1.  First of all, what's your definition of "in prison"?  It is completely appropriate to hold individuals in custody pending trial if they are considered a danger to the community and/or a flight risk. Incarceration and the application of foreign law in other countries outside of the U.S. however, much we may in some cases disagree with it, is not within our power to control.  

2. Deportation to the country from which they came is typically appropriate.  We're not talking about people who managed to get past the Berlin Wall and are seeking political asylum.  If they have a violent criminal history in their own country, that's not our problem.

3.  Legally, in some instances, yes, we can.

4.  These judges are pushing their own beliefs and posturing for strictly political purposes, not objectively upholding the Constitution.

1. "Jail" is the place they hold you before and during your trial.  "Prison" is where you go if you are convicted.  I agree that we can't stop places like North Korea or El Salvador from imprisoning folks without trial, but we can stop sending them more folks to imprison.

2. If the country you came from is going to imprison you without trial whenever you go back, that's textbook political asylum. I mean you would know this intuitively if it was East Germany or North Korea, why does your brain short circuit when it's El Salvador?

3. Yes, an accused person can be held *pending trial*. Are these folks in El Salvador getting trials?

4. Sounds like you agree with the principle, you just think that's not what these two state judges are doing.  You say their stance isn't based on the US Constitution.  How do you figure? Aren't we discussing the right to a trial? Isn't that the 5th and 14th amendments?

1.  Thanks for the clarification, your definitions tend to be somewhat fluid.  Where in the US are people being imprisoned without trial?  

2.  Sneaking into the country without declaring to authorities is NOT textbook political asylum, it's illegal immigration.  They didn't come here claiming oppression.  I have friends who fled Czechoslovakia before you could just book a flight on Priceline.  I know what they sacrificed and risked getting here and there's a huge difference.  

3.  Who said anything about El Salvador?  You set the discussion parameters asking a philosophical question about principles, not specific cases.  Perhaps "fluid" is an inadequate descriptive. 

4.  The powers and rights of the Constitution do not extend to foreign countries any more than the laws of foreign governments are apply in the U.S.   Is "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" unclear to you?

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

You're usually so good with sarcasm and irony.
I'm not saying ICE literally sent someone to Salvadoran prison based on a single report. I'm saying they might have.  And you can't prove me wrong, because there was no trial! If there is no trial, you don't know if you've rounded up the wrong person. If there's no trial, any of us could be next.

Lol, that's because other folks are actually good at it. And you don't know what documentation they do or don't have, you're just assuming that you're right because it makes for a good laugh.

The guy was here illegally from El Salvador. He has made the decision to tattoo on his knuckles "MS-13". He was pulled over driving without a license, a known human trafficker's auto carrying 5 or 6 illegals North. His wife filed domestic abuse on him. Other MS-13 members have said he was a higher up in the organization. He was returned to El Salvador where he is a citizen. Where he goes in their country is not the business of anyone here. They put him where they wanted to. You have an issue go there and break him out.

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

Poor Pierre Poilievre. He was on his way to win the national election in Canada and then Trump pulled the rug out from under him. Now he’s even lost his own seat.

https://www.newsweek.com/pierre-poilievr...ey-2065415

---

1. "Jail" is the place they hold you before and during your trial.  "Prison" is where you go if you are convicted.  I agree that we can't stop places like North Korea or El Salvador from imprisoning folks without trial, but we can stop sending them more folks to imprison.

2. If the country you came from is going to imprison you without trial whenever you go back, that's textbook political asylum. I mean you would know this intuitively if it was East Germany or North Korea, why does your brain short circuit when it's El Salvador?

3. Yes, an accused person can be held *pending trial*. Are these folks in El Salvador getting trials?

4. Sounds like you agree with the principle, you just think that's not what these two state judges are doing.  You say their stance isn't based on the US Constitution.  How do you figure? Aren't we discussing the right to a trial? Isn't that the 5th and 14th amendments?

1.  Thanks for the clarification, your definitions tend to be somewhat fluid.  Where in the US are people being imprisoned without trial?  

2.  Sneaking into the country without declaring to authorities is NOT textbook political asylum, it's illegal immigration.  They didn't come here claiming oppression.  I have friends who fled Czechoslovakia before you could just book a flight on Priceline.  I know what they sacrificed and risked getting here and there's a huge difference.  

3.  Who said anything about El Salvador?  You set the discussion parameters asking a philosophical question about principles, not specific cases.  Perhaps "fluid" is an inadequate descriptive. 

4.  The powers and rights of the Constitution do not extend to foreign countries any more than the laws of foreign governments are apply in the U.S.   Is "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" unclear to you?

1. We agree on terms.  I don't believe anyone is being imprisoned in the US without a trial currently. However it seems we sent 200 to 300 people to El Salvador, without giving them a trial here, and it seems they won't get a trial there. I ask you for the second time, please answer directly the direct question, should we, without having any trial under our law, send people to countries that will imprison them without trials under their law? Is there a group of people who somehow deserve to be in prisoned without ever having trials?

2. We don't know If Albrego Garcia turned himself in or not at any point. We do know that he appeared in front of judges multiple times, and those judges said that he should not be returned to El Salvador, because his life was in danger there. In fact, Trump administration officials themselves initially admitted that they did not mean to send him back, that they were unaware of these previous rulings. How do you square that with their current claim that they did the right thing? 

3. This philosophical conversation, like any other, would be pretty useless if we did not try to apply it to current salient cases. 

4. There is such a thing as international law, some of which has been ratified by the US Senate in the form of treaties over the centuries. When a treaty is ratified by the United States Senate, it becomes law in the United States, this is in the Constitution. This includes the ideas of political asylum that we are discussing.

---

Lol, that's because other folks are actually good at it. And you don't know what documentation they do or don't have, you're just assuming that you're right because it makes for a good laugh.

The guy was here illegally from El Salvador. He has made the decision to tattoo on his knuckles "MS-13". He was pulled over driving without a license, a known human trafficker's auto carrying 5 or 6 illegals North. His wife filed domestic abuse on him. Other MS-13 members have said he was a higher up in the organization. He was returned to El Salvador where he is a citizen. Where he goes in their country is not the business of anyone here. They put him where they wanted to. You have an issue go there and break him out.

All of these are fact claims that could and should be brought up at a trial, So the man can get an opportunity to contest them

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

1.  Thanks for the clarification, your definitions tend to be somewhat fluid.  Where in the US are people being imprisoned without trial?  

2.  Sneaking into the country without declaring to authorities is NOT textbook political asylum, it's illegal immigration.  They didn't come here claiming oppression.  I have friends who fled Czechoslovakia before you could just book a flight on Priceline.  I know what they sacrificed and risked getting here and there's a huge difference.  

3.  Who said anything about El Salvador?  You set the discussion parameters asking a philosophical question about principles, not specific cases.  Perhaps "fluid" is an inadequate descriptive. 

4.  The powers and rights of the Constitution do not extend to foreign countries any more than the laws of foreign governments are apply in the U.S.   Is "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" unclear to you?

1. We agree on terms.  I don't believe anyone is being imprisoned in the US without a trial currently. However it seems we sent 200 to 300 people to El Salvador, without giving them a trial here, and it seems they won't get a trial there.  I ask you for the second time, please answer directly the direct question, should we, without having any trial under our law, send people to countries that will imprison them without trials under their law? Is there a group of people who somehow deserve to be in prisoned without ever having trials?

2. We don't know If Albrego Garcia turned himself in or not at any point. We do know that he appeared in front of judges multiple times, and those judges said that he should not be returned to El Salvador, because his life was in danger there. In fact, Trump administration officials themselves initially admitted that they did not mean to send him back, that they were unaware of these previous rulings. How do you square that with their current claim that they did the right thing? 

3. This philosophical conversation, like any other, would be pretty useless if we did not try to apply it to current salient cases. 

4. There is such a thing as international law, some of which has been ratified by the US Senate in the form of treaties over the centuries. When a treaty is ratified by the United States Senate, it becomes law in the United States, this is in the Constitution. This includes the ideas of political asylum that we are discussing.

---

The guy was here illegally from El Salvador. He has made the decision to tattoo on his knuckles "MS-13". He was pulled over driving without a license, a known human trafficker's auto carrying 5 or 6 illegals North. His wife filed domestic abuse on him. Other MS-13 members have said he was a higher up in the organization. He was returned to El Salvador where he is a citizen. Where he goes in their country is not the business of anyone here. They put him where they wanted to. You have an issue go there and break him out.

All of these are fact claims that could and should be brought up at a trial,  So the man can get an opportunity to contest them

Sure thing. He is now home or in his country where that can take place. He is not a US citizen. He is a felon in the US as he entered illegally. So all is good.

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

1. We agree on terms.  I don't believe anyone is being imprisoned in the US without a trial currently. However it seems we sent 200 to 300 people to El Salvador, without giving them a trial here, and it seems they won't get a trial there.  I ask you for the second time, please answer directly the direct question, should we, without having any trial under our law, send people to countries that will imprison them without trials under their law? Is there a group of people who somehow deserve to be in prisoned without ever having trials?

2. We don't know If Albrego Garcia turned himself in or not at any point. We do know that he appeared in front of judges multiple times, and those judges said that he should not be returned to El Salvador, because his life was in danger there. In fact, Trump administration officials themselves initially admitted that they did not mean to send him back, that they were unaware of these previous rulings. How do you square that with their current claim that they did the right thing? 

3. This philosophical conversation, like any other, would be pretty useless if we did not try to apply it to current salient cases. 

4. There is such a thing as international law, some of which has been ratified by the US Senate in the form of treaties over the centuries. When a treaty is ratified by the United States Senate, it becomes law in the United States, this is in the Constitution. This includes the ideas of political asylum that we are discussing.

---

All of these are fact claims that could and should be brought up at a trial,  So the man can get an opportunity to contest them

Sure thing. He is now home or in his country where that can take place. He is not a US citizen. He is a felon in the US as he entered illegally. So all is good

We had him in custody and we thought about sending him back in 2019, Trump was President at that time, and we did not do so.
Why not?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Sure thing. He is now home or in his country where that can take place. He is not a US citizen. He is a felon in the US as he entered illegally. So all is good

We had him in custody and we thought about sending him back in 2019, Trump was President at that time, and we did not do so.
Why not?

They made a mistake. It's since been rectified.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

We had him in custody and we thought about sending him back in 2019, Trump was President at that time, and we did not do so.
Why not?

They made a mistake. It's since been rectified.

It seems the first Trump administration attempted to get a deportation order, but the judge considering it instead granted political asylum to him.
Was the mistake when (a) the first Trump administration tried to deport him, or (b) when the judge granted him political asylum, or © when the second Trump administration decided to ignore that grant of political asylum?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

They made a mistake. It's since been rectified.

It seems the first Trump administration attempted to get a deportation order, but the judge considering it instead granted political asylum to him.
Was the mistake when (a) the first Trump administration tried to deport him, or (b) when the judge granted him political asylum, or © when the second Trump administration decided to ignore that grant of political asylum?

Incorrect. He has had 2 appearances and both judges agreed he was MS-13 and denied asylum. He is actually afraid of a rival gang...

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

It seems the first Trump administration attempted to get a deportation order, but the judge considering it instead granted political asylum to him.
Was the mistake when (a) the first Trump administration tried to deport him, or (b) when the judge granted him political asylum, or © when the second Trump administration decided to ignore that grant of political asylum?

Incorrect. He has had 2 appearances and both judges agreed he was MS-13 and denied asylum. He is actually afraid of a rival gang...

If that's true, why was he still here as of 2025? 
Do you have the statements of the judges to this effect, that you can link me to?

Cards on the table, the most credible story I heard was that he used to be an MS-13 for a while, then quit, and tried to start a new life on the straight and narrow. But that's the best I can piece together with the information I've heard. You have anything new to me?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Incorrect. He has had 2 appearances and both judges agreed he was MS-13 and denied asylum. He is actually afraid of a rival gang...

If that's true, why was he still here as of 2025? 
Do you have the statements of the judges to this effect, that you can link me to?

Cards on the table, the most credible story I heard was that he used to be an MS-13 for a while, then quit, and tried to start a new life on the straight and narrow. But that's the best I can piece together with the information I've heard. You have anything new to me?

If you knew anything about gangs and gang life, you'd know that no one just "quits", it's Blood i, blood out..... the only way to quit is to die........

---

They made a mistake. It's since been rectified.

It seems the first Trump administration attempted to get a deportation order, but the judge considering it instead granted political asylum to him.
Was the mistake when (a) the first Trump administration tried to deport him, or (b) when the judge granted him political asylum, or © when the second Trump administration decided to ignore that grant of political asylum?

B is incorrect. He was not granted political asylum, he was granted a Withholding of Removal order because a Baltimore immigration judge felt that Barrio-18 was going to kill him for being a member of MS-13.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

https://youtube.com/shorts/mgzRO7dOD3k?s...QbJSlPoih5

---

https://youtube.com/shorts/mgzRO7dOD3k?s...QbJSlPoih5

Observation of the day !

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

https://youtube.com/shorts/mgzRO7dOD3k?s...QbJSlPoih5

I was just talking about this at work today. 
I agree with the guy. Sometimes I have to speak Spanish at work and I don't mind at all, but I think it sounds wildly pretentious when people who I know are fluent in English and speak English with a clear American accent suddenly start rolling their r's and shifting their vowels when they mention their name or another Spanish name.  No one is asking Jose to go by Joseph.  But if we're operating in American English, his name is Hoe-zay not Hoh-SAY. His last name is San-chez not SAHN-ches.  It's pretentious to say otherwise.

NPR are HUGE offenders in this.  I mentioned this at work and no one backed me up on it.  Sad! Maybe I'll start trying to adopt accurate Spanish and Portuguese pronunciations of my coworker's names in casual conversation.  I bet they'll think it's pretty weird.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

https://youtube.com/shorts/mgzRO7dOD3k?s...QbJSlPoih5

I was just talking about this at work today. 
I agree with the guy. Sometimes I have to speak Spanish at work and I don't mind at all, but I think it sounds wildly pretentious when people who I know are fluent in English and speak English with a clear American accent suddenly start rolling their r's and shifting their vowels when they mention their name or another Spanish name.  No one is asking Jose to go by Joseph.  But if we're operating in American English, his name is Hoe-zay not Hoh-SAY. His last name is San-chez not SAHN-ches.  It's pretentious to say otherwise.

NPR are HUGE offenders in this.  I mentioned this at work and no one backed me up on it.  Sad! Maybe I'll start trying to adopt accurate Spanish and Portuguese pronunciations of my coworker's names in casual conversation.  I bet they'll think it's pretty weird.

Back when Jimmy Smits was popular long ago, he did a funny SNL skit on this. White people were correcting him with affected accents because he pronounced Spanish words like an American.

---

1.  First of all, what's your definition of "in prison"?  It is completely appropriate to hold individuals in custody pending trial if they are considered a danger to the community and/or a flight risk. Incarceration and the application of foreign law in other countries outside of the U.S. however, much we may in some cases disagree with it, is not within our power to control.  

2. Deportation to the country from which they came is typically appropriate.  We're not talking about people who managed to get past the Berlin Wall and are seeking political asylum.  If they have a violent criminal history in their own country, that's not our problem.

3.  Legally, in some instances, yes, we can.

4.  These judges are pushing their own beliefs and posturing for strictly political purposes, not objectively upholding the Constitution.

1. "Jail" is the place they hold you before and during your trial.  "Prison" is where you go if you are convicted.  I agree that we can't stop places like North Korea or El Salvador from imprisoning folks without trial, but we can stop sending them more folks to imprison.

2. If the country you came from is going to imprison you without trial whenever you go back, that's a textbook political asylum claim. I mean you would know this intuitively if it was East Germany or North Korea, why does your brain short circuit when it's El Salvador?

3. Yes, an accused person can be held *pending trial*. Are these folks in El Salvador getting trials?

4. Sounds like you agree with the principle, you just think that's not what these two state judges are doing.  You say their stance isn't based on the US Constitution.  How do you figure? Aren't we discussing the right to a trial? Isn't that the 5th and 14th amendments?

Dude, if undocumented people come here to avoid prison time in their countries for crimes they committed there they need to be deported and face whatever system of justice that country has in place. I don't care if their countries don't hold trials like we do. That's not our problem. If they're guilty, they pay. Asylum is for refugees of war and political prisoners; not gang members, rapists, murderers, drug cartels, human trafficking, etc. 

If they commit crimes here they need to be deported. Our justice system is not for them. It can't even handle its own citizens. The 5th and 14th amendments are limited. Look it up.

---