Patrick_Beatmeat

@Unreelness @AP Like Costa Rica who has been asking to take him in as refugee for now months despite the administration lying in court about it? Garcia already requested to be sent there and the government refused

@AP Just drop his woman abusing ass off on a random island at this point.

BREAKING: The U.S. can't take Kilmar Abrego Garcia back into immigration custody because it doesn't have a viable plan to deport him, judge says. apnews.com/article/abrego…

@The_Sarge11 @periodicaudio @kyledcheney @LookerPhillip Bro’s not even trying to hide it… fucking ai lawyers man Maybe look up what these cases entail next time, might avoid you citing Zadvydas lmao

Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), (1999) Congress can strip federal courts of jurisdiction over certain discretionary immigration decisions. “Congress has plenary power over immigration, and may make rules to limit judicial review of discretionary decisions.” McCarthy v. Madigan, (1992) (procedural) While not strictly immigration, it establishes that jurisdiction-stripping provisions are enforceable if Congress clearly expresses intent. INS v. St. Cyr, (2001) Jurisdiction stripping must leave adequate alternative review; otherwise, habeas corpus survives. “If a statute purports to eliminate habeas corpus, it must clearly do so; otherwise, constitutional review survives.” ADC, (1999) confirms §1252(g) bars judicial review of discretionary decisions. Zadvydas v. Davis, (2001) within statutory limits, courts may review. J.G.G. v. Trump,(2025) – SCOTUS reinforced that habeas corpus is the correct route and that Article III courts but cannot bypass statutory limitations.

Since July, I've tracked at least 2,300 cases in which federal judges have ruled ICE has illegally detained people without bond or due process. This is one that stands out: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…

@The_Sarge11 @periodicaudio @kyledcheney @LookerPhillip Literally had to change the quote but ok lil gup

@ImCorrectAlways @periodicaudio @kyledcheney @LookerPhillip Its a direct quote from the law not an individual. They used it in 2 seperate locations are you dense?

@The_Sarge11 @periodicaudio @kyledcheney @LookerPhillip Also what do you think 8usc1552 g even means in relation to my argument or your original response? Really feels like you a throwing random shit at the wall

@The_Sarge11 @periodicaudio @kyledcheney @LookerPhillip OOF what happened to it being a direct quote now? Is the best that you’ve got just citing random statutes you’ve yet to even processed and presenting them as if it contradicts any of the cases cited by Kyle?

@The_Sarge11 @periodicaudio @kyledcheney @LookerPhillip Cite caselaw saying that Art 3 courts only has this ridiculously limited jurisdiction as you falsely claim

@ImCorrectAlways @periodicaudio @kyledcheney @LookerPhillip Its not AI buddy its Federal law. Google is your friend.

@The_Sarge11 @periodicaudio @kyledcheney @LookerPhillip Don’t use AI

@The_Sarge11 @periodicaudio @kyledcheney @LookerPhillip « This is codified in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). That states, “No court shall have jurisdiction to review” these decisions. » Literally made up quote

@The_Sarge11 @kyledcheney @LookerPhillip Do you deny that Art 3 courts have jurisdiction over Habeas petitions as SCOTUS supported in JGG v Trump?

@ImCorrectAlways @kyledcheney @LookerPhillip Its only absurd if you don't understand US law. Which clearly you do not. Go read each of the documents and them come back and apologize like a man.

@The_Sarge11 @periodicaudio @kyledcheney @LookerPhillip Where? Literally none of your citations were correct Jfc is this another bot?

What you are missing is the Constitution structured immigration as a function of of the Presidents foreign affairs or relations authority. The President’s holds plenary, Article II foreign affairs powers. In other terms full, broad, and exclusive authority. The courts are very aware they are overstepping their authority. The first question must always be don they hold jurisdiction with in the law. Congress stated point blank they do not.

@The_Sarge11 @kyledcheney @LookerPhillip Lmao this comment is fascinating. The more I look into it, to more absurd all the citations get

@The_Sarge11 @kyledcheney @LookerPhillip Was this generated by fucking GrokAI?? How does it engage with what I said lmao

@periodicaudio @The_Sarge11 @kyledcheney @LookerPhillip Man these fucking bots

(i) Revocation of visas or documents After the issuance of a visa or other documentation to any alien, the consular officer or the Secretary of State may at any time, in his discretion, revoke such visa or other documentation. Notice of such revocation shall be communicated to the Attorney General, and such revocation shall invalidate the visa or other documentation from the date of issuance: Provided, That carriers or transportation companies, and masters, commanding officers, agents, owners, charterers, or consignees, shall not be penalized under section 1323(b) of this title for action taken in reliance on such visas or other documentation, unless they received due notice of such revocation prior to the alien's embarkation. There shall be no means of judicial review (including review pursuant to section 2241 of title 28 or any other habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361 and 1651 of such title) of a revocation under this subsection, except in the context of a removal proceeding if such revocation provides the sole ground for removal under section 1227(a)(1)(B) of this title.

@periodicaudio @The_Sarge11 @kyledcheney @LookerPhillip Did you randomly cite 8USC1201? Not only does it not engage with what I said, I’m interested of what you have to say on the Sept30 ruling in AAUP v Rubio

@ImCorrectAlways @The_Sarge11 @kyledcheney @LookerPhillip They only get the jurisdiction that Congress grants them. Per 8 USC 1201(i), there is NO judicial review allowed for revocation of a visa or change in immigration status as the Sec State decides. These courts have ZERO constitutional or legal authority here.

@semillitxs @DorotheaMarj Trump literally had the NG leave Chicago because the state of Illinois sued his ass and won in the Supreme Court… It’s not all under the same government

@DorotheaMarj it's all under one same government, u guys need to stop believing that a democracy actually means that things are the way the tell u they are, open ur eyes.

This is a counter insurgency tactic.

@The_Sarge11 @kyledcheney @LookerPhillip Art 3 courts hold jurisdiction over these cases when in comes to due process. Habeas Corpus, for example, is in the sole venue of these courts

Thanks for pointing out how bad the federal judiciary has become. All these activist judges deciding that they hold Article 1 authority rather than Congress and Article 2 authority rather than the President. The law passed by Congress expressly excluded the Judicial Branch from involvement in immigration decision and vested all authority in the President. The Article 2 authority of the Constitution also gives the authority for these decisions to the Executive Branch.

@Quantumpigeons @fear_nd_loathin @mike_g_money @OfAthenry He got a withholding order of removal. He wants to leave to Costa Rica and it’s the only country willing to take him. Why not save some money instead of spending millions more on this case?

@MarkHah10784750 @JaneSilver4qwf @kyledcheney He got legal residency under the first Trump admin and there was no legal basis for his arrest in March of this year

@JaneSilver4qwf @kyledcheney he's here fuckin illegally what part of that don't you people understand....if we went to other countries illegally we'd be put in prison... sometimes for years...we need to deport ALL ILLEGALS..come here legally and we will accept them

In a late night filing, DOJ says Kilmar Abrego Garcia should be returned to detention because he is subject to laws governing detention during deportation proceedings — and “may seek a bond hearing” before an immigration judge. However … storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…