“It disappears without asylum”: Trump’s challenge to the court means “any American” can be the next

The administration of President Donald Trump confirms that those who were incorrectly sent to Al Salvador are responsible for seeking legal relief that can return them to the United States, a position, legal experts are scheduled to go to the argument before the Supreme Court.

In the case of Kilmar Abrago Garcia, residing in the state of Maryland, the Trump administration sent to Salvadori prison based on a “administrative mistake”, the White House argued that it could not make its partners in El Salvador return the man he sent to them.

The argument came in response to the opinion of the Supreme Court unanimously last week, which required the administration to “facilitate” the return of Abu Garcia. The Trump administration responded in a presentation The saying that “facilitation” of his return simply means “removing any household obstacles that hinder the ability of the foreigner to return here.”

Public Prosecutor Pam Bondi expanded the position of administration in a statement, saying that to facilitate the return of Abgrego Garcia, it is to provide a plane, but the matter “arrives in El Salvador if they want to return it.

In a statement on Monday, the President of El Salvador and Trump’s ally, Nayeb Bokil, said that he was far from his power to return Aberigo Garcia to the United States. “I don’t have the ability to return it to the United States,” he said.

The position of the administration, which was taken in the context of a state statement, indicates that the administration expects to “find Abgrego Garcia” a return to the American border on its own, “according to Barbara McDodi, a former American lawyer in the eastern region of Michigan. She added that it believes that the Trump administration violates an order from the court for refusing to return it.

“They are taking a very doubtful explanation for the word” facilitation “to mean that they need to open the door only if Mr. Alago Garcia is able to get out of a terrorist prison,” McCadad said. “If they can do this, they can cause any American citizen’s disappearance without asylum. At some point, the court will need to keep an official in disdaining his matter.”

Jeffrey Absamon, an honorary professor in government and law at the University of Texas, agreed that the administration “seems ready to challenge the Federal Court order and raise a constitutional crisis.”

“In order to unanimously unanimously, the Supreme Court supported the order as much as the Trump administration ordered” to facilitate “the return of the man, although the court asked the judge to clarify what exactly it means” to stir “the return of the man.” “But instead of cooperating, the Trump administration refused, refused to do anything, and accelerated its previous privilege because the deportation was illegal.”

In spite of this, Amarmson said, “It is not clear what Judge Shinis can do to compel the Trump administration to comply with an order to facilitate it. You may keep the Trump administration officials in the contempt of the court, but how to give teeth to such a contempt quote.”

On the horizon of the administration’s refusal to return Aberigo Garcia to the United States is Trump’s clear intention to send American citizens to the next Silvadran prison.

“We always have to obey the laws, but we also have local criminals who pushed people to the subway, who hit elderly women on the back of his head with a pescet when they do not look, and he is absolute monsters,” Trump told reporters on Monday. “I would like to include them.”

Bennett Gersman, a law professor at the University of Pace, told a salon that the issue of protection that the American citizen might enjoy, and that he is not a citizen like ABGREGO GARCIA, may be an enforcement issue. He believes that this case goes to the Supreme Court, noting that it will be the issue of whether the Trump administration decides to respect any issue.

For example, if Trump decides to deport a citizen to El Salvador Prison, as he suggested that he is able to do it and will do it under his extensive authority in foreign affairs, and although the citizen is protected by a constitution of harsh and unusual punishment under the eighth amendment, “What is the right to be implemented? “