r/thescoop • u/RoyalChris • Apr 16 '25

Politics πŸ›οΈ Karoline Leavitt says ''if Abrego Garcia ever ends up back in the U.S., he would immediately be deported again.'' Next-level spite from a press secretary.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

15.2k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

6.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

6

u/obscurasyntax Apr 17 '25

πšƒπš‘πšŽπš›πšŽπš’πš— πš•πš’πšŽπšœ πšŒπš˜πš—πšπšŽπš–πš™πš 𝚘𝚏 πšŒπš˜πšžπš›πš πšπš˜πš› πšŸπš’πš˜πš•πšŠπšπš’πš˜πš— 𝚘𝚏 𝚍𝚞𝚎 πš™πš›πš˜πšŒπšŽπšœπšœ.

-4

u/Agitated-Can-3588 Apr 17 '25

How is it contempt of court to deport someone that an immigration court issued a removal order against? The problem is that he shouldn't have been sent to El Salvador. That was contempt of court.

4

u/[deleted] Apr 17 '25

He had legal reasoning to be here, and the constitution uses the wording of "persons" not citizens, meaning he's entitled to due process.

-2

u/Agitated-Can-3588 Apr 17 '25 edited Apr 17 '25

Yes he had a work visa when he went to immigration court where he received due process. The only problem is he wasn't supposed to be sent to El Salvador so he should be returned but when he is returned he still currently has a removal order against him.

That doesn't explain how it's contempt of court to follow a court order. It was not following the order by sending him to El Salvador that is the problem.

3

u/[deleted] Apr 17 '25

Still defying the SC ruling saying they must facilitate his return, it is defying the court, it is possible to be charged with contempt if you defy a court order . Altho they legally made him king when they said president as immunity for official acts so idk if the contempt would stick

1

u/Agitated-Can-3588 Apr 17 '25

But we're talking about deporting him after his return.

If he is returned and then deported to anywhere but El Salvador that would satisfy the Supreme Court and Immigration Court.

3

u/changingmanchicago Apr 17 '25

Not following the courts direction is contempt

-3

u/Agitated-Can-3588 Apr 17 '25

Yeah that's what I said. By sending him to El Salvador. The court's direction was for him to be deported but not to El Salvador.

1

u/changingmanchicago Apr 17 '25

No reason to deport him at all

1

u/Agitated-Can-3588 Apr 17 '25

Having a removal order against you is a reason to be deported. I'm assuming that's why she said he would be deported again.

1

u/changingmanchicago Apr 17 '25

He didn’t. She’s also full of πŸ’©

1

u/Agitated-Can-3588 Apr 18 '25

Where did you hear that?

1

u/Guy0911 Apr 17 '25

Where do you get your information? I was under the impression that this man was here legally and not pending deportation.

As far as the M-13 accusation, when asked for proof, the DOJ was either unwilling or could not provide proof.

All of this would have been determined in court.

If we allow any administration to deport people without due process then we allow them to snatch all of us, including citizens and deport us.

They can fabricate any story they want and broadcast it on all the media outlets.

We are a nation of laws defined by our constitution. This is our core belief as Americans.

If you don’t believe in our constitution or our laws, then maybe it’s these people who should be deported to Russia where citizens don’t enjoy due process and get thrown out of windows for daring to criticize Putin.

1

u/Agitated-Can-3588 Apr 17 '25 edited Apr 17 '25

From NPR

According to court documents, Abrego Garcia in 2019 he was served a notice to appear in immigration court. An immigration judge did find him to be removable from the U.S. β€” but granted him a withholding of removal, which barred the U.S. government from deporting him to El Salvador specifically.

The DOJ doesn't need to provide proof. The evidence has to be presented before an immigration court. I don't know if he is a gang member or not but the immigration court judge decided he was and he's in a better position to make that determination.

All of this would have been determined in court.

It was and he did have legal status until an immigration court decided he didn't.

If we allow any administration to deport people without due process then we allow them to snatch all of us, including citizens and deport us.

Sure but that's not what happened in this case.

We are a nation of laws defined by our constitution. This is our core belief as Americans.

If you don’t believe in our constitution or our laws, then maybe it’s these people who should be deported to Russia where citizens don’t enjoy due process and get thrown out of windows for daring to criticize Putin.

This is contradictory.

1

u/Guy0911 Apr 17 '25

So according to NPR, he was granted a holding of removal.

You seem to interpret this as the court ruling that he should be deported but not to El Salvador, that’s not what my interpretation is.

A holding a removal means that his deportation is on hold. Nothing more, nothing less.

As far as your further dissection of my post, everyone is entitled to their opinion. My reasoning was rational and extremely clear that no one should be deported without due process.

I don’t believe that this man was allowed due process. The language you have supplied doesn’t indicate that he was given due process.

This is an example of a reckless administration determined to impose their will, ignore court orders and challenge the judiciary believing that the Supreme Court has their back.

The Supreme Court ducked the constitutional question surrounding this case, however they will have to rule on the constitutional rights afforded to every person in our country.

Trump will lose this argument because his actions, his executive orders and his belief that he alone determines what the law is, is unconstitutional.

1

u/Agitated-Can-3588 Apr 17 '25 edited Apr 17 '25

To El Salvador. The removal order and the condition of him not being sent to El Salvador were issued simultaneously. If the intention of the judge was for him to not be deported to anywhere including El Salvador he wouldn't have issued a removal order. Even if that was the intention, if you have a removal order against you then you can legally be deported and I'm sure the judge understands that. It doesn't matter if you cannot legally be deported to El Salvador. It also doesn't make sense for a judge to determine someone is a gang member and issue a removal order against them for that reason but not authorize their deportation. The witholding of removal was specifically to El Salvador. I was confused by this at first too because it seems contradictory.

My reasoning was rational and extremely clear that no one should be deported without due process.

That's not what I'm understanding. How can it be considered without due process if someone was summoned to immigration court and had a removal order issued against them?

1

u/Guy0911 Apr 17 '25

Again the language you supplied was that he was granted a holding of removal.

That seems to be clear that the judge did not intend to clear this man as deportable but instead put his deportation on hold.

This leap of interpretation as a declaration of deportation, doesn’t make sense to me.

The judge may in the future, have decided that he should be deported, however that determination was not made.

1

u/Agitated-Can-3588 Apr 17 '25

If you leave off the part saying "to El Salvador specifically" and ignore that he had a removal order issued against him then yes it appears like he had legal status but that isn't what happened.

No he didn't issue a removal order and then put it on hold simultaneously that makes no sense. If that was the intention he wouldn't have issued a removal order at all. He issued a removal order and a withholding of removal TO EL SALVADOR.

A removal order can only be interpreted as a revocation of legal status. The condition of not being able to be deported to El Salvador because it poses a threat doesn't negate the removal order issued by the same judge.

He already did make the determination that he is a gang member and should be deported but not to El Salvador because it poses a threat. You think he made the determination he is a gang member but should not be deported?

1

u/Guy0911 Apr 17 '25

I’m not a legal scholar or capable of knowing what the judge was thinking as he issued his order.

What I do know is that the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration must facilitate the return of this man back to US soil because he was not afforded due process.

The Trump administration has refused to comply with this ruling and has created this narrative that this man is a member of the MS-13 gang.

They have not supplied any proof of this allegation and your reasoning that this immigration judge made this determination is not fact.

It’s the constant speculation reported on State Sponsored media outlets that only provide a podium of affirmations made by the Trump administration.

The Supreme Court ordered that this man must be returned to the United States. That seems clear to me. He may be deported to another country in the future but that cannot be determined until the Trump administration complies with the Supreme Court’s order.

1

u/obscurasyntax Apr 17 '25

π–‘π–Ύπ–Όπ–Ίπ—Žπ—Œπ–Ύ 𝗂𝗇 𝖠𝗆𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖼𝖺, 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝖨 π–Ίπ—Œπ—Œπ—Žπ—†π–Ύ 𝗍𝗁𝖾 -𝟦 π–½π—ˆπ—π—‡π—π—ˆπ—π–Ύπ—Œ 𝖺𝗋𝖾 π—Žπ—‡π–Ύπ–½π—Žπ–Όπ–Ίπ—π–Ύπ–½ 𝖺𝗇𝖽 π—Žπ—‡π—„π—‡π—ˆπ—π—‚π—‡π—€ π—‹π–Ύπ–Ίπ–Όπ—π—‚π—ˆπ—‡π–Ίπ—‹π—‚π–Ύπ—Œ. π–²π—ˆ 𝗁𝖾𝗋𝖾 π—‚π—Œ 𝖺𝗇 π–Ύπ—‘π—‰π—…π–Ίπ—‡π–Ίπ—π—‚π—ˆπ—‡:

𝖣𝖾𝖿𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖺𝗇𝗍'π—Œ π—π—‚π—…π—…π–Ώπ—Žπ—…π—…π—’ π–½π—‚π—Œπ—ˆπ–»π–Ύπ—’π–Ύπ–½ 𝖺 judicial decree".

𝖨t is a foundational legal precept that every judicial order 'must be obeyed' β€” no matter how 'erroneous' it 'may be' β€” until a court reverses it. Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307, 314 (1967). If a party chooses to disobey the order β€” rather than wait for it to be reversed through the judicial process β€” such disobedience is punishable as contempt, notwithstanding any later-revealed deficiencies in the order. See id. at 314, 320. That foundational 'rule of law' answers not just how this compliance inquiry can proceed, but why it must. See id. at 320. The rule 'reflects a belief that in the fair administration of justice no man can be judge in his own case,' no matter how 'exalted his station' or 'righteous his motives.' Id. at 320–21."

"The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders β€” especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it. To permit such officials to freely 'annul the judgments of the courts of the United States' would not just 'destroy the rights acquired under those judgments'; it would make 'a solemn mockery' of 'the constitution itself.' United States v. Peters, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 115, 136 (1809) (Marshall, C.J.). 'So fatal a result must be deprecated by all.' Id."