means. They seem to be totally unaware of the term.

Proper application of the law is justice. Again, you should read the law again.

 

[Bradskii]

Exactly. It's better that way. He won't be clogging up our prisons.

Which exactly confirms the point I was making. The admin is literally telling you that whatever crime an undocumented immigrant is alleged to have committed, then it doesn't matter. Did the guy assault your wife? Did he sell your teenage daughter drugs? Did he break into your home, beat you and rob you at gunpoint? Hey, I've some news for you. You don't get justice with Trump. They'll just send the guy back to wherever he came from.

Want to complain about it? Well, tough luck. Because the answer you will get from Trump supporters is that it's better this way.

Do you know why people are sentenced? Why they get punished? The first is as a deterrent. It makes others think twice about doing the same thing. This will do the opposite. The second is retribution. Tough luck, mate. You get none. The third is reform. Which is as much of a joke as it could be in this instance, because he gets off scot free. And the third is protection, so your wife doesn't get assaulted by the same guy. But see the point about deterrence. Every other bad guy who's undocumented ain't going to get punished whatever he does. The risk has increased.

Maybe you should take some time to sit down and think this through.

 

[Bradskii]

Proper application of the law is justice.

Your admin has been ignoring the 'proper application of the law' right from the start. So please, don't insult my intelligence with a fatuous argument about justice. The guy was denied due process from Day One. And any alleged crimes that the White House absolutely insists he has committed are now being completely and utterly ignored.

It's a complete abrogation of what you risibly term justice.

 

[HARK!]

Which exactly confirms the point I was making. The admin is literally telling you that whatever crime an undocumented immigrant is alleged to have committed, then it doesn't matter. Did the guy assault your wife? Did he sell your teenage daughter drugs? Did he break into your home, beat you and rob you at gunpoint?

That's Great! Why waste the court's time, and my tax dollars going through that process; when we can simply remove the problem based on his initial crime in the US.

Hey, I've some news for you. You don't get justice with Trump.

Execution of the law is justice. It good to see the Executive branch actually executing the law.

Want to complain about it? Well, tough luck. Because the answer you will get from Trump supporters is that it's better this way.

Don't complain to me; if you don't like the law. Complain to your lawmakers.

If you can help me to figure out what House and Senate districts you are in; I'll give you their phone numbers.

Do you know why people are sentenced? Why they get punished? The first is as a deterrent.

He wasn't sentenced.

This was a civil matter.

It makes others think twice about doing the same thing.

Illegal border crossings are at an all time low.

The second is retribution. Tough luck, mate. You get none. The third is reform. Which is as much of a joke as it could be in this instance, because he gets off scot free. And the third is protection, so your wife doesn't get assaulted by the same guy. But see the point about deterrence. Every other bad guy who's undocumented ain't going to get punished whatever he does. The risk has increased.

Maybe you should take some time to sit down and think this through.

Hmm...Thinking...thinking...

Hey! Now that he is on foreign soil; and Trump has branded MS-13 to be a terrorist organization; should Trump take a lesson from Obama's playbook and smoke him with a drone?

Usually getting smoked in a drone strike deters repeat offenses.

 

[HARK!]

Your admin has been ignoring the 'proper application of the law

That's not the way I read it.

 

[HARK!]

The guy was denied due process from Day One.

Did you read the law? He's not entitled to due process as in a criminal court.

This is a civil matter.

And any alleged crimes that the White House absolutely insists he has committed are now being completely and utterly ignored.

No they weren't, He committed the crime of entering the US illegally. He was deported.

Justice served.

 

[Bradskii]

That's Great! Why waste the court's time, and my tax dollars going through that process; when we can simply remove the problem based on his initial crime in the US.

Yes, we know what your position is. It doesn't take another 3 posts for you to confirm it. Undocumented immigrants can do what they want in the US and they won't even be charged let along convicted let alone punished for those crimes.

Hey, here's a quick question for you. An undocumented immigrant from Mexico is 'alleged' to have assaulted your wife. I put 'alleged' in scare quoted because it needs to be proved in a court of law so that you and your family can get justice. But you know that it happened because the gang that invaded your home was beating you while your wife was being assaulted.

Now, do you want justice for your wife and yourself? Do you want justice for your family? Do you want your day in court to point to the guy who did it and say 'That's the man that ruined my wife's life'. Do you want to be there when the jury returns a guilty verdict? Do you want to look him in the eye when the judge sentences him?

Or do you tell your wife that you don't want to press charges. Do you tell her that you don't want to waste the court's time? Do you really tell her that you don't want your hard earned tax dollars wasted demanding justice?

Because that's the point you just made.

 

[HARK!]

Yes, we know what your position is. It doesn't take another 3 posts for you to confirm it. Undocumented immigrants can do what they want in the US and they won't even be charged let along convicted let alone punished for those crimes.

Hey, here's a quick question for you. An undocumented immigrant from Mexico is 'alleged' to have assaulted your wife. I put 'alleged' in scare quoted because it needs to be proved in a court of law so that you and your family can get justice. But you know that it happened because the gang that invaded your home was beating you while your wife was being assaulted.

Now, do you want justice for your wife and yourself? Do you want justice for your family? Do you want your day in court to point to the guy who did it and say 'That's the man that ruined my wife's life'. Do you want to be there when the jury returns a guilty verdict? Do you want to look him in the eye when the judge sentences him?

Or do you tell your wife that you don't want to press charges. Do you tell her that you don't want to waste the court's time? Do you really tell her that you don't want your hard earned tax dollars wasted demanding justice?

Because that's the point you just made.

You seem confused. That's the point that you made.

My point is that I would not want my wife to be victimized twice if it can be avoided.

I won't speak for her; as you seem to have spoken for me. That wouldn't be just; and I like justice.

If I had been assaulted by an illegal; I would rather see him removed from the country, than to have to pay for his incarceration.

I would rather see him removed, rather than take a chance that he would assault some poor American pot head who was locked up with him.

I would rather see him removed rather than have him assault a prison guard, who's wife depends on him coming home after work.

I value my safety and prosperity, and the safety and prosperity of my fellow Americans, over revenge.