There's a reason why that was the case, there were some massive unforced errors she could have avoided. She might have still lost polling advantage, but I suspect even if she did, it would have been a far more gradual decline.
Funny Events of the "Woke" world
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,738
- 3,306
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
Yes, it's so ridiculous that only 9 out of 9 supreme court justices are demanding it.
The action of sending him there violated US law, they are obligated to say so. But the US can do no more than allow the man's return, we're not going to invade El Salvador to take their citizens away, which the Supreme Court acknowledged. The lower court ruling had demanded they "effectuate" his return to the US, the Supreme Court only ordered his return be "facilitated", the difference between those words being precisely the difference between simply allowing his return on our end and physically taking him from his home country to bring him here.
The US is paying El Salvador to keep him. Of course it can get him back.
That whole arrangement would even be way worse if the US couldn't get any of the hundreds of people it abducted and disappeared to El Salvador back. That would mean it never had the intention to do that or allow later administrations to.
So: Government agents aren't necessarily the ones making these decisions; it's been left up to contractors, such as CoreCivic (which runs private detention centres).
In one case (Andry José Hernandez, the makeup artist) the report that concluded he was a TDA member lists as its Investigator a CoreCivic employee who;
1. Was fired as a sergeant after driving his car into a family home when drunk;
2. Was under investigation for defrauding payroll when he was fired;
3. Was on a list of enforcement officers deemed by prosecutors to have credibility issues bad enough to damage his ability to testify in court.
Phoenixmgs asked me earlier, "why would we just put them in prison" if people were innocent. Well, how about we let Prudential Securities-- an insurer that wrote a report on CoreCivic 40 years ago-- answer that question?
"Low occupancy is a drag on profits... company earnings would be strong if CoreCivic succeeded in ramping up population levels in its new facilities at an acceptable rate".
And, of course, El Salvador received a few million dollars for its role.
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,738
- 3,306
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
The US is sent him to El Salvador and is actively paying for the his detention along with other prisoners. The US president can demand his return, and if El Salvador doesn't comply we can refuse to pay them any further and place sanctions against the country until they do comply.
There are many things that can be done between nothing and invading El Salvador, and your comment is entirely unserious.
Harris was doing well until Biden came back and 'helped'. Eg. He's the one who got Walz to stop saying wierd and trot Liz Chaney out to covert some Republicans
to facilitate is not just to allow but to make easier. the Trump administration could do this by, for example, conditioning future business with El Salvador on the return of the man. and that could be done in any number of ways, the most straightforward of which is probably putting the deal under which the man was removed to El Salvador on hold until he has been returned.
Funny how you leave out the main thing... Show me a fucking article saying these immigrants are protected and can't be deported. If not, then you are wanting me to believe some random person on a hardly visited gaming forum is a better investigative reporter than actual investigative reporters.
So living in the US for 8 years and then filing an asylum claim is merely just undocumented vs illegal...?
Again, I keep asking for anyone to show me a news story where 100s/1,000s of people are being deported that are protected and legally can't be deported but not one of you has been able to produce such evidence.
First, a judge from the initial hearing in the Garcia found his gang status to be credible. Then, another appeals court/judge found the evidence credible and Garcia did not successfully rebut the claim. Instead of continuing the appeal process, Garcia essentially dropped it and filed a separate claim, an asylum claim, after 8 years of being in the US illegally. He came up with a story about how his family store was being targeted by Barrio 18 (rival gang for MS13) and his family sent him to the US to save him from the gang's aggression even though the rest of his family was not being targeted by the gang. What's the more likely story here? He was being targeted by the rival gang because he's a rival gang member or he was like rude to Barrio 18 while running the store (and the gang only had issue with him)? Also, no evidence was produced for any of Garcia's claims. And now, he's changed his claim from being targeted by Barrio 18 and now claims that his going to face torture and potential death from his government. His story has changed numerous times.
Again, no proof that these are protected immigrants that legally can't be deported.
Nothing has been left out. You have been given ample detail, ample sources, and have had them explained to you at length. You have been shown the Convention, to which the US is a signatory, that explicitly conveys protections on people in their situation.
That you are catastrophically ignorant of international law, and refuse to acknowledge or understand what you've been shown, is nobody's fault but your own.
Again, show me an article saying these immigrants are being deported when they are protected and can't be legally deported.
YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED THAT.
You have been given the Refugee Convention of 1951.
You may also look at the Refugee Act of 1980, to see how the relevant provisions were recreated in domestic law.
Time corroborates that deportee Reyes Barrios fits the criteria. He is currently in maximum security prison because he has a Real Madrid Football Club tattoo and did the 'sign of the horns' rock music hand gesture in a photo, both of which were considered proof of TDA membership by authorities.
CBS reports that deportee Franco Jose Caraballa Tiapa fits the criteria.
Court filings show two more (E.V. and L.G.) fit the criteria.
We can carry on?
I'm not asking you to be an investigative journalist, I'm asking you to provide me an article where an actual investigative journalist and/or lawyer said 100s/1,000s of people are being deported that legally can't be because they are protected. That story does not exist because it's not true. If it was true, it would surely exist by now.
That CBS article does not say he was protected and can't be deported...
Last edited:
You've shifted the goalposts, yet-a-fucking-gain.
Firstly: nobody ever said "1000s", you pulled that out of your ass. We are talking broadly about those ~238 Venezuelans incarcerated in El Salvador's CECOT prison. But nobody ever said they were all asylum seekers or all had specific protections, either; what I established was that some were legal residents of the US, and some were asylum seekers, which legally conveys protections from deportation.
That latter has amply been shown to you now. You have the original text of the laws. You have the individuals' names and articles about them and their status. You even have court filings. You have been given what you fucking asked for.
Now stop with this pathetic deflection. You said before (with regards to Trump) that a crime must be proven. You said that. Yet here you are, endlessly defending the incarceration in maximum security of people who have zero criminal charge. You have been hypocritical in the extreme.
That CBS article establishes he was an asylum seeker.
The Refugee Convention of 1951 and the Refugee Act of 1980 establishes that people in his situation are protected.
These are all things you claimed... I'm asking you to prove your claim. Asylum seekers are not protected from deportation. How did I move goalposts on this one? Here's this long ass exchange where you haven't once provided any proof of your claim. Either provide proof or retract your claim. And I'm not going to entertain your analysis of laws.
---
"During a designated period, individuals who are TPS beneficiaries or who are found preliminarily eligible for TPS upon initial review of their cases (prima facie eligible): Are not removable from the United States [...]"
Asylum | USCIS
www.uscis.gov
" You may only file this application if you are physically present in the United States, and you are not a U.S. citizen. [...] If you are eligible for asylum you may be permitted to remain in the United States."
These are categories of people eligible to temporarily, legally be in the United States, who do not hold visas. You can repeat "they didn't have a visa" as much as you want, but it's simply not in dispute that they were in the US legally. It's not even the grounds of the government's decision to deport them.
---
---
Asylum seekers have been granted protections since the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the 1951 Refugee Convention.
1951 Refugee Convention - Wikisource, the free online library
en.wikisource.org
"Article 31.
1: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article i, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence."
"Article 32.
1. The Contracting States shall not expel a refugee lawfully in their territory save on grounds of national security or public order.
2. The expulsion of such a refugee shall be only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with due process of law. Except where compelling reasons of national security otherwise require, the refugee shall be allowed to submit evidence to clear himself, and to appeal to and be represented for the purpose before competent authority or a person or persons specially designated by the competent authority.
3. The Contracting States shall allow such a refugee a reasonable period within which to seek legal admission into another country. The Contracting States reserve the right to apply during that period such internal measures as they may deem necessary."
These articles have very transparently been broken.
The US knew exactly where it was sending these people, and it was agreed in a deal with the El Salvador government.
Do you, or do you not, believe that it's right and proper for people to be sent to maximum security prison without any crime being proven or even charged? You said before that a crime needs to be proven in order for someone to be held accountable for it. So do you believe in that due process, or not?
You have been given the international Convention and the domestic law both stating that they are.
You are not engaging with this in any rational or reasonable way. You've been given everything you asked for; sources provided to you over and over again, and explained to you in-depth and you simply. won't. accept. it.
Again, I'm not entertaining your analysis of the law. If you are right, surely a journalist and/or lawyer has stated this in an article already. Provide said article.
perhaps, though that strikes me as something that could be counterproductive. best to keep the diplomatic maneuvering close to the matter at hand.
That is not what happened. That's just the mischaracterization you're being fed that you've been too lazy to vet. The judge never found Garcia’s alleged gang membership to be credible. Quite the opposite. The only “evidence” ICE had was a confidential informant and a Chicago Bulls hoodie—something the judge explicitly called out as flimsy. It was enough to deny bond before trial, not to prove affiliation. That denial of bond is now being dishonestly repackaged as a finding of guilt—by people who either don’t understand the difference or are hoping you don’t.
The bond ruling was not that the evidence showed that he was a gang member, but that the accusation was serious enough to justify keeping him detained while his case played out. And mind you, in immigration bond hearings, the burden of proof is actually on the detainee to show they’re not a danger to the community. That means even a vague or uncorroborated allegation (such as in this case) can be enough to deny bond, especially when it involves gang claims. What you are referring to was based solely on the bond determination, not on a finding of gang membership. The ruling you're referencing was not a judicial finding that he was in a gang, but rather a decision that he had not met the high pre-trial evidential burden required to be released from detention before presenting his case in the hearing. Put simply and practically speaking, in immigration court, “we believe he’s in a gang” is often all it takes to keep someone detained pre-hearing. So his denial of bond does not hold any evidentiary weight, and it certainly is not accurate to treat it - as you have - as the claim being proven in court.
And for goodness sake, "even though the rest of his family were not targeted by the gang"? Can you make it any more obvious that you haven't read up on the case?
Let's review:
The gang was extorting the family business, threatening Kilmar, his older brother (Cesar), and the family in general. The gang threatened to press Cesar into membership. The family kept hiding Cesar and eventually sent him to the US once the gang escalated the threat to murdering him. This prompted the gang to switch targets to Kilmar, who was then 12 years old.
They continued to extort the family and threatened to kill Kilmar, The family moved to a nearby town in hopes of getting out of the gang's sights, but members of the gang found them and renewed their threats and extortions, including threats to rape Kilmar's sisters. The family closed their business and moved again to another nearby town (about 15 minutes away), and eventually sent Kilmar to the US for his protection. The gang is still harassing the family, despite them moving again.
This doesn't even take much digging to find! It's laid out in the memorandum of decision and order!
And once again, it was Garcia, not his accusers, that the court found credible. Let me quote the ruling:
"The Respondent provided credible responses to the questions asked. His testimony was internally consistent, externally consistent with his asylum application order and other documents, and appeared free of embellishment. Further, he provided substantial documentation buttressing his claims. Included in his evidence were several affidavits from family members that described the family's pupusa business, and threats by Barrio 18 to various family members - in particular the Respondent - over the years. The court finds the Respondent credible."
It further goes on to say that "the facts here show that the Barrio 18 gang continues to threaten and harass the Abrego Family over these several years, and does so even though the family has moved three times".
And let me reemphasize something. When it comes to the accusation of gang membership, Kilmar is innocent until proven guilty, and the accusations against him didn't even come close to meeting the preponderance of evidence, much less overcoming reasonable doubt.
Moreover, for Kilmar's application of asylum, he bore the burden of proof. And the court found that he met it. It's not a simple matter of him just spinning together a story, as you dishonestly suggest, and the courts simply nodding their heads in agreement. Hell, immigration courts are famously hostile to asylum seekers and highly deferential to immigration officials, so your insinuation is a special kind of absurd. This is not something he could simply bluff. He had to show the court that his story was well-evidenced, and the record shows that it was.
You’ve also wildly misrepresented the legal process. Garcia didn't "drop" an appeal. There was no separate appeal. There was one continuous case. The gang allegation and asylum claim were part of the same proceeding, as anyone who’s read even a summary of the case would know. For bonus points, this is where the actual lack of appeal comes in, but it was ICE and the government that decided not to try and appeal when the court ruled in Garcia's favor. And now, six years later, they're just flat-out lying to people like yourself that the ruling went the other way.
Again, you clearly have not familiarized yourself with even the most basic facts of the story, and are making no effort to rectify that.
You've been repeatedly provided with more data and sources to develop an informed opinion, but here you are, still making the objectively false argument that the courts concluded he was an MS-13 member, because you never bothered to read any deeper than the Trump administration's talking points and your own personal incredulity. You aren't even trying to learn the facts of the case, you're just scrambling to dismiss the ones that don't fit the conclusion you want to believe.
It is more than clear that you don't have enough interest in the topic to even look into the data points shoved in your face in this very discussion, much less do any independent research. Indeed, you've consistently made a point of flat out ignoring it even when it's handed to you. Hell, as recently as your last few posts, you demonstrated both your total disinterest in the topic and stubborn unwillingness to learn by claiming - in response to being provided with links to domestic and international law on immigration and refugee treatment - that you had been supplied with "no proof that these are protected immigrants that legally can't be deported" because your ctrl+f search didn't find the word "protected". That is embarrassingly lazy for someone trying so hard to pretend to be informed. Someone who's smart in their bluff reads up on the subject between posts and acts like they knew it all along. But you are pointedly and openly refusing to do even that much - making it abundantly clear that you're not only uninformed, but you're looking for an excuse to stay that way.
So, once again, why do you insist on wasting everyone's time with the pretense? You've consistently made it clear you’re not arguing from evidence, you’re reacting out of ego. When the actual evidence was offered you got offended that it contradicted you. But rather than doing the mature thing - engaging with and learning from the correction - you’ve been throwing a tantrum ever since. And everyone can see it, no matter how much you try to bluff otherwise.
Last edited: