I was wondering why they said it was a mistake, then said they could legally deport him due to the terrorism label. How about this? Bring him back. He still has a deportation order. He just isn’t supposed to be sent back to that particular country. Give him ten days to leave the country on his own. If he violates that, then send him to Guantanamo. If he ever comes back, he immediately goes to Guantanamo. That seems fair and lawful to me. It also sends a message to other current and future illegals. Watch them self-deport. Problem solved.

And to add to my post above, where I outlined 6 points…

AG Bondi Places DOJ Lawyer On Leave For Failing To Adequately Defend Admin In Deportation Case.

“…
‘The American people should know who this individual is. He’s not some American father as the mainstream media will make you believe, he’s actually a member of MS-13, and was involved in trafficking. …
…”

https://trendingpoliticsnews.com/ag-bondi-places-doj-lawyer-on-leave-for-failing-to-adequately-defend-admin-in-deportation-case-cmc/

Imagine admitting in court that you entered the country illegally. Imagine having a deportation order for YEARS. Now imagine flagrantly ignoring the deportation order because you think you found a loophole, or a technicality if you will. This is no one’s fault but his. No more mister nice guy. Americans are sick and tired of being taken advantage of. People react to the incentive structure. Let illegals know they’re going to end up in prison. We need a law that never allows illegals to gain citizenship or ANY protected status. That’s what you call an incentive.

Who will protest when they snatch you off the street and send you to a prison 5000 miles from home?

Serious question: are you retarded? I am NOT an illegal alien. I am in this country LEGALLY. The criminal, lying MS-13 gang member that you’re in love with is here ILLEGALLY. He has had a deportation order for years. Who cares about the Constitution again? Please remind me. See .40 cal’s comment for the rest of the recap for the 100th time.

Oh, and that protection order is null and void when the circumstances change. As noted, the circumstances that gave him that protection order have changed. All they had to do was go through some more motions to avoid the technical screw up. No sympathy. Come here legally. It’s time to send a message to all future criminal aliens. That’s how you fix the problem Democrats have been promoting.

“As I said before, it doesn’t matter what I think, the courts will decide because that’s what the United States Constitution decrees.

Every person in the United States has the right ‘to petition the government for a redress of grievances’, and the court has made a decision and entered an order:

“Judge rules US must return man deported to El Salvador in ‘error’”

and as has been pointed out – it doesn’t matter what you think.

1. Garcia already had an order of deportation. The judge in his WOR case ordered him removed, but just that he could not be sent back to El Salvador. But as the Supreme Court has made clear, removal orders and withholding orders are “distinct” [Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. 523, 539 (2021)]. And just as important, a withholding order does not “affect the validity of the underlying removal order.” Id. at 540. The validity of the underlying removal order doesn’t negate actually being sent back to the country in which one fears persecution and for which the WOR was issued.

3. The WOR process restriction on deportation country – doesn’t apply to members of designated terrorist organizations.

4. MS-13 was designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization in February (90 Fed. Reg. at 10030–31) prior Garcias arrest and deportation. Garcia had been previously given due process, was adjudicated a member of MS-13 (to which he also confessed previously), entered the country illegally (to which he confessed previously, and still upon current apprehension self-declared he is a member of MS-13). He is a terrorist, illegally in the country. Although it may have been a mistake to overlook the WOR restriction it would have made no difference even if it had been considered – he could have still been deported back to El Salvador to be confined at CECOT because he is a terrorist.

5. Plaintiffs have not come close to showing that Abrego Garcia will likely be tortured or killed in CECOT. In fact, in this whole thing from the very first time in court when he entered the country illegally – not one time has Garcia or any lawyer he had presented any substantiation of his claims that he would face persecution or death if sent back to El Salvador. The judge in the WOR case found the excuse ‘creditable’ not because it was substantiated but because its deemed ”creditable’ in deportation law if you swear it under oath meaning one can lie – and ya know, MS-13 members being criminals, well, what a shocker that Garcia probably lied ’cause his story upon examination had some big holes in the plot-line he fed the court.

6. See Kiyemba v. Obama, 561 F.3d 509, 515 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (“[S]eparation of powers principles . . . preclude the courts from second-guessing the Executive’s assessment of the likelihood a detainee will be tortured by a foreign sovereign.”). El Salvador is a signatory to both the Convention Against Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.” Bishop Decl., ECF No. 10-3, ¶ 32. The United States has ensured that removed aliens will not be tortured, and Defendants would not have removed any alien to El Salvador for detention in CECOT if it believed that doing so would violate the United States’ obligations under the Convention.

Garcia is right where he needs to be, and overall the deportation was executed legally – the judge here overstepped his authority in ordering him returned to the U.S.

“Technically it was a screw up“

Interesting, so constitutional protections are a ‘technicality’ for you.

You should really consider the deep ramifications of what happened in this case

The police state said they had secret testimony against this man, testimony that he was not allowed to challenge.

So the violation included failing to allow him to confront his accuser in open court, failure to provide due process with an open hearing before he was deported and now the police state claims he can’t be retrieved from the foreign prison they sent him to.

Yep, smells just like fascism to me.

Who will protest when they snatch you off the street and send you to a prison 5000 miles from home?

Technically it was a screw up. I’m fine with bringing him back. Then we can deport him the proper way, along with the other illegals. We should follow the rules, unlike the traitors that invited millions in illegally.

As I said before, it doesn’t matter what I think, the courts will decide because that’s what the United States Constitution decrees.

Every person in the United States has the right ‘to petition the government for a redress of grievances’, and the court has made a decision and entered an order:

“Judge rules US must return man deported to El Salvador in ‘error’
Kilmar Abrego Garcia was deported last month along with hundreds of alleged gang members
Article information
Author, Nadine Yousif and Kayla Epstein
Role, BBC News
4 April 2025
A federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to return a Maryland man who was mistakenly deported to a prison in El Salvador.
Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was expelled last month along with hundreds of alleged gang members, must be returned to the US by no later than Monday, US District Judge Paula Xinis ordered.
US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) said in a recent court filing that deporting Mr Garcia was an “administrative error”. An immigration judge granted him legal protection from deportation in 2019.“

Left-Wing Organizations Opposing The SAVE Act Received More Than $150 Million From Soros Groups.

“…
On March 28, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights (LCCHR) released a letter directed at members of Congress, asking them to oppose the GOP-sponsored SAVE Act, which aims to close existing loopholes in federal law that foreign nationals could exploit to register and cast ballots in U.S. elections. …
…”

https://thefederalist.com/2025/04/03/left-wing-organizations-opposing-the-save-act-received-more-than-150-million-from-soros-groups-analysis/

@Myner49

“So his presence in the country had been authorized by an immigration judge and he was not breaking any laws, got it.”

100% False.

A “withholding of removal” is not an authorization to remain in the United States.

A WOR is basically a deportation order by another name, just applied differently stopping short of designating a specific deportation country.

The Garcia’ WOR was not granting/giving legal permission to stay in the U.S. – he was never here legally under any sort of ‘protected’ status that allowed him to be in the U.S. legally, he entered the country illegally and stayed in the country illegally.

He illegally crossed the border in 2011

Basically; A WOR (Withholding of Removal) is a form of relief from deportation for non-citizens (i.e. illegal aliens, or others) back to the a specific ‘origin home’ country in which they fear ‘persecution’. It does not provide a legal ‘protected status’ to remain in the U.S., it is not ‘asylum’ nor does it provide a means to achieve permanent residency or citizenship. It is basically in effect “you can’t go back to your home country but you can’t stay here” form of deportation, and technically when its issued the person is in a ‘deportation’ status and its a ‘wait here until they find a country to deport you to’. Because of the lack of a specific ‘deportation country’ action this is sometimes falsely touted to be a type of protection that allows foreign nationals to remain in the U.S. while they face persecution in their home country. But it doesn’t actually do that – the ‘protection’ while still in the U.S. is not ‘permission to stay in the U.S.’ but rather just ‘protection’ against being deported back to the specific ‘origin home’ country in which they fear ‘persecution’.

His WOR was issued in 2019.

“It’s unfortunate that you seem not to grasp the authority granted to the judicial branch by the United States Constitution.”

yes, it is unfortunate Myner49 that you seem not to grasp the authority granted to the judicial branch by the United States Constitution.