Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

Didn't the Supreme Court decision put the radical Judge Boasberg back in his place? They showed that he took on the deportation case in Washington D.C. District Court when he should have known he did not have jurisdiction over the case. They removed the case from his jurisdiction and moved it to Texas which is the last place the gang members were before they were deported out of the country. In essence they kept this biased judge from making a further fool of himself and further blighting the entire judicial branch with his foolish decisions.

I do question us taxpayers having to spend enormous amounts of money to lawyers and further court hearings before we can throw these criminals who should not be in our country out of the country. Unless it is some simplified court hearing, I am not in favor of tying up already busy courts with illegals who broke into the U.S. especially those with criminal records from other countries or this country.

I was pleased to see President Trump is going to push the penalty on those illegals with deportation orders from the courts who refuse to self deport; that would be a $998 per day fine and ability to confiscate property and assets to pay that fine when they are caught by law enforcement.

Every action by the government should show that we are for immigrants, but they must all come in legally. And that we will do everything to ensure that illegal entry will not be tolerated.

---

Judge Boasberg didn't do anything radical. There was every reason to believe he had jurisdiction until SCOTUS said otherwise -- a hasty decision which will, by the way, dramatically increase the burden on the court system. Trump didn't go this route because he cared about taxpayers. He's forum-shopping just like he accuses others of doing.

---

Lie. Not a single person on this board but you was blind enough to think he had jurisdiction.

---

On a board where people think Trump tweets are a good source of legal analysis, that means very little.

---

So you're a better legal expert than the Supreme Court judges?

---

Sam is cosplaying being a lawyer this month.

---

Last month he held forth on how much easier/more appropriate it would be to just fire all these federal employees for cause. Not sure if that was from his career in HR or in labor law.

---

Yeah, following the law is more appropriate than not. No doubt in MAGA World that makes me a bad lawyer, LOL.

---

I think I know what you think you said, but what you actually said shows that you are simplistic and nave.

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

Didn't the Supreme Court decision put the radical Judge Boasberg back in his place? They showed that he took on the deportation case in Washington D.C. District Court when he should have known he did not have jurisdiction over the case. They removed the case from his jurisdiction and moved it to Texas which is the last place the gang members were before they were deported out of the country. In essence they kept this biased judge from making a further fool of himself and further blighting the entire judicial branch with his foolish decisions.

I do question us taxpayers having to spend enormous amounts of money to lawyers and further court hearings before we can throw these criminals who should not be in our country out of the country. Unless it is some simplified court hearing, I am not in favor of tying up already busy courts with illegals who broke into the U.S. especially those with criminal records from other countries or this country.

I was pleased to see President Trump is going to push the penalty on those illegals with deportation orders from the courts who refuse to self deport; that would be a $998 per day fine and ability to confiscate property and assets to pay that fine when they are caught by law enforcement.

Every action by the government should show that we are for immigrants, but they must all come in legally. And that we will do everything to ensure that illegal entry will not be tolerated.

---

Judge Boasberg didn't do anything radical. There was every reason to believe he had jurisdiction until SCOTUS said otherwise -- a hasty decision which will, by the way, dramatically increase the burden on the court system. Trump didn't go this route because he cared about taxpayers. He's forum-shopping just like he accuses others of doing.

---

Lie. Not a single person on this board but you was blind enough to think he had jurisdiction.

---

On a board where people think Trump tweets are a good source of legal analysis, that means very little.

---

So you're a better legal expert than the Supreme Court judges?

---

Sam is cosplaying being a lawyer this month.

---

Last month he held forth on how much easier/more appropriate it would be to just fire all these federal employees for cause. Not sure if that was from his career in HR or in labor law.

---

Yeah, following the law is more appropriate than not. No doubt in MAGA World that makes me a bad lawyer, LOL.

---

I think I know what you think you said, but what you actually said shows that you are simplistic and nave.

---

The law requires a statement of reasons. If everything you said was true, that would have been very easy to do. Whether it sticks is another question, but it certainly doesn't put Trump in any worse position.

You went for the easy "gotcha" and took your eye off the ball.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

Didn't the Supreme Court decision put the radical Judge Boasberg back in his place? They showed that he took on the deportation case in Washington D.C. District Court when he should have known he did not have jurisdiction over the case. They removed the case from his jurisdiction and moved it to Texas which is the last place the gang members were before they were deported out of the country. In essence they kept this biased judge from making a further fool of himself and further blighting the entire judicial branch with his foolish decisions.

I do question us taxpayers having to spend enormous amounts of money to lawyers and further court hearings before we can throw these criminals who should not be in our country out of the country. Unless it is some simplified court hearing, I am not in favor of tying up already busy courts with illegals who broke into the U.S. especially those with criminal records from other countries or this country.

I was pleased to see President Trump is going to push the penalty on those illegals with deportation orders from the courts who refuse to self deport; that would be a $998 per day fine and ability to confiscate property and assets to pay that fine when they are caught by law enforcement.

Every action by the government should show that we are for immigrants, but they must all come in legally. And that we will do everything to ensure that illegal entry will not be tolerated.

---

Judge Boasberg didn't do anything radical. There was every reason to believe he had jurisdiction until SCOTUS said otherwise -- a hasty decision which will, by the way, dramatically increase the burden on the court system. Trump didn't go this route because he cared about taxpayers. He's forum-shopping just like he accuses others of doing.

---

Lie. Not a single person on this board but you was blind enough to think he had jurisdiction.

---

On a board where people think Trump tweets are a good source of legal analysis, that means very little.

---

So you're a better legal expert than the Supreme Court judges?

---

Sam is cosplaying being a lawyer this month.

---

Last month he held forth on how much easier/more appropriate it would be to just fire all these federal employees for cause. Not sure if that was from his career in HR or in labor law.

---

Yeah, following the law is more appropriate than not. No doubt in MAGA World that makes me a bad lawyer, LOL.

---

I think I know what you think you said, but what you actually said shows that you are simplistic and nave.

---

The law requires a statement of reasons. If everything you said was true, that would have been very easy to do. Whether it sticks is another question, but it certainly doesn't put Trump in any worse position.

You went for the easy "gotcha" and took your eye off the ball.

---

That's absolute gibberish.

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

Didn't the Supreme Court decision put the radical Judge Boasberg back in his place? They showed that he took on the deportation case in Washington D.C. District Court when he should have known he did not have jurisdiction over the case. They removed the case from his jurisdiction and moved it to Texas which is the last place the gang members were before they were deported out of the country. In essence they kept this biased judge from making a further fool of himself and further blighting the entire judicial branch with his foolish decisions.

I do question us taxpayers having to spend enormous amounts of money to lawyers and further court hearings before we can throw these criminals who should not be in our country out of the country. Unless it is some simplified court hearing, I am not in favor of tying up already busy courts with illegals who broke into the U.S. especially those with criminal records from other countries or this country.

I was pleased to see President Trump is going to push the penalty on those illegals with deportation orders from the courts who refuse to self deport; that would be a $998 per day fine and ability to confiscate property and assets to pay that fine when they are caught by law enforcement.

Every action by the government should show that we are for immigrants, but they must all come in legally. And that we will do everything to ensure that illegal entry will not be tolerated.

---

Judge Boasberg didn't do anything radical. There was every reason to believe he had jurisdiction until SCOTUS said otherwise -- a hasty decision which will, by the way, dramatically increase the burden on the court system. Trump didn't go this route because he cared about taxpayers. He's forum-shopping just like he accuses others of doing.

---

Lie. Not a single person on this board but you was blind enough to think he had jurisdiction.

---

On a board where people think Trump tweets are a good source of legal analysis, that means very little.

---

So you're a better legal expert than the Supreme Court judges?

---

Sam is cosplaying being a lawyer this month.

---

Last month he held forth on how much easier/more appropriate it would be to just fire all these federal employees for cause. Not sure if that was from his career in HR or in labor law.

---

Yeah, following the law is more appropriate than not. No doubt in MAGA World that makes me a bad lawyer, LOL.

---

I think I know what you think you said, but what you actually said shows that you are simplistic and nave.

---

The law requires a statement of reasons. If everything you said was true, that would have been very easy to do. Whether it sticks is another question, but it certainly doesn't put Trump in any worse position.

You went for the easy "gotcha" and took your eye off the ball.

---

That's absolute gibberish.

---

Why not give a statement of reasons? Obviously you have a compelling argument you're just waiting to unleash.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/doj-asks-dismiss-virginia-case-against-salvadoran-accused-ms-13-leader-set-deported

This is interesting. DOJ dropping the prosecution because deportation is another option for dealing with the problem. I'm OK with it. He's bound for the El Salvador super max. He can get his due process there.

I'm still smh at why Biden let all of these criminals into our country.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

Didn't the Supreme Court decision put the radical Judge Boasberg back in his place? They showed that he took on the deportation case in Washington D.C. District Court when he should have known he did not have jurisdiction over the case. They removed the case from his jurisdiction and moved it to Texas which is the last place the gang members were before they were deported out of the country. In essence they kept this biased judge from making a further fool of himself and further blighting the entire judicial branch with his foolish decisions.

I do question us taxpayers having to spend enormous amounts of money to lawyers and further court hearings before we can throw these criminals who should not be in our country out of the country. Unless it is some simplified court hearing, I am not in favor of tying up already busy courts with illegals who broke into the U.S. especially those with criminal records from other countries or this country.

I was pleased to see President Trump is going to push the penalty on those illegals with deportation orders from the courts who refuse to self deport; that would be a $998 per day fine and ability to confiscate property and assets to pay that fine when they are caught by law enforcement.

Every action by the government should show that we are for immigrants, but they must all come in legally. And that we will do everything to ensure that illegal entry will not be tolerated.

---

Judge Boasberg didn't do anything radical. There was every reason to believe he had jurisdiction until SCOTUS said otherwise -- a hasty decision which will, by the way, dramatically increase the burden on the court system. Trump didn't go this route because he cared about taxpayers. He's forum-shopping just like he accuses others of doing.

---

Lie. Not a single person on this board but you was blind enough to think he had jurisdiction.

---

On a board where people think Trump tweets are a good source of legal analysis, that means very little.

---

So you're a better legal expert than the Supreme Court judges?

---

Sam is cosplaying being a lawyer this month.

---

Last month he held forth on how much easier/more appropriate it would be to just fire all these federal employees for cause. Not sure if that was from his career in HR or in labor law.

---

Yeah, following the law is more appropriate than not. No doubt in MAGA World that makes me a bad lawyer, LOL.

---

I think I know what you think you said, but what you actually said shows that you are simplistic and nave.

---

The law requires a statement of reasons. If everything you said was true, that would have been very easy to do. Whether it sticks is another question, but it certainly doesn't put Trump in any worse position.

You went for the easy "gotcha" and took your eye off the ball.

---

That's absolute gibberish.

---

Why not give a statement of reasons? Obviously you have a compelling argument you're just waiting to unleash.

---

How about we are $36T or $37T in debt and something doesn't change we will be $100T in debt before you can shake a stick.

Below is an op-ed by Kim Strassel on venues, jurisdiction and standing among other things.

Supreme Court Sanity. This week's spate of Supreme Court rulings matter on the merits, but matter more on the message. The justices are finally weighing in on the swirl of litigation and injunctions that have met this Donald Trump administration, and appear intent on imposing some order. Technical details of the rulings aside, the justices are reminding Trump-hostile lawyers and lower-court judges that they have a duty to follow the rules on venues, cause of action, jurisdiction, and standingand to exercise a little judicial modesty. To wit:

• Venues: Anti-Trump litigants are nakedly engaged in forum-shopping, using whatever excuse to file cases in circuits with greater numbers of liberal judges. The Supreme Court on Monday in an unsigned opinion rebuked this practice, lifting D.C. District Court Judge James Boasberg's block on Trump deportations of Venezuelans under the Alien Enemies Act. The high court noted that the correct way to protest use of the law was with habeas petitions in the venue where detainees are confinedin this case, Texas, not the Beltway.
• Cause: Justice Brett Kavanaugh in a concurrence to that ruling further explained that Judge Boasberg erred in even entertaining the plaintiffs' claims the administration had violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) with the deportations. He reminded that not only do "history and precedent" show that habeas governs "transfer claims" but that statute makes clear that claims under the APA are not available when there is another "adequate remedy in a court." Ouch.
• Jurisdiction: The high court last Friday sent a similar reminder about courts' authority to hear cases. In a per curiam, it slapped down Massachusetts District Judge Myong Joun's order that the administration must continue paying out Education Department teacher-training grants. Eight Democratic states sued in Boston, where Judge Joun found the administration had likely violated the APA, and ordered it to pay up. The Supreme Court instead ruled that the "Government is likely to succeed in showing the District Court lacked jurisdiction" in the first place, and that the dispute belongs in the Court of Federal Claims.
• Standing: In a Tuesday order, the Supreme Court stayed California District Judge William H. Alsup's directive that the administration must reinstate some 16,000 fired federal probationary workers, noting the plaintiffs had no standing to bring the case in the first place. "The District Court's injunction was based solely on the allegations of the nine non-profit-organization plaintiffs in this case. But under established law, those allegations are presently insufficient to support the organizations' standing," it wrote.
• Restraint: The opinions also contained unsubtle criticism of court rashness and overreach. In the teacher-grant opinion, for instance, the Supremes scored the lower court's order to pay, given the administration was "unlikely to recover" funds once disbursedeven if it prevailed in court. This is a shot across the bow of dozens of district court judges issuing sweeping injunctions and orders prior to digging in to the merits.
• Setting an example: Note that in none of these opinions or orders does the Supreme Court come to any conclusions on the merits. That also sends a message. The justices are setting an example they expect lower courts to follow: Abide by the rules and go through the necessary hearings, briefings and arguments, before pulling triggers.

Of course Strassel is on the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal who has not been a big fan of Trump's tariff policies.

Sam, Strassel is pointing out that there is in fact judge shopping and that those liberal judges are making rulings not based in law. In addition some of these left leaning judges are issuing directives to the Trump Administration on the allegations of groups that have no standing to bring the lawsuits. The Supreme Court decisions also criticize overreach by these judges. Do we have more than your statement that all of us are wrong in our assessments? We would entertain the facts backing up your assertions.

It sure looks like most of these judges appointed by Obama and Biden are radicals more than willing to issue injunctions and directives to President Trump and his Administration based on their political beliefs rather than current law and past judicial rulings.

gtownbear said:

---

Below is an op-ed by Kim Strassel on venues, jurisdiction and standing among other things.

Supreme Court Sanity. This week's spate of Supreme Court rulings matter on the merits, but matter more on the message. The justices are finally weighing in on the swirl of litigation and injunctions that have met this Donald Trump administration, and appear intent on imposing some order. Technical details of the rulings aside, the justices are reminding Trump-hostile lawyers and lower-court judges that they have a duty to follow the rules on venues, cause of action, jurisdiction, and standingand to exercise a little judicial modesty. To wit:
• Venues: Anti-Trump litigants are nakedly engaged in forum-shopping, using whatever excuse to file cases in circuits with greater numbers of liberal judges. The Supreme Court on Monday in an unsigned opinion rebuked this practice, lifting D.C. District Court Judge James Boasberg's block on Trump deportations of Venezuelans under the Alien Enemies Act. The high court noted that the correct way to protest use of the law was with habeas petitions in the venue where detainees are confinedin this case, Texas, not the Beltway.
• Cause: Justice Brett Kavanaugh in a concurrence to that ruling further explained that Judge Boasberg erred in even entertaining the plaintiffs' claims the administration had violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) with the deportations. He reminded that not only do "history and precedent" show that habeas governs "transfer claims" but that statute makes clear that claims under the APA are not available when there is another "adequate remedy in a court." Ouch.
• Jurisdiction: The high court last Friday sent a similar reminder about courts' authority to hear cases. In a per curiam, it slapped down Massachusetts District Judge Myong Joun's order that the administration must continue paying out Education Department teacher-training grants. Eight Democratic states sued in Boston, where Judge Joun found the administration had likely violated the APA, and ordered it to pay up. The Supreme Court instead ruled that the "Government is likely to succeed in showing the District Court lacked jurisdiction" in the first place, and that the dispute belongs in the Court of Federal Claims.
• Standing: In a Tuesday order, the Supreme Court stayed California District Judge William H. Alsup's directive that the administration must reinstate some 16,000 fired federal probationary workers, noting the plaintiffs had no standing to bring the case in the first place. "The District Court's injunction was based solely on the allegations of the nine non-profit-organization plaintiffs in this case. But under established law, those allegations are presently insufficient to support the organizations' standing," it wrote.
• Restraint: The opinions also contained unsubtle criticism of court rashness and overreach. In the teacher-grant opinion, for instance, the Supremes scored the lower court's order to pay, given the administration was "unlikely to recover" funds once disbursedeven if it prevailed in court. This is a shot across the bow of dozens of district court judges issuing sweeping injunctions and orders prior to digging in to the merits.
• Setting an example: Note that in none of these opinions or orders does the Supreme Court come to any conclusions on the merits. That also sends a message. The justices are setting an example they expect lower courts to follow: Abide by the rules and go through the necessary hearings, briefings and arguments, before pulling triggers.

Of course Strassel is on the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal who has not been a big fan of Trump's tariff policies.

Sam, Strassel is pointing out that there is in fact judge shopping and that those liberal judges are making rulings not based in law. In addition some of these left leaning judges are issuing directives to the Trump Administration on the allegations of groups that have no standing to bring the lawsuits. The Supreme Court decisions also criticize overreach by these judges. Do we have more than your statement that all of us are wrong in our assessments? We would entertain the facts backing up your assertions.

It sure looks like most of these judges appointed by Obama and Biden are radicals more than willing to issue injunctions and directives to President Trump and his Administration based on their political beliefs rather than current law and past judicial rulings.

---

Indeed they are. Good post. good summary

I don't necessarily disagree with SCOTUS on jurisdiction, but it's not as clear-cut as Strassel would have it. Trump always frames any disagreement by a judge as "radical," even when it's anything but. The forum-shopping issue is a red herring. Both sides are doing it, and Trump is doing at least as much as anyone else. What is quite clear is that he violated the detainees' rights by denying them a hearing. All of the justices agreed on that.

2,200 bed shelter for illegals in the Bronx that was opened February is still going strong.

The shelter is also being used for illegals to get mail.

Why are tax dollars still being spent for this instead of deporting every one of these illegals?pic.twitter.com/C4W2v83auQ

— Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸 (@Bubblebathgirl) April 10, 2025

Sam Lowry said:

---

I don't necessarily disagree with SCOTUS on jurisdiction, but it's not as clear-cut as Strassel would have it. Trump always frames any disagreement by a judge as "radical," even when it's anything but. The forum-shopping issue is a red herring. Both sides are doing it, and Trump is doing at least as much as anyone else. What is quite clear is that he violated the detainees' rights by denying them a hearing. All of the justices agreed on that.

---

Read it again.

Your kind words are appreciated. Blessings to you. And to everyone here.

FBI agents in Mobile, Alabama arrested six Tren-de-Aragua gang members during traffic stops this morning.

The Trump administration is working every single day to get these evil terrorists off our streets. pic.twitter.com/FsP2Wz2gmt

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) April 10, 2025

Supreme Court Tells Government to Seek Return of Man Mistakenly Deported to El Salvador Prison

Trump administration argued federal judge couldn't force officials to remedy their error
By Jess Bravin
April 10, 2025

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court told the Trump administration to seek the return of a migrant mistakenly sent to a Salvadoran prison, rebuffing government claims that it need do nothing to remedy its error.

There were no dissents noted in the order Thursday, which directed the government to take steps to bring Kilmar Abrego Garcia, 29 years old, back to the U.S. from the maximum security facility it sent him to on March 15.

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/supreme-court-tells-government-to-seek-return-of-man-mistakenly-deported-to-el-salvador-prison-401ee07a?mod=hp_lead_pos1

Sam,

Please understand the position you are taking. Kilmar Garcia I believe was before the immigration courts in 2019 and was accused of being associated with the MS-13 gang. The court did not dispute that he was with the gang, but refused to deport him at that time because they thought he might be killed if sent back to El Salvador at that time. He was married to an American citizen but he was not and is not an American citizen. So I believe it is still in question whether he was associated with that gang or not.

But I will grant that he was placed on the plane where other gang members were flown out of the United States by mistake. And while I realize we have to abide by the court decisions in this country, I'm certain the Trump Administration is not conceding the fight on any of these deportation cases until all appeals are exhausted.

And I would make this case. The Biden Administration allowed in between 15,000,000-20,000,000 illegals during his four years in office. Practically none of them were vetted by law enforcement; they were just released into the country or crossed somewhere in between the ports of entry. Many of them were either gang members or had criminal records in their country of origin. Some were even on the terrorist watch list. The number could be in the hundreds of thousands or even millions that are here and willing to steal, assault, rape and yes murder our Legal Citizens.

So President Trump is elected on one of his promises to remove the illegals beginning with the gang members and hardened criminals that ICE identifies. He uses the old law that gives him the fastest and cheapest method to remove criminals who broke into our country. The ACLU and the left challenges his actions in court. Each side wins some parts of cases and loses some. Now, after this deportation case that was in Judge Boasberg's court was assigned to the Texas courts, who have evidently ruled that each person on that plane can now make the government prove that they are actually gang members who deserve to be deported. Am I close to correct so far?

My question to the Supreme Court and anyone else is by what reasoning do illegals who break into our country get the same constitutional rights as LEGAL AMERICAN CITIZENS? Think about the time and taxpayer money that it will take to go through this procedure to remove 15,000,000 illegal lawbreakers who should never have been allowed into the U.S. in the first place.

And all because the left hates President Trump and everything he stands for. Surely Sam you cannot be for these criminals staying in this country can you? If there are so many to remove, why should we as taxpayers not want it to be as quick and as cheap as possible? Will there be a few mistakes? Yes there will be. But you know as far as I am concerned, everyone who crossed our border and broke in illegally, disrespected all of us, and all of those good folks who went through the legal process to become an American citizen. In my opinion they deserve no constitutional rights; all they deserve is a free plane ride out of our country back to their country of origin.

To force all of this through the courts before any action can be taken is ridiculous. And Sam that prevents President Trump from fulfilling his promise to the people, which of course is the left's intent. After all about 75% of the public wants all of the illegals removed from the country, including many democrats.

False. SCOTUS rejected the lower court and made clear that a district court judge cannot exercise Article II foreign affairs powers. The illegal alien terrorist is in the custody and control of a sovereign foreign nation. https://t.co/qbRlM2IxAl

— Stephen Miller (@StephenM) April 11, 2025

Assassin said:

---

False. SCOTUS rejected the lower court and made clear that a district court judge cannot exercise Article II foreign affairs powers. The illegal alien terrorist is in the custody and control of a sovereign foreign nation. https://t.co/qbRlM2IxAl

— Stephen Miller (@StephenM) April 11, 2025

---

SCt unanimously ruled he gets a hearing, not only is that just common sense, now it's the law

He doesn't necessarily have a right to be here, that's what the hearing will determine

Sam Lowry said:

---

Supreme Court Tells Government to Seek Return of Man Mistakenly Deported to El Salvador Prison

Trump administration argued federal judge couldn't force officials to remedy their error
By Jess Bravin
April 10, 2025

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court told the Trump administration to seek the return of a migrant mistakenly sent to a Salvadoran prison, rebuffing government claims that it need do nothing to remedy its error.

There were no dissents noted in the order Thursday, which directed the government to take steps to bring Kilmar Abrego Garcia, 29 years old, back to the U.S. from the maximum security facility it sent him to on March 15.

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/supreme-court-tells-government-to-seek-return-of-man-mistakenly-deported-to-el-salvador-prison-401ee07a?mod=hp_lead_pos1

---

Paywall stops me from reading

While I think its ridiculous, the Trump administration needs to bring this guy back and then begin proceedings to deport him elsewhere.

The immigration laws need to be reformed and streamlined. It seems illegal immigrants have more "rights" than normal citizens.

gtownbear said:

---

Sam,

Please understand the position you are taking. Kilmar Garcia I believe was before the immigration courts in 2019 and was accused of being associated with the MS-13 gang. The court did not dispute that he was with the gang, but refused to deport him at that time because they thought he might be killed if sent back to El Salvador at that time. He was married to an American citizen but he was not and is not an American citizen. So I believe it is still in question whether he was associated with that gang or not.

But I will grant that he was placed on the plane where other gang members were flown out of the United States by mistake. And while I realize we have to abide by the court decisions in this country, I'm certain the Trump Administration is not conceding the fight on any of these deportation cases until all appeals are exhausted.

And I would make this case. The Biden Administration allowed in between 15,000,000-20,000,000 illegals during his four years in office. Practically none of them were vetted by law enforcement; they were just released into the country or crossed somewhere in between the ports of entry. Many of them were either gang members or had criminal records in their country of origin. Some were even on the terrorist watch list. The number could be in the hundreds of thousands or even millions that are here and willing to steal, assault, rape and yes murder our Legal Citizens.

So President Trump is elected on one of his promises to remove the illegals beginning with the gang members and hardened criminals that ICE identifies. He uses the old law that gives him the fastest and cheapest method to remove criminals who broke into our country. The ACLU and the left challenges his actions in court. Each side wins some parts of cases and loses some. Now, after this deportation case that was in Judge Boasberg's court was assigned to the Texas courts, who have evidently ruled that each person on that plane can now make the government prove that they are actually gang members who deserve to be deported. Am I close to correct so far?

My question to the Supreme Court and anyone else is by what reasoning do illegals who break into our country get the same constitutional rights as LEGAL AMERICAN CITIZENS? Think about the time and taxpayer money that it will take to go through this procedure to remove 15,000,000 illegal lawbreakers who should never have been allowed into the U.S. in the first place.

And all because the left hates President Trump and everything he stands for. Surely Sam you cannot be for these criminals staying in this country can you? If there are so many to remove, why should we as taxpayers not want it to be as quick and as cheap as possible? Will there be a few mistakes? Yes there will be. But you know as far as I am concerned, everyone who crossed our border and broke in illegally, disrespected all of us, and all of those good folks who went through the legal process to become an American citizen. In my opinion they deserve no constitutional rights; all they deserve is a free plane ride out of our country back to their country of origin.

To force all of this through the courts before any action can be taken is ridiculous. And Sam that prevents President Trump from fulfilling his promise to the people, which of course is the left's intent. After all about 75% of the public wants all of the illegals removed from the country, including many democrats.

---

What is the basic principle underlying the Bill of Rights? The state is more dangerous to you than the criminal (including the immigrant).

Why do criminals have the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure? Why do they have the right not to incriminate themselves? Why does the state have to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? Is it because we want dangerous criminals to go free?

No. It's because we don't want the state abusing its power. That's why illegal immigrants have many of the same rights as American citizens. Not to protect them. To protect you.

Trump wants to send American citizens to foreign prison camps too. He would have you believe the court system is broken, so you have to give him all the power. Don't believe it. The courts aren't perfect, but they are capable of doing their job.

Sam Lowry said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

Sam,

Please understand the position you are taking. Kilmar Garcia I believe was before the immigration courts in 2019 and was accused of being associated with the MS-13 gang. The court did not dispute that he was with the gang, but refused to deport him at that time because they thought he might be killed if sent back to El Salvador at that time. He was married to an American citizen but he was not and is not an American citizen. So I believe it is still in question whether he was associated with that gang or not.

But I will grant that he was placed on the plane where other gang members were flown out of the United States by mistake. And while I realize we have to abide by the court decisions in this country, I'm certain the Trump Administration is not conceding the fight on any of these deportation cases until all appeals are exhausted.

And I would make this case. The Biden Administration allowed in between 15,000,000-20,000,000 illegals during his four years in office. Practically none of them were vetted by law enforcement; they were just released into the country or crossed somewhere in between the ports of entry. Many of them were either gang members or had criminal records in their country of origin. Some were even on the terrorist watch list. The number could be in the hundreds of thousands or even millions that are here and willing to steal, assault, rape and yes murder our Legal Citizens.

So President Trump is elected on one of his promises to remove the illegals beginning with the gang members and hardened criminals that ICE identifies. He uses the old law that gives him the fastest and cheapest method to remove criminals who broke into our country. The ACLU and the left challenges his actions in court. Each side wins some parts of cases and loses some. Now, after this deportation case that was in Judge Boasberg's court was assigned to the Texas courts, who have evidently ruled that each person on that plane can now make the government prove that they are actually gang members who deserve to be deported. Am I close to correct so far?

My question to the Supreme Court and anyone else is by what reasoning do illegals who break into our country get the same constitutional rights as LEGAL AMERICAN CITIZENS? Think about the time and taxpayer money that it will take to go through this procedure to remove 15,000,000 illegal lawbreakers who should never have been allowed into the U.S. in the first place.

And all because the left hates President Trump and everything he stands for. Surely Sam you cannot be for these criminals staying in this country can you? If there are so many to remove, why should we as taxpayers not want it to be as quick and as cheap as possible? Will there be a few mistakes? Yes there will be. But you know as far as I am concerned, everyone who crossed our border and broke in illegally, disrespected all of us, and all of those good folks who went through the legal process to become an American citizen. In my opinion they deserve no constitutional rights; all they deserve is a free plane ride out of our country back to their country of origin.

To force all of this through the courts before any action can be taken is ridiculous. And Sam that prevents President Trump from fulfilling his promise to the people, which of course is the left's intent. After all about 75% of the public wants all of the illegals removed from the country, including many democrats.

---

What is the basic principle underlying the Bill of Rights? The state is more dangerous to you than the criminal (including the immigrant).

Why do criminals have the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure? Why do they have the right not to incriminate themselves? Why does the state have to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? Is it because we want dangerous criminals to go free?

No. It's because we don't want the state abusing its power. That's why illegal immigrants have many of the same rights as American citizens. Not to protect them. To protect you.

Trump wants to send American citizens to foreign prison camps too. He would have you believe the court system is broken, so you have to give him all the power. Don't believe it. The courts aren't perfect, but they are capable of doing their job.

---

Ridiculous statement. Obama vaporized an American citizen in Yemen with no trial or legal proceedings whatsoever. It's people on the left you should be worried about.

Actually I am protected because these criminal gang members who were allowed in by Biden are being removed from the country as swiftly as possible. And so are you.

And if you want to go back to the real guilty party, look no further than Joe Biden, Mayorkas and others who ignored past immigration practices and literally opened up our borders to anyone on earth to come here. No other country has opened their borders to this type of invasion. And that is what it was. How could millions of uneducated individuals come in and help our country? No they could only drive the wages down for those Americans on the lowest end of our economic scale thus pushing more of our legal citizens into poverty.

And Sam how many terrorists, gang members, and individuals with criminal records were allowed in to the U.S.? Would you care to guess? Do you think they will make a contribution to our society?

So if we give all of these rights to illegals who broke into our country with the help and encouragement of the Biden Administration, maybe American citizens should hold the Biden Administration as accessories to all the criminal acts committed by these illegals. Who allowed all of them to be released into the country for years before they had a court date to determine their asylum claims? Why did someone not set up a system with more immigration judges to deal with the backlog? Or more expedited hearings? After all most of these folks would not have their asylum claims approved in the end.

Why should the conservatives always be on the defensive in all of these situations. We are the ones who wanted to maintain the status quo that had worked well enough in the past. It is you on the left who always want to change the rules, and make us adjust to those changes. Maybe it is time you took responsibility for the problems you created by your actions and you provide the workable solution. But the solution cannot be one that takes ten years to remove folks that never should have been allowed in to begin with. We cannot afford it and we have too many other problems to deal with. Simply put these illegals don't belong here and thus have to go.

Sam Lowry said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

Sam,

Please understand the position you are taking. Kilmar Garcia I believe was before the immigration courts in 2019 and was accused of being associated with the MS-13 gang. The court did not dispute that he was with the gang, but refused to deport him at that time because they thought he might be killed if sent back to El Salvador at that time. He was married to an American citizen but he was not and is not an American citizen. So I believe it is still in question whether he was associated with that gang or not.

But I will grant that he was placed on the plane where other gang members were flown out of the United States by mistake. And while I realize we have to abide by the court decisions in this country, I'm certain the Trump Administration is not conceding the fight on any of these deportation cases until all appeals are exhausted.

And I would make this case. The Biden Administration allowed in between 15,000,000-20,000,000 illegals during his four years in office. Practically none of them were vetted by law enforcement; they were just released into the country or crossed somewhere in between the ports of entry. Many of them were either gang members or had criminal records in their country of origin. Some were even on the terrorist watch list. The number could be in the hundreds of thousands or even millions that are here and willing to steal, assault, rape and yes murder our Legal Citizens.

So President Trump is elected on one of his promises to remove the illegals beginning with the gang members and hardened criminals that ICE identifies. He uses the old law that gives him the fastest and cheapest method to remove criminals who broke into our country. The ACLU and the left challenges his actions in court. Each side wins some parts of cases and loses some. Now, after this deportation case that was in Judge Boasberg's court was assigned to the Texas courts, who have evidently ruled that each person on that plane can now make the government prove that they are actually gang members who deserve to be deported. Am I close to correct so far?

My question to the Supreme Court and anyone else is by what reasoning do illegals who break into our country get the same constitutional rights as LEGAL AMERICAN CITIZENS? Think about the time and taxpayer money that it will take to go through this procedure to remove 15,000,000 illegal lawbreakers who should never have been allowed into the U.S. in the first place.

And all because the left hates President Trump and everything he stands for. Surely Sam you cannot be for these criminals staying in this country can you? If there are so many to remove, why should we as taxpayers not want it to be as quick and as cheap as possible? Will there be a few mistakes? Yes there will be. But you know as far as I am concerned, everyone who crossed our border and broke in illegally, disrespected all of us, and all of those good folks who went through the legal process to become an American citizen. In my opinion they deserve no constitutional rights; all they deserve is a free plane ride out of our country back to their country of origin.

To force all of this through the courts before any action can be taken is ridiculous. And Sam that prevents President Trump from fulfilling his promise to the people, which of course is the left's intent. After all about 75% of the public wants all of the illegals removed from the country, including many democrats.

---

What is the basic principle underlying the Bill of Rights? The state is more dangerous to you than the criminal (including the immigrant).

Why do criminals have the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure? Why do they have the right not to incriminate themselves? Why does the state have to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? Is it because we want dangerous criminals to go free?

No. It's because we don't want the state abusing its power. That's why illegal immigrants have many of the same rights as American citizens. Not to protect them. To protect you.

Trump wants to send American citizens to foreign prison camps too. He would have you believe the court system is broken, so you have to give him all the power. Don't believe it. The courts aren't perfect, but they are capable of doing their job.

---

As we have seen in recent weeks, your post is waaay off base. Illegal aliens should be deported immediately, no court date. They are just that, ILLEGAL. And nearly all the folk recently deported to El Salvador are members of 'terrorist organizations', legally defined groups, including the MS 13 fella. They should also be deported ASAP, not held in jails were they train the legal US citizens how to become terrorists. No in American jails where liberal judges can put them back in society at the drop of a hat. Unless we correct this, we will be paying millions to billions of dollars in legal fees due to your mindset.

Wonder if Sam noticed the phrase "The application is granted in part, and denied in part."

Note also that there is no deadline on when all this is to accomplished.

Sam always likes asking if someone read the decision, yet it seems in this case he stopped at the headline.

I don't know about you, but we conservatives are on the defensive because that's the nature of conservatism. We conserve and defend traditions like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Trump is no conservative. He is one of the radicals (they exist on both the left and the right) who want to undermine the rule of law and convince you that our traditions are obsolete.

Immigrants have always been an important part of our society and economy. They're not going to destroy the country in the time it takes to hold a court hearing. If you don't think Biden allocated enough resources to handle the backlog, guess what? Trump is president now. This is his chance to fix the problem within the bounds of the law. It's not a difficult concept.

But he doesn't particularly want to do that. He'd rather stoke fears and scapegoat minorities so he can grab more and more power. History should teach you where that path leads.

Sam Lowry said:

---

I don't know about you, but we conservatives are on the defensive because that's the nature of conservatism. We conserve and defend traditions like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Trump is no conservative. He is one of the radicals (they exist on both the left and the right) who want to undermine the rule of law and convince you that our traditions are obsolete.

Immigrants have always been a big part of our society and economy. They're not going to destroy the country in the time it takes to hold a court hearing. If you don't think Biden allocated enough resources to handle the backlog, guess what? Trump is president now. This is his chance to fix the problem within the bounds of the law. It's not a difficult concept.

But he doesn't particularly want to do that. He'd rather stoke fears and scapegoat minorities so he can grab more and more power. History should teach you where that path leads.

---

Sam, you are not conservative. You're an institutionalist.

Sam Lowry said:

---

I don't know about you, but we conservatives are on the defensive because that's the nature of conservatism. We conserve and defend traditions like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Trump is no conservative. He is one of the radicals (they exist on both the left and the right) who want to undermine the rule of law and convince you that our traditions are obsolete.

Immigrants have always been a big part of our society and economy. They're not going to destroy the country in the time it takes to hold a court hearing. If you don't think Biden allocated enough resources to handle the backlog, guess what? Trump is president now. This is his chance to fix the problem within the bounds of the law. It's not a difficult concept.

But he doesn't particularly want to do that. He'd rather stoke fears and scapegoat minorities so he can grab more and more power. History should teach you where that path leads.

---

You keep confusing "immigrants" with "illegal immigrants", separated by the Grand Canyon of thought, which should be protected by our legal system. Of course immigrants built our country, we are all descendants of immigrants, even Native Americans.

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

Sam,

Please understand the position you are taking. Kilmar Garcia I believe was before the immigration courts in 2019 and was accused of being associated with the MS-13 gang. The court did not dispute that he was with the gang, but refused to deport him at that time because they thought he might be killed if sent back to El Salvador at that time. He was married to an American citizen but he was not and is not an American citizen. So I believe it is still in question whether he was associated with that gang or not.

But I will grant that he was placed on the plane where other gang members were flown out of the United States by mistake. And while I realize we have to abide by the court decisions in this country, I'm certain the Trump Administration is not conceding the fight on any of these deportation cases until all appeals are exhausted.

And I would make this case. The Biden Administration allowed in between 15,000,000-20,000,000 illegals during his four years in office. Practically none of them were vetted by law enforcement; they were just released into the country or crossed somewhere in between the ports of entry. Many of them were either gang members or had criminal records in their country of origin. Some were even on the terrorist watch list. The number could be in the hundreds of thousands or even millions that are here and willing to steal, assault, rape and yes murder our Legal Citizens.

So President Trump is elected on one of his promises to remove the illegals beginning with the gang members and hardened criminals that ICE identifies. He uses the old law that gives him the fastest and cheapest method to remove criminals who broke into our country. The ACLU and the left challenges his actions in court. Each side wins some parts of cases and loses some. Now, after this deportation case that was in Judge Boasberg's court was assigned to the Texas courts, who have evidently ruled that each person on that plane can now make the government prove that they are actually gang members who deserve to be deported. Am I close to correct so far?

My question to the Supreme Court and anyone else is by what reasoning do illegals who break into our country get the same constitutional rights as LEGAL AMERICAN CITIZENS? Think about the time and taxpayer money that it will take to go through this procedure to remove 15,000,000 illegal lawbreakers who should never have been allowed into the U.S. in the first place.

And all because the left hates President Trump and everything he stands for. Surely Sam you cannot be for these criminals staying in this country can you? If there are so many to remove, why should we as taxpayers not want it to be as quick and as cheap as possible? Will there be a few mistakes? Yes there will be. But you know as far as I am concerned, everyone who crossed our border and broke in illegally, disrespected all of us, and all of those good folks who went through the legal process to become an American citizen. In my opinion they deserve no constitutional rights; all they deserve is a free plane ride out of our country back to their country of origin.

To force all of this through the courts before any action can be taken is ridiculous. And Sam that prevents President Trump from fulfilling his promise to the people, which of course is the left's intent. After all about 75% of the public wants all of the illegals removed from the country, including many democrats.

---

What is the basic principle underlying the Bill of Rights? The state is more dangerous to you than the criminal (including the immigrant).

Why do criminals have the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure? Why do they have the right not to incriminate themselves? Why does the state have to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? Is it because we want dangerous criminals to go free?

No. It's because we don't want the state abusing its power. That's why illegal immigrants have many of the same rights as American citizens. Not to protect them. To protect you.

Trump wants to send American citizens to foreign prison camps too. He would have you believe the court system is broken, so you have to give him all the power. Don't believe it. The courts aren't perfect, but they are capable of doing their job.

---

As we have seen in recent weeks, your post is waaay off base. Illegal aliens should be deported immediately, no court date. They are just that, ILLEGAL. And nearly all the folk recently deported to El Salvador are members of 'terrorist organizations', legally defined groups, including the MS 13 fella. They should also be deported ASAP, not held in jails were they train the legal US citizens how to become terrorists. No in American jails where liberal judges can put them back in society at the drop of a hat. Unless we correct this, we will be paying millions to billions of dollars in legal fees due to your mindset.

---

As the high court recently reminded us, that is incorrect. You need hearings to determine who's illegal and who's a terrorist in the first place. Otherwise you're assuming that which is to be proved, a basic logical error.

Sam thinks he can still sell himself as a 'conservative'.

Sam, that ship sailed YEARS ago.

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I don't know about you, but we conservatives are on the defensive because that's the nature of conservatism. We conserve and defend traditions like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Trump is no conservative. He is one of the radicals (they exist on both the left and the right) who want to undermine the rule of law and convince you that our traditions are obsolete.

Immigrants have always been a big part of our society and economy. They're not going to destroy the country in the time it takes to hold a court hearing. If you don't think Biden allocated enough resources to handle the backlog, guess what? Trump is president now. This is his chance to fix the problem within the bounds of the law. It's not a difficult concept.

But he doesn't particularly want to do that. He'd rather stoke fears and scapegoat minorities so he can grab more and more power. History should teach you where that path leads.

---

You keep confusing "immigrants" with "illegal immigrants", separated by the Grand Canyon of thought, which should be protected by our legal system. Of course immigrants built our country, we are all descendants of immigrants, even Native Americans.

---

If illegal immigrants aren't protected by our legal system, no one is.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

Sam,

Please understand the position you are taking. Kilmar Garcia I believe was before the immigration courts in 2019 and was accused of being associated with the MS-13 gang. The court did not dispute that he was with the gang, but refused to deport him at that time because they thought he might be killed if sent back to El Salvador at that time. He was married to an American citizen but he was not and is not an American citizen. So I believe it is still in question whether he was associated with that gang or not.

But I will grant that he was placed on the plane where other gang members were flown out of the United States by mistake. And while I realize we have to abide by the court decisions in this country, I'm certain the Trump Administration is not conceding the fight on any of these deportation cases until all appeals are exhausted.

And I would make this case. The Biden Administration allowed in between 15,000,000-20,000,000 illegals during his four years in office. Practically none of them were vetted by law enforcement; they were just released into the country or crossed somewhere in between the ports of entry. Many of them were either gang members or had criminal records in their country of origin. Some were even on the terrorist watch list. The number could be in the hundreds of thousands or even millions that are here and willing to steal, assault, rape and yes murder our Legal Citizens.

So President Trump is elected on one of his promises to remove the illegals beginning with the gang members and hardened criminals that ICE identifies. He uses the old law that gives him the fastest and cheapest method to remove criminals who broke into our country. The ACLU and the left challenges his actions in court. Each side wins some parts of cases and loses some. Now, after this deportation case that was in Judge Boasberg's court was assigned to the Texas courts, who have evidently ruled that each person on that plane can now make the government prove that they are actually gang members who deserve to be deported. Am I close to correct so far?

My question to the Supreme Court and anyone else is by what reasoning do illegals who break into our country get the same constitutional rights as LEGAL AMERICAN CITIZENS? Think about the time and taxpayer money that it will take to go through this procedure to remove 15,000,000 illegal lawbreakers who should never have been allowed into the U.S. in the first place.

And all because the left hates President Trump and everything he stands for. Surely Sam you cannot be for these criminals staying in this country can you? If there are so many to remove, why should we as taxpayers not want it to be as quick and as cheap as possible? Will there be a few mistakes? Yes there will be. But you know as far as I am concerned, everyone who crossed our border and broke in illegally, disrespected all of us, and all of those good folks who went through the legal process to become an American citizen. In my opinion they deserve no constitutional rights; all they deserve is a free plane ride out of our country back to their country of origin.

To force all of this through the courts before any action can be taken is ridiculous. And Sam that prevents President Trump from fulfilling his promise to the people, which of course is the left's intent. After all about 75% of the public wants all of the illegals removed from the country, including many democrats.

---

What is the basic principle underlying the Bill of Rights? The state is more dangerous to you than the criminal (including the immigrant).

Why do criminals have the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure? Why do they have the right not to incriminate themselves? Why does the state have to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? Is it because we want dangerous criminals to go free?

No. It's because we don't want the state abusing its power. That's why illegal immigrants have many of the same rights as American citizens. Not to protect them. To protect you.

Trump wants to send American citizens to foreign prison camps too. He would have you believe the court system is broken, so you have to give him all the power. Don't believe it. The courts aren't perfect, but they are capable of doing their job.

---

As we have seen in recent weeks, your post is waaay off base. Illegal aliens should be deported immediately, no court date. They are just that, ILLEGAL. And nearly all the folk recently deported to El Salvador are members of 'terrorist organizations', legally defined groups, including the MS 13 fella. They should also be deported ASAP, not held in jails were they train the legal US citizens how to become terrorists. No in American jails where liberal judges can put them back in society at the drop of a hat. Unless we correct this, we will be paying millions to billions of dollars in legal fees due to your mindset.

---

As the high court recently reminded us, that is incorrect. You need hearings to determine who's illegal and who's a terrorist in the first place. Otherwise you're assuming that which is to be proved, a basic logical error.

---

Illegal is illegal. Terrorists are terrorists. Keeping them here simply means waiting until a liberal judge put them back in society. At that point, anyone that share that train of thought also shares in the murders and rapes and robberies that they commit. And keep them here longer, means them training the next generations of home grown terrorists while they are in prison

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

Sam,

Please understand the position you are taking. Kilmar Garcia I believe was before the immigration courts in 2019 and was accused of being associated with the MS-13 gang. The court did not dispute that he was with the gang, but refused to deport him at that time because they thought he might be killed if sent back to El Salvador at that time. He was married to an American citizen but he was not and is not an American citizen. So I believe it is still in question whether he was associated with that gang or not.

But I will grant that he was placed on the plane where other gang members were flown out of the United States by mistake. And while I realize we have to abide by the court decisions in this country, I'm certain the Trump Administration is not conceding the fight on any of these deportation cases until all appeals are exhausted.

And I would make this case. The Biden Administration allowed in between 15,000,000-20,000,000 illegals during his four years in office. Practically none of them were vetted by law enforcement; they were just released into the country or crossed somewhere in between the ports of entry. Many of them were either gang members or had criminal records in their country of origin. Some were even on the terrorist watch list. The number could be in the hundreds of thousands or even millions that are here and willing to steal, assault, rape and yes murder our Legal Citizens.

So President Trump is elected on one of his promises to remove the illegals beginning with the gang members and hardened criminals that ICE identifies. He uses the old law that gives him the fastest and cheapest method to remove criminals who broke into our country. The ACLU and the left challenges his actions in court. Each side wins some parts of cases and loses some. Now, after this deportation case that was in Judge Boasberg's court was assigned to the Texas courts, who have evidently ruled that each person on that plane can now make the government prove that they are actually gang members who deserve to be deported. Am I close to correct so far?

My question to the Supreme Court and anyone else is by what reasoning do illegals who break into our country get the same constitutional rights as LEGAL AMERICAN CITIZENS? Think about the time and taxpayer money that it will take to go through this procedure to remove 15,000,000 illegal lawbreakers who should never have been allowed into the U.S. in the first place.

And all because the left hates President Trump and everything he stands for. Surely Sam you cannot be for these criminals staying in this country can you? If there are so many to remove, why should we as taxpayers not want it to be as quick and as cheap as possible? Will there be a few mistakes? Yes there will be. But you know as far as I am concerned, everyone who crossed our border and broke in illegally, disrespected all of us, and all of those good folks who went through the legal process to become an American citizen. In my opinion they deserve no constitutional rights; all they deserve is a free plane ride out of our country back to their country of origin.

To force all of this through the courts before any action can be taken is ridiculous. And Sam that prevents President Trump from fulfilling his promise to the people, which of course is the left's intent. After all about 75% of the public wants all of the illegals removed from the country, including many democrats.

---

What is the basic principle underlying the Bill of Rights? The state is more dangerous to you than the criminal (including the immigrant).

Why do criminals have the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure? Why do they have the right not to incriminate themselves? Why does the state have to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? Is it because we want dangerous criminals to go free?

No. It's because we don't want the state abusing its power. That's why illegal immigrants have many of the same rights as American citizens. Not to protect them. To protect you.

Trump wants to send American citizens to foreign prison camps too. He would have you believe the court system is broken, so you have to give him all the power. Don't believe it. The courts aren't perfect, but they are capable of doing their job.

---

As we have seen in recent weeks, your post is waaay off base. Illegal aliens should be deported immediately, no court date. They are just that, ILLEGAL. And nearly all the folk recently deported to El Salvador are members of 'terrorist organizations', legally defined groups, including the MS 13 fella. They should also be deported ASAP, not held in jails were they train the legal US citizens how to become terrorists. No in American jails where liberal judges can put them back in society at the drop of a hat. Unless we correct this, we will be paying millions to billions of dollars in legal fees due to your mindset.

---

As the high court recently reminded us, that is incorrect. You need hearings to determine who's illegal and who's a terrorist in the first place. Otherwise you're assuming that which is to be proved, a basic logical error.

---

Illegal is illegal. Terrorists are terrorists.

---

And blind faith is blind faith, which is what you have in government if you simply take their word without proof.

I thought it was the leftists who loved big government.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

Sam,

Please understand the position you are taking. Kilmar Garcia I believe was before the immigration courts in 2019 and was accused of being associated with the MS-13 gang. The court did not dispute that he was with the gang, but refused to deport him at that time because they thought he might be killed if sent back to El Salvador at that time. He was married to an American citizen but he was not and is not an American citizen. So I believe it is still in question whether he was associated with that gang or not.

But I will grant that he was placed on the plane where other gang members were flown out of the United States by mistake. And while I realize we have to abide by the court decisions in this country, I'm certain the Trump Administration is not conceding the fight on any of these deportation cases until all appeals are exhausted.

And I would make this case. The Biden Administration allowed in between 15,000,000-20,000,000 illegals during his four years in office. Practically none of them were vetted by law enforcement; they were just released into the country or crossed somewhere in between the ports of entry. Many of them were either gang members or had criminal records in their country of origin. Some were even on the terrorist watch list. The number could be in the hundreds of thousands or even millions that are here and willing to steal, assault, rape and yes murder our Legal Citizens.

So President Trump is elected on one of his promises to remove the illegals beginning with the gang members and hardened criminals that ICE identifies. He uses the old law that gives him the fastest and cheapest method to remove criminals who broke into our country. The ACLU and the left challenges his actions in court. Each side wins some parts of cases and loses some. Now, after this deportation case that was in Judge Boasberg's court was assigned to the Texas courts, who have evidently ruled that each person on that plane can now make the government prove that they are actually gang members who deserve to be deported. Am I close to correct so far?

My question to the Supreme Court and anyone else is by what reasoning do illegals who break into our country get the same constitutional rights as LEGAL AMERICAN CITIZENS? Think about the time and taxpayer money that it will take to go through this procedure to remove 15,000,000 illegal lawbreakers who should never have been allowed into the U.S. in the first place.

And all because the left hates President Trump and everything he stands for. Surely Sam you cannot be for these criminals staying in this country can you? If there are so many to remove, why should we as taxpayers not want it to be as quick and as cheap as possible? Will there be a few mistakes? Yes there will be. But you know as far as I am concerned, everyone who crossed our border and broke in illegally, disrespected all of us, and all of those good folks who went through the legal process to become an American citizen. In my opinion they deserve no constitutional rights; all they deserve is a free plane ride out of our country back to their country of origin.

To force all of this through the courts before any action can be taken is ridiculous. And Sam that prevents President Trump from fulfilling his promise to the people, which of course is the left's intent. After all about 75% of the public wants all of the illegals removed from the country, including many democrats.

---

What is the basic principle underlying the Bill of Rights? The state is more dangerous to you than the criminal (including the immigrant).

Why do criminals have the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure? Why do they have the right not to incriminate themselves? Why does the state have to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? Is it because we want dangerous criminals to go free?

No. It's because we don't want the state abusing its power. That's why illegal immigrants have many of the same rights as American citizens. Not to protect them. To protect you.

Trump wants to send American citizens to foreign prison camps too. He would have you believe the court system is broken, so you have to give him all the power. Don't believe it. The courts aren't perfect, but they are capable of doing their job.

---

As we have seen in recent weeks, your post is waaay off base. Illegal aliens should be deported immediately, no court date. They are just that, ILLEGAL. And nearly all the folk recently deported to El Salvador are members of 'terrorist organizations', legally defined groups, including the MS 13 fella. They should also be deported ASAP, not held in jails were they train the legal US citizens how to become terrorists. No in American jails where liberal judges can put them back in society at the drop of a hat. Unless we correct this, we will be paying millions to billions of dollars in legal fees due to your mindset.

---

As the high court recently reminded us, that is incorrect. You need hearings to determine who's illegal and who's a terrorist in the first place. Otherwise you're assuming that which is to be proved, a basic logical error.

---

Illegal is illegal. Terrorists are terrorists.

---

And blind faith is blind faith, which is what you have in government if you simply take their word without proof.

I thought it was the leftists who loved big government.

---

You left off the rest of the post;

Quote:

---

Keeping them here simply means waiting until a liberal judge put them back in society. At that point, anyone that share that train of thought also shares in the murders and rapes and robberies that they commit. And keep them here longer, means them training the next generations of home grown terrorists while they are in prison

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

Sam,

Please understand the position you are taking. Kilmar Garcia I believe was before the immigration courts in 2019 and was accused of being associated with the MS-13 gang. The court did not dispute that he was with the gang, but refused to deport him at that time because they thought he might be killed if sent back to El Salvador at that time. He was married to an American citizen but he was not and is not an American citizen. So I believe it is still in question whether he was associated with that gang or not.

But I will grant that he was placed on the plane where other gang members were flown out of the United States by mistake. And while I realize we have to abide by the court decisions in this country, I'm certain the Trump Administration is not conceding the fight on any of these deportation cases until all appeals are exhausted.

And I would make this case. The Biden Administration allowed in between 15,000,000-20,000,000 illegals during his four years in office. Practically none of them were vetted by law enforcement; they were just released into the country or crossed somewhere in between the ports of entry. Many of them were either gang members or had criminal records in their country of origin. Some were even on the terrorist watch list. The number could be in the hundreds of thousands or even millions that are here and willing to steal, assault, rape and yes murder our Legal Citizens.

So President Trump is elected on one of his promises to remove the illegals beginning with the gang members and hardened criminals that ICE identifies. He uses the old law that gives him the fastest and cheapest method to remove criminals who broke into our country. The ACLU and the left challenges his actions in court. Each side wins some parts of cases and loses some. Now, after this deportation case that was in Judge Boasberg's court was assigned to the Texas courts, who have evidently ruled that each person on that plane can now make the government prove that they are actually gang members who deserve to be deported. Am I close to correct so far?

My question to the Supreme Court and anyone else is by what reasoning do illegals who break into our country get the same constitutional rights as LEGAL AMERICAN CITIZENS? Think about the time and taxpayer money that it will take to go through this procedure to remove 15,000,000 illegal lawbreakers who should never have been allowed into the U.S. in the first place.

And all because the left hates President Trump and everything he stands for. Surely Sam you cannot be for these criminals staying in this country can you? If there are so many to remove, why should we as taxpayers not want it to be as quick and as cheap as possible? Will there be a few mistakes? Yes there will be. But you know as far as I am concerned, everyone who crossed our border and broke in illegally, disrespected all of us, and all of those good folks who went through the legal process to become an American citizen. In my opinion they deserve no constitutional rights; all they deserve is a free plane ride out of our country back to their country of origin.

To force all of this through the courts before any action can be taken is ridiculous. And Sam that prevents President Trump from fulfilling his promise to the people, which of course is the left's intent. After all about 75% of the public wants all of the illegals removed from the country, including many democrats.

---

What is the basic principle underlying the Bill of Rights? The state is more dangerous to you than the criminal (including the immigrant).

Why do criminals have the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure? Why do they have the right not to incriminate themselves? Why does the state have to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? Is it because we want dangerous criminals to go free?

No. It's because we don't want the state abusing its power. That's why illegal immigrants have many of the same rights as American citizens. Not to protect them. To protect you.

Trump wants to send American citizens to foreign prison camps too. He would have you believe the court system is broken, so you have to give him all the power. Don't believe it. The courts aren't perfect, but they are capable of doing their job.

---

As we have seen in recent weeks, your post is waaay off base. Illegal aliens should be deported immediately, no court date. They are just that, ILLEGAL. And nearly all the folk recently deported to El Salvador are members of 'terrorist organizations', legally defined groups, including the MS 13 fella. They should also be deported ASAP, not held in jails were they train the legal US citizens how to become terrorists. No in American jails where liberal judges can put them back in society at the drop of a hat. Unless we correct this, we will be paying millions to billions of dollars in legal fees due to your mindset.

---

As the high court recently reminded us, that is incorrect. You need hearings to determine who's illegal and who's a terrorist in the first place. Otherwise you're assuming that which is to be proved, a basic logical error.

---

Illegal is illegal. Terrorists are terrorists.

---

And blind faith is blind faith, which is what you have in government if you simply take their word without proof.

I thought it was the leftists who loved big government.

---

You left off the rest of the post;

Quote:

---

Keeping them here simply means waiting until a liberal judge put them back in society. At that point, anyone that share that train of thought also shares in the murders and rapes and robberies that they commit. And keep them here longer, means them training the next generations of home grown terrorists while they are in prison

---

---

It's just another example of the illogic and hysteria that Trump has propagated. No one is saying that dangerous criminals should be let loose in society. There are legitimate, legal ways to deport people who need to be deported. But again, without due process YOU DON'T KNOW who's a violent criminal and who isn't.

Under your logic, why even have a legal path to citizenship? You appear to be saying that by whatever illegal means someone gains entry into our country, they are automatically afforded privileges and rights which forces taxpayers to spend massive amounts of money on their subsistence while they are here, money to hunt those down with criminal records, and then pay for the legal proceedings before we remove them. I disagree. As this sets the terrible example that the lawbreakers have more rights than legal, law abiding citizens. This runs contrary to everything we stand for.