Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> I'm aware an immigration judge in 2019 withheld his removal and there was an unreliable witnesses claiming they heard him say he had connections, but that was in NY, not Maryland where Abrego Garcia lives.

Most of that is false, and you should look at what media you've confused that has given you that false impression. In 2019, an immigration judge determined that Garcia was deportable because of his ties to MS-13 and issued a deportation order: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A949/354843/2025.... The relevant orders of the immigration judge and Board of Immigration Appeals are at appendix pages 1a-18a. The most relevant portion is 4a through 5a, where the Board of Immigration appeals affirms the immigration judge's determination that Garcia "is a verified member of MS-13."

> I'm also aware the Trump administration admitted they made a mistake in deporting him.

Incorrect. It is undisputed that, in 2019, the immigration judge issued a removal order. The only caveat was that Garcia could not be removed to El Salvador, his home country. From appendix page 46a (Garcia's brief in the current district court proceedings):

> Plaintiff Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia ("Mr. Abrego Garcia") won an order from an immigration judge ("IJ") prohibiting his removal to El Salvador, after he established it was more likely than not that he would be persecuted in that country on account of a statutorily protected ground. The government could have chosen to appeal that order, but did not. The government could have chosen to remove Mr. Abrego Garcia to any other country on earth, but did not.

"The ‘evidence’ against Abrego Garcia consisted of nothing more than his Chicago Bulls hat and hoodie,” she wrote, “and a vague, uncorroborated allegation from a confidential informant claiming he belonged to MS-13’s ‘Western’ clique in New York — a place he has never lived.” - Judge Xinis

“The United States government has no legal authority to snatch a person who is lawfully present in the United States off the street and remove him from the country without due process,” wrote Judge Stephanie D. Thacker, who was appointed by Mr. Obama. “The government’s contention otherwise, and its argument that the federal courts are powerless to intervene, are unconscionable.”

It doesn’t matter what anyone thinks of the immigration judge’s determination that Garcia was a member of MS13, because that determination was affirmed by the BIA and Garcia did not appeal. Garcia’s lawyers concede that Garcia is an illegal immigrant and the government could have deported him anywhere except El Salvador: “The government could have chosen to remove Mr. Abrego Garcia to any other country on earth…”

Then why did you begin with him being deportable due to association with MS13 in your first comment?

Because he is a partisan. I’ve literally never once seen this account argue a single political point in good faith.

We live in interesting times, and no one can predict almost anything about the future. But we can all take comfort in the fact that no matter what cruel, ridiculous, destructive policy Trump is pursuing in six months, some will be right here debasing themselves with a full-throated defense of it.

You said the Garcia situation as a big deal, and I said it was not because he was properly deported for being associated with MS13. The mistake by the administration was only with respect to where he was deported.

The immigration judge’s decision that he was deportable for being associated with MS13 isn’t up for debate at this point. But it’s highly relevant to show the deportation was proper.

I quoted two judges who ruled otherwise in the past couple days.

The judges didn’t rule otherwise. They had no reason to do so, because Garcia’s filing in the district court conceded he was deportable. “The government could have chosen to remove Mr. Abrego Garcia to any other country on earth.”

Note: it looks like you’re quoting from news articles describing the judicial decisions, instead of reading the decisions themselves. That’s like quoting from news articles about software code. They’re not reliable sources.

> Most of that is false

What is false specifically? The fact that an immigration judge determined Garcia was deportable does not contradict the fact that the same order was withheld later on, much as you try to imply it.

>> the Trump administration admitted they made a mistake in deporting him.

> Incorrect.

Actually you are incorrect, quoting from [0]: "the Government conceded during the district court hearing, “The facts -- we concede the facts. This person should -- the plaintiff, Abrego Garcia, should not have been removed. That is not in dispute.”"

[0] https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25881148/ca4-ag.pdf

“Withheld” has a specific meaning in this context. As explained in the subsequent order (appendix page 11a of the material I linked above: “Withholding of removal, in contrast to asylum, confers only the right not to be deported to a particular country rather than the right to remain in the U.S.”

Garcia was deportable. He was only not deportable to El Salvador.

First of all, thank you for conceding my second point, that you were mistaken when you said "Incorrect."

> “Withheld” has a specific meaning in this context

okay, but the person you replied to didn't say "Garcia could not be deported to Switzerland, because the judge withheld the order." He just said the judge withheld the order, which is correct. And then you responded and said it was wrong.

Actually, no one is talking about the legal basis for deporting Garcia to Switzerland or Djibouti, except you, because he wasn't deported to Switzerland or Djibouti but to El Salvador.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com