A Maryland politician went to El Salv and tried to visit him in the prison. He was denied entry. (wasn't Booker).

Too bad these same types of law makers don't fight hard for the US citizens held hostage in Gaza.  Good thing these politicians don't have much international power like how a POTUS does.  Or we would get trade raped.  This 1 guy for like $100,000,000 or something.

Watch the video in the previous post.  That Dimocrat Senator for Maryland is Chris Van Hollen, and he's possibly going to be charged with violating the Logan Act.  He tried to force a foreign leader to take action that's in opposition to the US President's policies and US law.

Stay tuned.

So someone claims you are in a gang now the burden is for you to prove you aren't... how do you prove a negative? Wonder if he had a chance to cross examine the source of the claim...


Criminal gangs like MS13 don't only kill other members of gangs FYI.
The background, according to the court records, his family stated that the gangs were extorting the family and threatened to kidnap or kill Garcia.

In Abrego Garcia's hearing, neither the PGPD officers nor the confidential
informant were cross-examined.[25] Standards of evidence in U.S.
immigration hearings are lower than in trials: the government's claims
are assumed to be true, while the burden of proof rests with the defendant.[32]

Additionally, "Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien" forms—which
consist largely of hearsay—are considered "inherently reliable" and admissible
in court.[33][34] The judge presiding over Abrego Garcia's case determined
the informant's claim[35] was sufficient evidence in support of his gang membership
 to deny Abrego Garcia's request for bond.[27][29] On appeal, a second judge
upheld that ruling, finding that the claim was not clearly wrong.[27]

That was a master class in self-own entrapment

Hold back evidence until they turn him into a saint, then pull the rug out

Please show me where I said burden of proof is on the accused, or that they must prove a negative.

He is afraid of being persecuted, not kidnapped or killed.  Two different arguments.  Please show me where the court said he would be kidnapped or killed in their deportation hearing.

The El Salv pres said "like smuggling" as an example.  Maybe they know more info on him than the US does.  Hence his comment.

Do you even know anything about this story other than what the MSM tells you? Time once again to Educate EEF.

The dude is locked up in a maximum security prison in El Salvador because of his gang activities.

Do you really want to advocate for his return to the US?  You want the president of El Salvador to knowingly traffic in criminals and help them enter the US illegally?

There's no scenario in which this man will be allowed to enter the US again and stay after the US "facilitates" his return.

One other fact:  that man was never granted a green card or work visa, was never granted asylum or refugee status, and he never tried to become a naturalized citizen.  A judge issuing an order not to deport is not the same as becoming a legal resident with the permission of the federal government to remain in the US.  Only the feds can make such a determination legally.

How much do you know about the differences between Immigration hearings' rules of evidence and that of Criminal Trials?

Maybe you should really do your own homework instead of asking stupid questions you could answer yourself.  Maybe if you spent half the time educating yourself as you spend pretending to educate the rest ot us, these threads would be much, much shorter.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_Kilmar_Abrego_Garcia

Then why bring up the point that not being convicted doesn't mean he never committed a crime?  You said it is a weak argument that he had no sort of criminal record. Obviously not having a record doesn't mean you are innocent but it sounded like you putting the burden of proof on him to prove the accusation of gang membership wrong. His argument doesn't have to be strong unless the prosecution had first made a good case of his gang involvement.



How do you know what he is afraid of?

Swoosh. It was a rhetorical question for you. The point was that he didn't get to cross examine the accuser.

As for the tattoos, I have seen this photo up everywhere held up as proof of his gang membership. I think there is no doubt he did have these tattoos, but I haven't seen where marijuana, a happy face, a cross, and a skull somehow translate to MS13.

Swoosh. It was a rhetorical question for you. The point was that he didn't get to cross examine the accuser.

As for the tattoos, I have seen this photo up everywhere held up as proof of his gang membership. I think there is no doubt he did have these tattoos, but I haven't seen where marijuana, a happy face, a cross, and a skull somehow translate to MS13.

When are we gonna get some prosecutions? If Trump doesn’t 86 these traitors and they get back in power his whole cabinet will never get out of prison. Now or never. It’s Andrew Jackson time.

What point?  That you are wrong and won't admit it .... again!

The point is, you are pretending the rules of evidence in an immigration case are the same as in a criminal trial.  I doubt you knew that, but let's move on.

How would cross-examining the accuser have changed anything?  He still needs to prove what the accuser said was false. 

Whether or not he's an active and willing member of MS13 is also not the issue (see above immigration status).  But, he's also been arrested for beating his wife while in the US.  He's got MS13 tats he and his wife tried to hide when having pictures taken.

I guess they don't teach tattoo meanings for gangs to city and county employees.

When are we gonna get some prosecutions? If Trump doesn’t 86 these traitors and they get back in power his whole cabinet will never get out of prison. Now or never. It’s Andrew Jackson time.

So you want me to just take it on Trump's word that those 4 symbols translate to MS13? Am I not allowed to be skeptical of anything Trump says and ask how his conclusion was drawn?