Trump is not a fascist

[Jersey Girl]

Observation: I can see his replies in you guys' posts. He isn't "hearing" you. At all. That's one of the reasons any thread he enters drags on for 20 pages. It results in an unproductive vortex.

Oh and again, he doesn't know what due process is or how it would be legally applied in this case. He previously indicated that Mr. Garcia got his due process when he was permitted to stay in the U.S. I guess that was 15 years ago. As if due process was a one shot deal. He doesn't see that due process was violated upon deportation to El Salvador.

Good luck with that.

[Markk]

Look, you already know he was specifically not to be deported to El Salvador. There can be no moral justification for sending him there.

Yet, we also know that changed, because of an executive order invoking a law, AEA. You don't want to acknowledge that, why?

Technically, if Garcia were to be brought back, he will most likely be brought back before an immigration judge, and the El Salvadorian government could state they can protect him from the gangs that he had previously received protection from, he could then be immediately deported based on the 2019 decisions by the federal judges, and then his country of citizenship will lock him back up for 20 or 30 years. Would you them be okay with that given that full due process would be served here, apart from the AEA?

[Markk]

Observation: I can see his replies in you guys' posts. He isn't "hearing" you. At all. That's one of the reasons any thread he enters drags on for 20 pages. It results in an unproductive vortex.

Oh and again, he doesn't know what due process is or how it would be legally applied in this case. He previously indicated that Mr. Garcia got his due process when he was permitted to stay in the U.S. I guess that was 15 years ago. As if due process was a one shot deal. He doesn't see that due process was violated upon deportation to El Salvador.

Good luck with that.

What is the AEA? You do understand that there are many clauses within the constitution and the 14th amendment. You certainly do not have to agree with it, but at least understand what the arguments are.

Given he was deported via AEA, you tell me how due process is legally applied to his case. Currently the the Supreme Court has stated..."The application is granted in part and denied in part ..." This means that the government was to facilitate his return, which was denied by ES, and that the lower court must give more information to the high court.

.

[Markk]

Cakes: Nope, not arguing that he is or is not a gang member. Not only has that not been ‘proven’, but there is no federal law against being a gang member anyway.

Lol...you are defending him as not being a member of MS-13, even though through the due process, process, two federal judges stated he was a members of MS-13. Are you going to deny that?

As far as being against the law, no, but belonging to a criminal enterprise basically is under rico. And there is as I pointed out already, 18-521 or the USC.

But again it has been proven by two federal judges he is a member of MS-13.

[canpakes]

Cakes: Nope, not arguing that he is or is not a gang member. Not only has that not been ‘proven’, but there is no federal law against being a gang member anyway.

Lol...you are defending him as not being a member of MS-13, even though through the due process, process, two federal judges stated he was a members of MS-13. Are you going to deny that?

As far as being against the law, no, but belonging to a criminal enterprise basically is under rico. And there is as I pointed out already, 18-521 or the USC.

But again it has been proven by two federal judges he is a member of MS-13.

Link to that bit about what the judges said.

Then link to the law that makes it illegal to be ‘in a gang’.

Then tell us again why you’re fighting so hard for ignoring due process.

I’m also still waiting for you to tell me why your job hires non-citizens who might be gang members, over Americans, but I understand why you may want to avoid that question.

[Markk]

Lol...you are defending him as not being a member of MS-13, even though through the due process, process, two federal judges stated he was a members of MS-13. Are you going to deny that?

As far as being against the law, no, but belonging to a criminal enterprise basically is under rico. And there is as I pointed out already, 18-521 or the USC.

But again it has been proven by two federal judges he is a member of MS-13.

Link to that bit about what the judges said.

Then link to the law that makes it illegal to be ‘in a gang’.

Then tell us again why you’re fighting so hard for ignoring due process.

I’m also still waiting for you to tell me why your job hires non-citizens who might be gang members, over Americans, but I understand why you may want to avoid that question.

It cracks me up how you want me to link things, yet when I ask you too you ignore me. O'well.

1. I have pasted the information at least 4 times.... https://www.justice.gov/ag/media/1396906/dl?inline

2. I said it is not against the law to be in a gang, at least yet. I said there are very tough laws that crack down on gang members that are involved in criminal activities, RICO. If you do not know what RICO is just google it. RICO basically put a noose around the Mafia's neck.

And I mentioned USC18 521 (again). It is a law that to be in a gang and commit crimes within that gang while remaining in that gang and further support of that gang. The penalty is a enhancement sentence for up to ten years on top of the crime committed.

I have pasted this information before which you apparently did not read or understand it. I suggest you google it and read about the topic, but here is a easy to understand "abstract" of what I am talking about by a law group. https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys ... ang-crimes . Here is the actual USC statute, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USC ... itle18.pdf .

3. I am not at all ignoring due process, I am discussing, or at least trying to have a discussion, on due process and the amendments, and legal nuances to, and within, the laws and constitution.

I am also discussing the character of Abrego, which is also part of the discussion and very important in that an applicant for citizenship must be of "good moral character." Folks here keeps saying character does not matter, when it is one of the first things required to become a citizen. An applicant for citizenship must have demonstrated "good moral character" for I believe 5 years before becoming a citizen. Being a certified MS-13 gang member, hanging around with MS-gang members while wearing gang attire, having multiple failures to appears, and of course repeatably beating the crap out of your wife, punching her in her face, and terrorizing her kids, is not in a normal persons definition "good moral character."

4. You don't read. I have never hired a non citizen. And as far as why millions of illegals are hired within concentrated areas of illegal immigrants, like So Ca., which I have explained to you several times, is that they use fake id's and papers, and if cheap labor is not used in construction and other similar types of industries, competitors that do use illegals would drive the legit companies out of business. My answer won't change on this no matter how many times I explain it.

My turn...what do you do for a living, my guess is some sort of retail management position where you have time to be on message boards in your cubical or office? Or a government job which would explain that?

[Bret Ripley]

Look, you already know he was specifically not to be deported to El Salvador. There can be no moral justification for sending him there.

Yet, we also know that changed, because of an executive order invoking a law, AEA. You don't want to acknowledge that, why?

Are you purposefully ignoring the fact that the AEA is irrelevant to Garcia's case? If so, shame on you. If not, you really don't have enough information about Garcia's case to hold (let alone express) a warranted opinion.

At the time Garcia was removed from the USA, a TRO was in place blocking the removal of individuals under the AEA. Garcia's removal under AEA would have been in violation of that Order. According to the administration's own arguments in court, the airplane that removed Garcia was filled only with individuals with final orders for removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

As you (bloody well should) know, sending Garcia to El Salvador was in direct violation of an INA judge's order granting withholding of removal. This is why, in courts of law, the administration had no other option than to characterize Garcia's removal as a mistake: because the only other option was to admit that what they did was purposefully illegal.

That doesn't stop them from trotting out the AEA outside of court in an attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of those who are all-too-willing to be fooled. Don't be one of those, Markk: the pay is lousy and the hours suck.

[canpakes]

Link to that bit about what the judges said.

Then link to the law that makes it illegal to be ‘in a gang’.

Then tell us again why you’re fighting so hard for ignoring due process.

I’m also still waiting for you to tell me why your job hires non-citizens who might be gang members, over Americans, but I understand why you may want to avoid that question.

It cracks me up how you want me to link things, yet when I ask you too you ignore me. O'well.

1. I have pasted the information at least 4 times.... https://www.justice.gov/ag/media/1396906/dl?inline

Thanks. I asked because I want you to check out page 13. The determination of Garcia’s ‘gang membership’ is linked to an unidentified other person saying that Garcia is in a gang. It’s acknowledged that this is hearsay but one judge has decided that this is ‘valid enough’. My point is that this went back and forth and likely wouldn’t hold up in court in most situations. Regardless, you’ve keyed into this because you seem to think that this allows for elimination of due process, perhaps, or that an unknown person alleging that someone else is ‘in a gang’ is the proper standard for determining any such thing, when this claim could be made by anyone about anyone.

Regardless, being ‘in a gang’ is not a crime, in and of itself.

2. I said it is not against the law to be in a gang, at least yet.

Yet you repeated it half-dozen times or so in your prior post, as if to say that this indicates Garcia is guilty of a criminal offense.

I said there are very tough laws that crack down on gang members that are involved in criminal activities, RICO. If you do not know what RICO is just google it. RICO basically put a noose around the Mafia's neck.

And I mentioned USC18 521 (again). It is a law that to be in a gang and commit crimes within that gang while remaining in that gang and further support of that gang. The penalty is an enhancement sentence for up to ten years on top of the crime committed.

That’s basically right. Keeping that limitation in mind, note this statement from the page I’ve linked to below it:

”The only gang or gang-related statute which is not discussed in other sections of JM is 18 U.S.C. § 521, the "Criminal Street Gangs" statute, which was enacted as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The Department views this statute as a penalty enhancer, not a substantive offense. A sample Penalty Enhancement Information pleading is found in this Manual at 1458.

The statute requires, among other things, proof that the defendant participated in a criminal street gang with knowledge its members engage or have engaged in a continuous series of offenses and that the defendant intends to promote or further the gang's felonious activities or maintain or increase his position in the gang. Given these knowledge and intent requirements, § 521 has proven to be a difficult statute to apply successfully to defendants. In fact, the Criminal Division is aware of only one district which has filed a penalty enhancement information pursuant to the statute in the first 20 months of its existence. (Legislation is expected to be proposed in Congress in 1997 to amend the statute.)”

https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/cri ... 18-usc-521

3. I am not at all ignoring due process, I am discussing, or at least trying to have a discussion, on due process and the amendments, and legal nuances to, and within, the laws and constitution.

So far, your ‘nuance’ is the claim that Garcia is a gang member … an unproven claim that doesn't violate the law anyway. I get why you want to keep trying to focus on that, but character assassination doesn’t always count in the face of how our legal system works.

I am also discussing the character of Abrego, …

Again, if character was a concern, you wouldn’t have voted for a guy with 34 fraud convictions, who admits to having cheated on 3 wives, has a housing discrimination court case on his record, has a sexual abuse decision against him, and who is quite literally a pathological liar who can’t stop lying every single day.

4. You don't read. I have never hired a non citizen.

You may have missed the part where I subsequently ask why your company hires them.

And as far as why millions of illegals are hired within concentrated areas of illegal immigrants, like So Ca., which I have explained to you several times, is that they use fake id's and papers, and if cheap labor is not used in construction and other similar types of industries, competitors that do use illegals would drive the legit companies out of business. My answer won't change on this no matter how many times I explain it.

A legally blind individual can identify a fake SS card, and we have E-Verify. Let’s be honest … non-citizens are hired to preserve your company’s profit margin. The ability of your business to maximize profit is more important than the legal status of the folks that you hire, until anyone inside your company wants to pretend that the same folks are a scourge to (fill in the blank).

My turn...what do you do for a living, my guess is some sort of retail management position where you have time to be on message boards in your cubical or office? Or a government job which would explain that?

Lol. I would have killed myself if I had to work in retail management for any period of time. : D OK, maybe not killed myself, but that’s the last place you’d find me. It matters not where I work outside of the fact that I don’t pretend that non-citizens are only useful or worthy if they are benefiting a company’s bottom line.

[Markk]

Markk:My turn...what do you do for a living, my guess is some sort of retail management position where you have time to be on message boards in your cubical or office? Or a government job which would explain that?

Cakes:Lol. I would have killed myself if I had to work in retail management for any period of time. : D OK, maybe not killed myself, but that’s the last place you’d find me. It matters not where I work outside of the fact that I don’t pretend that non-citizens are only useful or worthy if they are benefiting a company’s bottom line.
[/quote]

It does matter, if you want to ask me personal questions, over and over, about what I do for a living and it's nuances, please do the same.

[canpakes]

Markk:My turn...what do you do for a living, my guess is some sort of retail management position where you have time to be on message boards in your cubical or office? Or a government job which would explain that?

Lol. I would have killed myself if I had to work in retail management for any period of time. : D OK, maybe not killed myself, but that’s the last place you’d find me. It matters not where I work outside of the fact that I don’t pretend that non-citizens are only useful or worthy if they are benefiting a company’s bottom line.

It does matter, if you want to ask me personal questions, over and over, about what I do for a living and it's nuances, please do the same.

Have I asked what you do for a living, or why you and your company do some things related to employment of non-citizens?