DISCLAIMER: this is not my content that was removed, I just came across it in the modlog and found it to be absurd. If it’s not allowed, I totally understand.

Reason removed was because it’s unrelated.

Unrelated……

The guy was illegally deported without due process. And yet for some reason, suggesting so is somehow “unrelated” to a meme that is trying to say that because he is affiliated (no charges were ever filed against him for gang-related activity) with a gang, he is by default, guilty.

What’s ironic, is that the entire point of the meme is that the bullshit about him being in MS-13 is unrelated to the fact that people want accountability for this administration illegally deporting a man without due process.

This mod has definitely chosen the correct name.

And even taken into consideration that the instance is essentially a troll haven for wayward 4Chan refugees, they should still have to adhere to the rules of common sense.

  • EpeeGnome@lemm.eeEnglish
    61·
    2 days ago

    The allegations were determined to be true.

    No, they weren’t! Quote me the legal text were the judge says that. You can’t, it’s not in there. I guess you still didn’t read what the judges wrote because you just keep quoting that incorrect article. The judges found the allegations plausible enough to deny bond. That’s it! There was no further legal finding. You keep saying over and over that it was “found” by the court but that’s simply a lie. I don’t know if you’re being obtuse on purpose or not. Also, that’s not how allegations work. Once it’s been found true beyond a reasonable doubt by a court, it is no longer alleged. Judges only say alleged when they mean that something is unproven. It’s pretty simple, I don’t how this is confusing to you. So, there is no legal finding of gang membership, and any argument made on this fictitious “finding” is meaningless.

    fear that MS-13s rival gang would persecute him upon his return, which basically confirms that he is an MS-13 member

    Lots of reasons a gang would want someone dead besides being in a rival gang. This argument is also meaningless. Taking out the remaining nonsense, there’s not much else to respond to.

    What do YOU think should be done with him? He would NOT win any court case fighting against his illegal alien status because he is an illegal alien, self admittedly.

    Same as anybody. He should be given his court case. What the judge says goes, subject to appeal. If the judge says deport him, then yeah, deport him, I wouldn’t care then. What I care about is that the Fifth amendment says everyone gets due process. It doesn’t say “unless they’re sure to lose” or “unless you’re convinced they’re a gang member” or “unless they’re an illegal immigrant.” It does say, “No person shall be […] deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” which, unless you don’t consider him a person, is pretty fucking clear.

    • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
      12·
      17 hours ago

      No, they weren’t! Quote me the legal text were the judge says that. You can’t, it’s not in there

      Oh really? From the legal documents that YOU linked above, on page 9/13:

      The respondent argues that the Immigration Judge clearly erred in determining that he is a verified member of MS-13 because there is no reliable evidence in the record to support such a finding (Respondent’s Br. at 6-9).

      Then further down on page 10, the second judge:

      We adopt and affirm the Immigration Judge’s danger ruling (IJ at 2-3)

      Lets go further - Page 12:

      The Court first reasoned that the Respondent failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that his release from custody would not pose a danger to others, as the evidence shows that he is a verified member of MS-13.

      Page 13:

      Regardless, the detennination that the Respondent is a gang member appears to be trustworthy and is supported by other evidence in the record, namely, infonnation contained in the Gang Field Interview Sheet. Although the Court is reluctant to give evidentiary weight to the Respondent’s clothing as an indication of gang affiliation, the fact that a “past, proven, and reliable source of infonnation” verified the Respondent’s gang membership, rank, and gang name is sufficient to support that the Respondent is a gang member, and the Respondent has failed to present evidence to rebut that assertion.

      So on this:

      Same as anybody. He should be given his court case.

      What court case? He admits to being an illegal immigrant. He was determined to be an MS-13 member. He was ordered to be deported in court. Trump invoked the Illegal Alien act which was used to deport him regardless of any withholding status. He had his days in court (he could have had more but he decided not to show up, even admitting that he lied about not knowing about them).

      So after all that, do you want to change what you said here?

      Once it’s been found true beyond a reasonable doubt by a court, it is no longer alleged. Judges only say alleged when they mean that something is unproven. It’s pretty simple, I don’t how this is confusing to you.

      The Judges here determined that he is a member of MS-13. It’s pretty simple, I don’t know how this is confusing to you.

    • flicker@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      21·
      1 day ago

      Consider this my reply also. I mean, at least they finally admitted the withholding status was granted (even if they turned that into ‘six years after he was supposed to be deported!’) but still. Even the “I don’t know what site that is” nonsense when we provide actual court documents… it’s clear they just googled ‘evidence of what I want to be true’ and went with the first thing.

      Not worth my effort. Good luck, EpeeGnome.

      • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
        12·
        18 hours ago

        I mean, at least they finally admitted the withholding status was granted

        I’ve never said that it wasn’t. I’ve said many times that he had a withholding status, but that it doesn’t matter due to the invocation of the illegal alien act.

        Even the “I don’t know what site that is”

        So it’s impossible for a person to not know exactly who owns or runs a site that showed up on google? You guys can’t be serious lol. Again - the site does not matter if what they are reporting is verifiably true, which it was. What exactly is the issue with the site that I linked? Neither of you have actually pointed that out lol

        when we provide actual court documents

        Court documents that say the exact thing you’re saying they DON’T say lol.

        You: “Waaaah no judges said he is an MS-13 member, here’s the proof!”

        Also You: links to legal documents that mention multiple times that 2 judges determined him to be an MS-13 gang member

        lol

        • flicker@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          11·
          17 hours ago

          Shit, I didn’t think you had problems with reading comprehension. Sorry, let me be clearer.

          When I said, “consider this my reply also,” it meant “I’m no longer interested in talking to you.”

          When I said, “Not worth my effort,” it meant “I’m no longer interested in talking to you.”

          And for perfect clarity, when I say, “I’m no longer interested in talking to you,” I mean, “I know you’re going to reply because you’re that type, but I’m no longer interested in talking to you.” This is my last reply to you.

          It’s cool. I have a learning disability, too. Glad I could help. Have a good one.

          • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
            12·
            17 hours ago

            When I said, “consider this my reply also,” it meant “I’m no longer interested in talking to you.”

            When I said, “Not worth my effort,” it meant “I’m no longer interested in talking to you.”

            That doesn’t mean I’m not going to reply to you. I’m going to reply to your post, and it’s up to you if you want to reply again or not. You said you wouldn’t - that’s fine with me…yet here you are :)

            You don’t get to choose when I stop replying to you, I do. Just don’t reply if you don’t want to :)

            I have a learning disability

            Clearly. Good on you for being upfront about it.