Hacker News Reader

Comment by bcrosby95 | Hacker News Reader

It doesn't matter if they're citizens or not if the government is skipping court thus not being required to prove it either way. Then when they oopsie you to another country they have to at least try to pretend to get you back but the courts need to show "deference owed to the executive branch in the conduct of foreign affairs".

Which is a long way of saying the executive can blackhole anyone it wants to a foreign country and no one is going to do anything because god forbid we step on the executive's role to give up people in our country to other countries.

View on HN

>Which is a long way of saying the executive can blackhole anyone it wants

Do you have examples of the executive doing this to citizens or are you being hypothetical here?

Countries generally grant far fewer rights to non-citizens. Have you considered how allowing non-citizens to spread discontent within a country could be abused?

Here's the executive branch getting ordered by SCOTUS to bring someone back for doing just that: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c62gnzzeg34o

The executive branch is merely going to ignore everything and then apply pardon powers to any sort of actual enforcement by the judiciary branch.

But how can this judiciary enforce anything, or the legislative for that matter?

You are believing the trash talk and allowing it to intimidate you. You are helping them by spreading it and legitimizing it.

The executive branch is obeying the courts, with some pushback.

Is it an issue that the Executive is trash talking "they aren't going to obey the courts" ? You think that should be ignored?

Parent poster is not saying it should be ignored, parent poster is saying that people should not give-up and repeat “courts can be ignore”.

Because if enough people chant that, then it will become a real possibility.

"You are believing the trash talk and allowing it to intimidate you. You are helping them by spreading it and legitimizing it."

I take this as "Just ignore the rhetoric and threats from Republicans because they are empty and you're helping them spread the hate which gets more them support"

>Because if enough people chant that, then it will become a real possibility.

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you provide an example?

> "Just ignore the rhetoric and threats from Republicans

No, you need to stop them. You need a plan for victory. Testifying that they have unstoppable power is an indulgence in cowardice. At halfime, do athletes say 'we can't possibly stop them!' It's just someone acting out their fears.

>Testifying that they have unstoppable power

Who is doing that?

The only way to stop them is to vote.

Politics is every day, not once every 2 or 4 years. Also, what happens on those election days depends on what you do every other day.

Or are you dismissing overt signalling of fascism as "just owning the libs"? Are you just cherry picking communication you feel safe about and ignoring the huge glaring signs being flashed by dozens of appointees? Are you pretending Obama and bush established legal precedents for classifying citizens as enemy combatants for rendition, denial of due process, and murder by drone without trial? That we don't have a better than 1984 turnkey oppression and total.monitorinf infrastructure for any despot of sufficient motivation which this admin has amply stated affection towards?

Language is important from leaders. So is consistency and some degree of integrity. Even disingenuous cowtowing to appearances and political norms constrains power and abuse.

I'm not sure what you are saying, but I'm not dismissing it, I'm saying we need to stop repeating their propaganda of terror and intimindation as if it's true. Be effective, not spread the poison of helplessness and fear.

We need vigilance and nonpassivity.

Propaganda is targeted to keep the majority passive while awful things are done by the government regime.

Your argument seems to be "ignore them and they will go away". That's not how authoritarian takeovers are prevented.

> Your argument seems to be "ignore them and they will go away".

I don't know why you are obsessed with saying that.

They were asking about it happening to citizens. From your article:

> Mr Garcia, a Salvadoran

He's married to a citizen which gives him an avenue towards legal residency and full citizenship.

It doesn't matter anyways because the government admitted he was deported due to a administrative error and because they actively undermined and sidestepped the courts authority on several occasions, there is effectively nothing stopping them from doing it to full blown citizens. Honestly, it sounds like it's just a matter of time if this keeps up.

I agree it's bad, and yes, the government admitted they shouldn't have done it. But regardless, the question was about if it has happened to a citizen, not a person who maybe could be a citizen one day but is not, and you responded with them "doing just that" when they did not, in fact, "do just that".

I'm not sure why there's a need to mislead when what's actually happening is bad enough.

It's not a need to mislead. You're grasping at a technicality. Citizenship is irrelevant if you're not given the chance to demonstrate it, which he wasn't, and again, he was actually deported because of the administrative error, not an on-purpose action, the correctness of which is irrelevant.

You're arguing whether a car wrapped around a tree has a bad alternator. Surely a fact useful to someone, somewhere, and worth knowing. But also certainly not the reason there's a problem.

100% this. To echo another poster below, it's really important to read the Supreme Court's own words here.

>"The Government’s argument, moreover, implies that it could deport and incarcerate any person, including U. S. citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene. " From https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf

I suspect that is one of the main reasons behind the order. It's very obvious that citizen vs legal resident matters very little here, if due process is not given.

But the administration has now stated they are investigating how to deport citizens as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8gYlWcV6wE&t=1s

She says only the most violent dangerous criminals -- although I feel like we've heard that line before...

So.. the very post you share prooves it's not happening. Incredulously, I gotta wounder: Did/ do you really believe your link supports your claim that it's been happening?

What did I claim? Read what i wrote. The video says EXACTLY what I stated.

So, I think, the courts ruled just 2 days ago that people can get sent abroad so long as they get to 'petition' it in... Texas. Right? So like, if their was an investigation, it closed one day prior to the interview; which is why she didnt say what you think she did. Trump said Would do it, and supposedly now he Can do it. All this is 'fact'in her eyes prior to the interview. An important distinction, no?

So you think it’s sane to do nothing and wait till it’s happening when they are explicitly saying they are looking for ways to make it happen? Really?

At this when they say something absurdly unhinged and unthinkable and if you still don’t believe they will try it.. well.. maybe you’re in the market for a bridge?

If they can ignore due process in this case what's to say they cannot do it to proper citizens? It's clear they're probing their way into creating a blueprint to get rid of people critical of trump.

You would agree that this whole discussion would be considered insanity in America like 4 months ago, right?

I thought that’s what half of America wanted just 6 months ago?

Trump didn't even win 50% of the vote.

Less than 25% of people who were eligible to vote voted for him.

Yes, he won the election and was the most popular candidate.

That doesn't mean "half of America wanted him".

Yet his approval rating back in January and February was over 50%. So even those who didn’t bother to vote for him still supported him.

It’s still ~45% now when in any sane world it would be in the single digits..

None of the Trump admin's excuses for why they "can't" bring back that guy depend on his citizenship status.

>He's married to a citizen which gives him an avenue towards legal residency and full citizenship.

You seem as if you're trying to leverage that to actual citizen rights... "look, he could be a citizen someday, so that means he has these same rights reserved to citizens". But it does not work that way.

>there is effectively nothing stopping them from doing it to full blown citizens.

Be sure to raise the alarm when they do. I'd be curious if it ever got that far. I think that some on the left worry that it might not, because if they don't have the absurd slippery slope argument then many people would never be concerned about this at all.

It happens to be the case that he's not a citizen or claiming to be a citizen, but he wasn't given due process, and there's absolutely nothing stopping them from picking anybody up off the street, claiming they're here illegally, and shipping them off to an El Salvadoran prison.

All people in the us, legal or illegal, citizen or not, have fourth amendment protections, and if you strip those rights from anyone, you remove them from everyone.

Do they? We generally don’t give noncitizens the right to own a gun in the us, so clearly we are selective about applying the 2nd amendment protection. The 4th may need adjudication.

Permanent residents have the right to own a gun in the US.

The supreme court has upheld many many times that the fourth amendment applies to all people within the borders of the US.

Not just permanent residents, either. I have legally owned numerous firearms while on L1 and H1B visas in US.

And just what process is due a person under risk of deportation? People say "due process" quite often without even giving any thought to what the term means, and I doubt that 1 in 4 could give a casual definition.

One might think that the only process due to such a person would be the opportunity to contest that they were a citizen and to provide evidence to that claim. Was he denied this? Did they slap a muzzle on him as he tried to scream "but my birth certificate's in the sock drawer, just take a look!"? If the agents who detained and deported him ran any sort of check that would have discovered his citizenship in time to prevent a deportation (had he been a citizen), this seems about all the process that could or should be due.

PS Am I the only one that notices how the news media always describes him as "from Maryland" when he wasn't born there, didn't attend school there, etc?

> the only process due to such a person would be the opportunity to contest that they were a citizen and to provide evidence to that claim

They should have the due process to prove they are here legally. And yes, they were denied that.

Even if you imagine due process is for citizens only, you can't prove citizenship status without due process, so it has to be given to everyone.

Otherwise, nothing's stopping ICE from just claiming you're not a citizen and shipping you off to El Salvador. How would you prove otherwise?

> They should have the due process to prove they are here legally.

This sounds like a nonsense statement. Non-citizens are only ever here legally at the pleasure of the United States. If we allow them in for 2 weeks, or 3 months, or whatever on a visa... we can change our minds and cancel it early.

The idea that they can have some absolute temporary right to be here ignores what it means to be a non-citizen. You have no right to be here, just a temporary privilege that can be revoked at any point for entirely arbitrary reasons.

>And yes, they were denied that.

I've heard no evidence that this was the case. "Due process" rights are, in many cases administrative. No trial, no judge.

>Even if you imagine due process is for citizens only,

I did not say this, and I do not imagine it. I just happen to know what due process rights actually are.

>you can't prove citizenship status without due process,

Was he denied his opportunity to prove citizenship to the agents who detained him? Did he try to get them to look in his wallet for papers, but they ignored that? Did he beg them to just look in his closet and see his birth certificate? That would be denial of due process.

>Otherwise, nothing's stopping ICE from just claiming you're not a citizen

So you claim. But it's absurd to think that will happen. If you believe it will happen, then just wait and sound the alarm when it does. I'll be genuinely surprised.

> Was he denied his opportunity to prove citizenship to the agents who detained him? Did he try to get them to look in his wallet for papers, but they ignored that? Did he beg them to just look in his closet and see his birth certificate? That would be denial of due process.

Yes, yes, and yes some more.

Did you just wake up from a coma?

> . But it's absurd to think that will happen

Really? The things that are happening now are so absurdly insane that nobody could have imagined them just a few years ago, and you are still gullible enough to say something as silly like that...

> sound the alarm when it does

The loons will just move the goalposts yet again. So what would that achieve?

If we don't have due process, in that, you can't go and defend yourself in public court, nobody here is really legal or not. It doesn't matter if your birth certificate is in the other room. Without due process it's whatever the ICE agent that's bagging you feels like. What are you gonna do? You don't get due process, you get no court hearing, you get the pleasure of getting onto a plane and flown out to a slave labor prison in El Salvador. Also Garcia had full legal permission to be here but it shows they never checked it and thus he was whisked away like we can expect other's to be if things stay on the current path.

>If we don't have due process, in that, you can't go and defend yourself in public court

That's not due process. Due process rights do not guarantee you any sort of court hearing or trial. It does not require a judge. 90% or more of due process is administrative in nature. The bureaucracy infringes your due process rights when they don't "go through the motions" of how to handle a particular situation. How should they handle deporting someone? By checking that they're not deporting a citizen. If they failed to check, if they failed to give him the opportunity to prove citizenship, they denied his due process rights. Did they do this?

>It doesn't matter if your birth certificate is in the other room. Without due proces

You miss the point. I wasn't asking if his birth certificate was there or not. I'm asking "did they give him the chance to claim as much, and did they follow up and make sure it wasn't there". If they didn't give him the opportunity to make the claim, if they ignored such a claim, this is a denial of due process.

And there was no denial. If you had more than a second grader's understanding of due process, you wouldn't be so confused here.

> What are you gonna do? You don't get due process,

"Look Mr. ICEman, you're making a mistake. We can clear this up in minutes, pull my wallet out and take a look at my identity documents, some of which indicate I'm a citizen. It'll only take two minutes to reveal me as a liar if that's not the case."

And if they refuse, then my due process rights have been denied.

>Also Garcia had full legal permission to be here

He showed up without such permission, then weaseled his way into getting contested permission after the fact. Which was always the case under previous policy, there was no practical way to send them back if they made it 100 yards across the border.

You keep saying other people have no idea what due process is, and you keep implying that asking a police officer really nicely not to arrest you is due process. Due process is given via the judicial system. The executive branch doesn't have the authority to be judge, jury and executioner. The police don't get to determine your rights, the courts do.

>and you keep implying that asking a police officer really nicely not to arrest you is due process.

I didn't imply this, in fact if you go up a few comments, I specifically say that due process rights are often administrative in nature. If the bureaucracy lets everyone file paperwork and processes it the same way every time, but when you show up with your paperwork to file it they throw it away without looking at it and say "we're already rejecting it"... that's a due process rights violation. In fact, that's pretty much the textbook definition of it. It's not that hard to understand. The "but he didn't even get a trial!" whiny-assed ijits don't seem to get that, or you. The "police officer" has already arrested you (though not in this case, because it wasn't an arrest, and not a police officer). They're allowed to do that, that's their job. Even when they do it to the wrong person.

Did the police officer check if he was a citizen or not? When (if?) he protested that he was, did they double-check? If those things didn't happen, no due process was skipped, ignored, or infringed. You don't know what due process is either... it's just this phrase you've heard and read from time to time in popular news media without ever thinking about it.

> The executive branch doesn't have the authority to be judge, jury and executioner.

Since these aren't criminal cases, they don't get a judge, jury, or executioner. They get a deportation. And by law, the executive branch really does have this legitimate power and authority. Deportations aren't penalties for crimes.

>The police don't get to determine your rights, the courts do.

This is a strange, distorted view. The courts aren't used to create new rights, only to determine the correct interpretation of rights when there is a dispute. It won't go your way at all. No matter how many times the media calls him a "Maryland man" despite being from El Salvador.

> One might think that the only process due to such a person would be the opportunity to contest

Well a federal judge thought otherwise. The government ignored him and did what they wanted anyway. That’s your definition of due process?

> Am I the only one that notice

So your comment is actually sarcastic?

Would his being a citizen have mattered to any of the procedures prior to his rendition? The government never made any effort to prove that he was here illegally (which is important since he wasn't), and he never had an opportunity to offer a defense.

He's a permanent resident. Splitting hairs over citizenship when he was here legally massively misses the problem with blackholing people here legally.

> Splitting hairs over citizenship when he was here legally massively misses the problem with blackholing people here legally.

And on top of that this case should be horrifying to anyone regardless of whether they want to split hairs because:

A) they admitted he was deported in error

B) they are now effectively trying to argue there is no way to get him back

So even if you believe they would never knowingly do this to an actual citizen they are only one slightly different mistake from disappearing a citizen, whether or not it has happened yet.

Nevermind the fact that Trump himself has repeatedly floated the idea of deporting citizens: https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2025/04/10/trump-...

And then lastly and most importantly IMO it is wildly un-American to believe anyone (regardless of citizenship or legal status) is not entitled to due process.

He's *not* a permanent resident; he's on "withholding of removal" status since 2019 [*]. It's not splitting hairs to discuss that, but you're right that the govt is (deliberately) pursuing a "camel's-nose-under-the-tent" approach first on a small class of people where Congress and INA haven't defined a direct clear path to PR or becoming a citizen, unlike a GC would since both his wife and child are US citizens.

He was granted "withholding of removal" status in 2019, which protected him from deportation to El Salvador (for fear of gang violence/extortion, which is why he came to the US).

The current DOJ acknowledges that at the time (2019) the "[first Trump admin] government did not appeal that decision [to grant withholding of removal], so it is final". It also seems like they never previously made any allegation that he was a gang member, and that they don't have any solid proof now that he is (other than supposedly one informant who incorrectly claimed Garcia lived in NY, so basically no credible evidence whatsoever).

By jumping the gun on deporting Garcia without due process, the current admin seems to unwittingly be forcing the issue to the Supreme Court very soon. (UPDATE: SC has just ruled unanimously 9-0 that the admin must try to release Garcia.) Looks like the SC's going to be very busy this May-June.

[*] Withholding-of-removal is a pretty rare status, rarely granted by court (>99% rejection rate), much rarer than Green Card, and applicants have to demonstrate credible fear. [0] This procedure is defined in INA § 208 (INA = Immigration and Nationality Act) [1]

As of 12/2024 there were over 100,000 individuals (from Cuba, China, Venezuela, Mauritania, Nigeria, Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, etc.) with orders of removal remaining free in the US due to various special interest statuses, including withholding of removal, according to a report from FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform). [2]

(Does anyone have stats on what historically happened to people in withholding-of-removal (what % became citizens, what % got GC, what % voluntarily left, what % got deported, what % moved to a different status etc.)?)

[0]: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/reference-materials/ic/chapter-...

[1]: https://www.uscis.gov/laws-and-policy/legislation/immigratio...

[2]: https://www.fairus.org/news/executive/new-data-show-over-100...

[3]: https://time.com/7276642/kilmar-albrego-garcia-error-deporta...

What about that guy who got deported to El Salvador even though he was legally here and the court had also ordered he not be sent back to El Salvador for his own protection? I’m pretty sure the admin admitted it was a mistake then refused to bring him back.

The Supreme Court resolutely batted that down 9-0 in a few days.

>> The [District Court] order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs. For its part, the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf

The only question at this point is how detailed in demands the District Court can be.

The administration attempted to push the boundaries of executive power and lost in court, as has been happening.

Turns out, conservative justices with lifetime appointments aren't too legally thrilled about an unbridled executive either.

Yes, that is where my quote came from. From your own quote:

> The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.

Which is such a ridiculously bullshit line of thought. This wasn't some person who willingly went to some random country, this is someone the executive illegally put there against the person's will in coordination with said foreign government. I can guarantee you that any order with teeth will be struck down by SCOTUS on this line of thought.

I'm not sure why people obtusely intepret Supreme Court rulings as though they're part of the current administration.

The court is obviously saying that (1) it's correct and necessary to bring him back but that (2) the District Court doesn't have unbridled authority to order any foreign policy-influencing remedy it wants.

I.e. a US court couldn't order a president to sign a treaty

If the administration tries to foot drag further, the Supreme Court will likely order more specific remedies.

By not taking the L here, the administration is just burning whatever conservative goodwill they might have started with on this Supreme Court.

They're already disobeying the court, including both the lower court's order and the supreme court's order to attempt repatriation, as well as the lower court's order to provide information on the victim's location and attempts to retrieve him. They disobeyed numerous court orders to rehire people they fired and re-fund things they defunded.

What makes you think the administration cares about goodwill after that? Disobeying direct court orders is crossing the Rubicon. There's no going back to the illusion that judicial judgements will be respected by this administration.

> They're already disobeying the court, including both the lower court's order and the supreme court's order to attempt repatriation

They tried to weasel around the verbal vs written order, and the consequences of that are still being worked out.

They then appealed the order to immediately bring him back, and the Supreme Court paused that while it decided.

The decision then directed the District Court to clarify the how of what it was demanding.

So "somewhat" and "no": they haven't directly ignored the Supreme Court.

Unless you'd care to cite a specific case and quote from a ruling?

> Disobeying direct court orders is crossing the Rubicon.

Appealing a decision is different than ignoring.

And like the multiple other times it historically happened? https://www.fjc.gov/history/administration/executive-enforce...

> They tried to weasel around the verbal vs written order...

On numerous occasions (not just the one you mention), they did not obey the direct order by the time specified, meaning they directly disobeyed the court. For example, post-supreme-court-order, they were obliged to provide the lower court with a status update of the victim, and a list of things they've done so far to retrieve them. They directly violated that court order.

It's important to draw a bright, flashing distinction between:

1. Arguing that you think you should not have to comply with an order, but then complying if you don't receive a ruling in your favor in time.

2. Directly violating a court order, and then tossing out a cynical pretext as an excuse which hasn't been preapproved by the judge (they're called that for a reason).

Unless a stay is placed before the deadline, you must comply with every single court order, by the court-ordered deadline, no matter what you think.

At least, that's how it was before. Now the USA has crossed the Rubicon, with the government itself ignoring court orders at will, in order to imprison political enemies.

It was a decent liberal democracy while it lasted.

I think the SCOTUS was right on the money this time, and I am well to the left of any of its members. My read of their verbiage about effectuation/article II was a suggestion to the District Court judge to eliminate any wiggle room the administration would try to exploit.

This order was toothless, and the administration has already flouted it.

All John Roberts is doing is asking Trump to go further next time. Whether it's intentional or just cowardice on his part doesn't really matter to the rest of us.

It matter to me, since there are 2-3 conservative justices on the current Supreme Court that are likely to tire of administration excesses.

A long game player might even say Roberts is angling for that, by tailoring consensus opinions that nonetheless leave room for the administration to demonstrate further stupidity.

Does the Constitution provide for due process to persons? Or only citizens?

If non-citizen have been human trafficked without due process, what additional protection against it is provided to citizens? Where is that stated?

- "Do you have examples of the executive doing this to citizens or are you being hypothetical here?"

"Do you have examples of this severity-11 CVE being used in the wild, or are you just being hypothetical here?" It's a horrifically exploitable bug, were it left unpatched.

It's not some fringe conspiracy theory that this is how the law works and how the law would work on contact with US citizens; the Garcia SCOTUS concurrence explicitly underscored this perversity,

- "The Government’s argument, moreover, implies that it could deport and incarcerate any person, including U.S. citizens [sic!], without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene... That view refutes itself."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf

> Do you have examples of the executive doing this to citizens

Feels like moving the goalposts. First they were going to clear out "illegals" by any means, now the line includes any non-citizens. Granted maybe you personally didn't say both though.

> Have you considered how allowing non-citizens to spread discontent within a country could be abused?

Is it meaningfully different from allowing citizens to "spread discontent"? Why not just start taking everybody's 1st amendment rights, by the same logic? I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure there's long precedent that non-citizens are granted most of the same rights, including freedom of speech and assembly.

If non-citizens are being supported, instructed, etc by their government in spreading discontent, there are probably laws like espionage for that; you don't have to take away everybody else's freedom to stop them.

I am aware of some US citizens being deported by mistake under previous administrations, but there was a general consensus that those were genuine mistakes, examples of negligence rather than policy: https://immigrationimpact.com/2021/07/30/ice-deport-us-citiz...

However the current administration is explicitly considering the idea of deliberately deporting citizens: https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-bl...

>Countries generally grant far fewer rights to non-citizens. Have you considered how allowing non-citizens to spread discontent within a country could be abused?

The most powerful person in the country lied and still is lying about elected fraud, undermining the basis for our Democratic system and was rewarded with a 2nd term.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com