#47 Celebration Thread

[hector]

But again, what can SCOTUS do besides what they have done? The only way there would be a constitutional crisis is if SCOTUS orders Trump to declare war or otherwise impinge El Salvador's sovereignty. Given that the 9 justices were in agreement that "effectuate" does not and cannot include such measures, I don't see how a constitutional crisis as being necessary or constructive.

Nah.

Simple...POTUS is declaring executive supremacy in matters of foreign affairs. This framing cedes the jurisdictional argument. SCOTUS simply states it is not a foreign affair. The transgression occurred by the Federal government against a legal US resident on US soil. Therefore, the jurisdiction is domestic and executive supremacy does not apply. It is fucking retarded that anyone would believe the Constitution would support the Executive Branch circumventing the Constitution in this manner. To paraphrase your favorite: It is an argument that refutes itself.

I’m really not trying to be argumentative but I don’t understand what this changes. Say SCOTUS declares as you propose. Bukele says “You still can’t have him, and we will not let the plane land if you try.”

Then what?

Then at least Trump would have asked.
Trump could send a diplomat to make the case.
Could take out a full page ad in the their biggest newspaper.

There is nothing legally preventing Trump from trying to make things right. This is the obviously right thing to do, for so many reasons.

But, at the end of the day, laws are just words and this is what America voted for. Easy to imagine there will be no more accountability than when Obama murdered Americans with no due process.

[AdamSkillin]

Simple...POTUS is declaring executive supremacy in matters of foreign affairs. This framing cedes the jurisdictional argument. SCOTUS simply states it is not a foreign affair. The transgression occurred by the Federal government against a legal US resident on US soil. Therefore, the jurisdiction is domestic and executive supremacy does not apply. It is fucking retarded that anyone would believe the Constitution would support the Executive Branch circumventing the Constitution in this manner. To paraphrase your favorite: It is an argument that refutes itself.

I’m really not trying to be argumentative but I don’t understand what this changes. Say SCOTUS declares as you propose. Bukele says “You still can’t have him, and we will not let the plane land if you try.”

Then what?
[/quote]

The big question is the terms of the alleged contract between El Salvador and the U.S. If we can't get them back, then the administration is in blatant violation of several basic constitutional tenets and we have to figure out the appropriate mechanism for holding them accountable and putting a stop to it. If we could get them back under the terms of that alleged contract, but the administration refuses to despite the court orders, then we have a different set of gross violations of constitutional tenets to contend with.

But it can't be 2 mutually exclusive situations, just from a basic logic perspective. We can't both be in control of these people and just outsourcing their imprisonment (under some specious argument about the constitutionality of doing so) but also have no control over their fates. And the administration has contradicted itself repeatedly about which thing we're dealing with and obfuscated and impeded any attempt to understand the actual facts about it. And the courts have to stop it or take us down whatever road we go down if they try and fail.

[JonA]

The transgression occurred by the Federal government against a legal US resident on US soil. Therefore, the jurisdiction is domestic and executive supremacy does not apply.

I don't think that's actually the case here. There was no transgression while he was on US soil and he was not a legal resident. He had a standing order for removal that had followed all required due process, including an appeal that withheld removal , but only to El Salvador. If they had dropped him off in Guatemala on the way, they would have been in compliance with that order.

Unless there is some sort of "conspiracy to avoid complying with a immigration order" law, they didn't violate the order to withhold removal until he was actually in El Salvador, which I think is why the SC cedes the jurisdiction to the Administration.

[aurelius]

Then what?

I explained. It would be an Empower has no clothes moment. That would change the current game. Who knows what happens then.

And it is fucking El Salvador. The US just has to ask nicely. Give me a break.

[aurelius]

Unless there is some sort of "conspiracy to avoid complying with a immigration order" law, they didn't violate the order to withhold removal until he was actually in El Salvador, which I think is why the SC cedes the jurisdiction to the Administration.

didn't drop him in Guatemala. We can also discuss if they took him to Disney World if we are discussing things that didn't happen. I'd like to imagine he enjoyed the Pirates of the Caribbean ride.

[Allentown]

I believe him on this particular case, yes

That's wild. I really can't wrap my mind around that.

Nah, it's the Supreme Court who is wrong.

[mikeylikey]

They skipped the process part. You keep insisting that it's the same thing when it's decidedly not.

- In a five-month period in FY 2022 alone, almost one third of immigration court cases initiated by the Biden administration–more than 80,000 in all–were against children, over 30,000 of whom were under the age of 5.
- By the government’s own account, 44% of unaccompanied children and 51% of families on the Dedicated Docket lack legal representation.
- Immigration courts under the Biden administration ordered more than 13,000 unaccompanied children removed in absentia between Fiscal Years 2022 and 2023.

https://law.ucla.edu/news/no-fair-day-d ... ion-courts

And that's just (an example of) the kind of shit that flies ABOVE the radar when they do everything by the book and nobody makes an "administrative error."

Children bro. On a scale of 1 to 10 of Due Process, an in-absentia deportation order for an unrepresented 5 year old is a zero. This is a tragedy and the second biggest moral stain on this country save for slavery.

Garcia had "Due Process" too. He had multiple hearings in 2019 where he was in fact adjudicated to be a member of MS13* (to the low standard of proof required in immigration proceedings) and found to be deportable but not, at that time, specifically to El Salvador. His deportation last month probably would have been un-challengeable had the administration simply dotted their J's. As evidenced by the fact that they have disappeared hundreds of other people to the same prison on the same planes with the same accelerated schedule without legal challenge.

Is what happened to Garcia illegal, yes it seems so. But you should be as, if not more, bothered by just how close it is to being perfectly legal.

*For those of you just tuning in, I do not believe unsubstantiated allegations from dubious informants should be grounds to deport a person, just pointing out how low the legal threshold actually is. Things one would be aware of if one cared about the plight of undocumented people in this country before the Clown Racist got elected.

[JonA]

We can also discuss if they took him to Disney World if we are discussing things that didn't happen. I'd like to imagine he enjoyed the Pirates of the Caribbean ride.

You are correct. Guatemala, "transgression on US soil", "legal resident", Disney World, and Pirates of the Caribbean are all things that didn't happen.

Look, I think everyone here agrees that the moral thing to do here is to bring him back. But a court that issues orders that exceeds it's authority is acting just as lawless as a President that issues orders that exceeds his own authority. So the Supreme Court is struggling to navigate a moral path that doesn't result in blowing up our entire framework of checks and balances in government.

The President is already acting in bad faith. The solution is not for the other branches to devolve as well. Congress in particular has had plenty of opportunities in the past 10-20 years to legislate guardrails for immigration, and in particular for asylum seekers. ( Garcia was denied asylum, but only because of the statutory time limit had passed, which put him on the ill defined "removal withheld" path) But instead they have punted on the issue over and over.

[mikeylikey]

Then what?

I explained. It would be an Empower has no clothes moment. That would change the current game. Who knows what happens then.

I would prefer the civil war be over something where they've got him dead to rights, instead of creating a crisis just to have the crisis.

And it is fucking El Salvador. The US just has to ask nicely. Give me a break.

The government introducing Bukele's remarks yesterday into the record was a bit of an own-goal, in that, if Bukele is under the impression he would have to "smuggle" Garcia into the USA, the Trump administration can't actually have taken any meaningful steps to "remove domestic obstacles" to his return.

Probably wishful thinking to hope it would matter.

The President is already acting in bad faith. The solution is not for the other branches to devolve as well.

This^. If anything, we need the courts to be PERFECT right now because congress is obviously not going to do their job at least till things get a lot worse. The Xinis order on April 4 was unfortunately not perfect. SCOTUS had to correct that error and that cost everybody. This is why in my view Sotomayor's non-dissent signing statement was so damaging to her own cause.

[aurelius]

You are correct. Guatemala, "transgression on US soil", "legal resident", Disney World, and Pirates of the Caribbean are all things that didn't happen.

Meh. The Court has ruled that the man was deported illegally, the government already admitted to 'administrative errors', so the veneer of legality you attempt to paint over it is just a poor attempt at spin. No one is arguing the deportation is legal.

Look, I think everyone here agrees that the moral LEGAL thing to do here is to bring him back. But a court that issues orders that exceeds it's authority is acting just as lawless as a President that issues orders that exceeds his own authority. So the Supreme Court is struggling to navigate a moral LEGAL path that doesn't result in blowing up our entire framework of checks and balances in government.

Meh. You create a reality in which the Executive Branch can legally ignore the entire Bill of Rights as long as it transports an individual to a foreign country before the Courts can act. DO NOT PASS GO. DO NOT COLLECT $200.

And Trump is blowing up the checks and balances by WILLFULLY IGNORING COURT ORDERS.

The President is already acting in bad faith.

And illegally.

[AdamSkillin]

a court that issues orders that exceeds it's authority is acting just as lawless as a President that issues orders that exceeds his own authority. So the Supreme Court is struggling to navigate a moral path that doesn't result in blowing up our entire framework of checks and balances in government.

If we sent the guy to a for-profit concentration camp under a financial agreement with El Salvador, then there is plenty of authority for the court to demand we effectuate his return under the terms of that contract. Full stop.

If we did it without an agreement that governs his return and the courts can't make the administration undo that illegal act, then we're living under a full authoritarian regime and you or I can be disappeared off the street as long as they get you in the helicopter and shoot you in the head over the ocean quickly and nobody can do anything about it. Full stop.

[aurelius]

I would prefer the civil war be over something where they've got him dead to rights, instead of creating a crisis just to have the crisis.

While you wait for your 'perfect' moment, the Executive Branch has just effectively asserted it can violate the Bill of Rights as long as it transports the individual to a foreign country before the Courts can act. This is WITH the context of POTUS stating he would do it to US citizens. I don't know what people need to have happen to understand we are witnessing our civil liberties disappear right in front of us.

This^. If anything, we need the courts to be PERFECT right now because congress is obviously not going to do their job at least till things get a lot worse. The Xinis order on April 4 was unfortunately not perfect. SCOTUS had to correct that error and that cost everybody. This is why in my view Sotomayor's non-dissent signing statement was so damaging to her own cause.

I hope that you are right. That a slow acting, deliberate SCOTUS will turn the tide. I'm very doubtful.

[mikeylikey]

If we sent the guy to a for-profit concentration camp under a financial agreement with El Salvador, then there is plenty of authority for the court to demand we effectuate his return under the terms of that contract. Full stop.

Do you mind posting a link to the text of the agreement? I can't seem to find it.

[AdamSkillin]

Do you mind posting a link to the text of the agreement? I can't seem to find it.

I think I mentioned above that they're stonewalling Judge Xinis and refusing to provide it even to the court (claiming "privilege" of which variety I don't believe has yet been fully litigated as yet - next hearing is today at 4:00 EDT and that could be one of the contentious matters the court deals with).

The agreement details we "know" are only based on what's been posted on social media or said on Fox News. Apparently we're paying Bukele $6 million to use his for-profit concentration camp. Apparently the contract is only to hold these people for 1 year. Maybe none of that's true and Bukele's regime is actually purchasing these people as chattel property from the current guy in direct violation of the 13th amendment.

As I said in the post you quoted, either there is such an agreement or there isn't. Administration certainly should not (and I predict cautiously will not) be allowed by the courts to have it both ways.

The issue is that if the administration can extralegally abduct a person on US soil and transport them off US soil and then claim powerlessness to undo it, citizenship status (or any other legal status) creates no barrier and lawyers and educators and opposing politicians are next. That they've already mused about 5 more concentration camps for the "home growns" should chill the hell out of you. I will once again invoke my Jewish heritage here. This case is the big one.

Let's say, for instance, he sent someone to a for-profit prison on US soil. Maybe with charges, maybe without. If the court orders that person released, then he can't say "Well, GEO group has control over him now, nothing we can do about it." That would make the contract with the prison company illegal and in violation of civil rights. This is the same exact situation. If we've contracted with a private prison to hold inmates and the court orders them released, you can't just throw up your hands and say the private prison has sovereignty. That's human trafficking. That's chattel property shit. It's not constitutional and it opens the door to unbridled police state fascism.

https://joycevance.substack.com/p/the-s ... adly-wrong

[JonA]

If we sent the guy to a for-profit concentration camp under a financial agreement with El Salvador, then there is plenty of authority for the court to demand we effectuate his return under the terms of that contract. Full stop.

How broadly do you apply this principal? Does this apply to just Garcia, All deportees in the El Salvador prison? All deportees during Trump administration? All deportees, period?

As far as I understand it, every deportee is subject to an agreement between the US and the country that accepts the deportee. Does the court have authority to order any deportee back into the country due to this pre-existing agreement?

What about that "Stay In Mexico" agreement that Trump cooked up with Mexico to keep asylum seekers in Mexico while their case is pending. Could they be ordered into the US by the courts? They would have an existing immigration case pending in the US courts, surely the court would have jurisdiction there as well?

ETA: Or in the case of US citizens, did the courts have authority to order the Biden administration to effectuate the release of Brittney Griner back into the US? What about the US hostages being held by Hamas?

[AdamSkillin]

If we sent the guy to a for-profit concentration camp under a financial agreement with El Salvador, then there is plenty of authority for the court to demand we effectuate his return under the terms of that contract. Full stop.

How broadly do you apply this principal? Does this apply to just Garcia, All deportees in the El Salvador prison? All deportees during Trump administration? All deportees, period?

As far as I understand it, every deportee is subject to an agreement between the US and the country that accepts the deportee. Does the court have authority to order any deportee back into the country due to this pre-existing agreement?

What about that "Stay In Mexico" agreement that Trump cooked up with Mexico to keep asylum seekers in Mexico while their case is pending. Could they be ordered into the US by the courts? They would have an existing immigration case pending in the US courts, surely the court would have jurisdiction there as well?

To my understanding, the Remain in Mexico policy had to do with people who were apprehended at the border, not people who had lived and worked in Maryland legally for multiple years. That said if either the Remain in Mexico thing or an individual or group of deportations were challenged and deemed unconstitutional by a court with the jurisdiction to make such pronouncements, then they're unconstitutional. Do you also not see an agreement to pay another country to house people in a foreign concentration camp as being distinct from deportations? Are you suggesting we revisit Marbury vs. Madison?

https://snyder.substack.com/p/state-terror

A simple way to escape from law is to move people bodily into a physical zone of exception in which the law (it is claimed) does not apply. Other methods take more time. It is possible to pass laws that deprive people of their rights in their own country. It is possible to carve out spaces on one's own territory where the law does not function. These spaces are concentration camps. In the end, authorities can choose, as in Nazi Germany, to physically remove their citizens into zones beyond their own countries in which they can simply declare that the law does not matter.

This exploitation of purported stateless zones was the main line of the history of the Holocaust. Under Hitler, the Germans did have concentration camps on their own territory, and they did reduce Jews to second-class citizenship, and they did live under a permanent state of exception. But, in the main, the mass murder of German Jews was achieved by their abduction and forced rendition to sites beyond prewar German territory where, German authorities claimed, there was no law.

[5hout]

This is fantastic episode on the current stuff. A bit of the classic libertarian trap (which I fall into many times) of "I want to cut a bunch of government, except for [all the functions of government]", but really interesting hear from a Forest Service guy on a lot of this stuff. I think Pinchot's dream of a decentralized Forest Service, each chunk of land managed by an expert in that piece of land to balance various concerns and preserve that piece of land (while harvesting lumber), is pretty well dead going forward regardless of party in charge.

[mikeylikey]

The agreement details we "know" are only based on what's been posted on social media or said on Fox News.

I see. The agreement has held a pretty preeminent place in your arguments. I was kinda hoping you had more than Facebook and Fox News to go on.

[AdamSkillin]

The agreement details we "know" are only based on what's been posted on social media or said on Fox News.

I see. The agreement has held a pretty preeminent place in your arguments. I was kinda hoping you had more than Facebook and Fox News to go on.

I think I've said pretty clearly that either they're lying about the agreement (which they refuse to even show to the court) or they're not and either case is a constitutional violation. That they're trying to play games with it is kind of the point.

[mgil]

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/14/us/p ... trump.html

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

https://counciloncj.org/crime-trends-in ... 24-update/
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads ... in-the-us/

A lot of the current issues are pinned on this idea that we need to get rid of illegal peeps because of crime. There seems to be little to no evidence that crime is terrible (comparatively) and still seems to be relatively low. Especially in comparison to the early 1990s.