7 ms·

They've already sent an innocent man there and acknowledged he was innocent, then refused to bring him back when the courts, the opposition and finally SCOTUS e

They've already sent an innocent man there and acknowledged he was innocent, then refused to bring him back when the courts, the opposition and finally SCOTUS each commanded them to bring him back. This was just a test, and it was successful. They can now disappear and deport anyone they want with no repercussions whatsoever. The GOP is a criminal organization and their followers share the responsibility of what happens next.

xnx 2y ago
> then refused to bring him back when the courts It was extra ridiculous/insulting/terrifying to see the heads of both countries in the same room saying that there was nothing they could do about the situation.
- tromp 2y ago
  SCOTUS granting the president far reaching immunity was an invitation for the president to be in contempt of SCOTUS whenever it pleases him, and to just piss on the constitution he took an oath on defending.
- rescripting 2y ago
  It’s possible he is already dead, as he was basically sent right in to the arms of the gangs he fled from.
  - defgeneric 2y ago
    The fact that no charges have ever been brought against him by the Salvadoran government, yet they still claim to be holding him there lends credence to this. Why would they not simply release him? If he's dead it would be a major problem for Bukele's government as well as the US government. So evidently we're in "disappeared" territory now.
DaiPlusPlus 2y ago
> This was just a test, and it was successful It's too soon to say it's "successful": SCOTUS was 9-0 against and that was still only a few days ago, so far from being a success it's now turning into a constitutional crisis... assuming the administration doesn't fold, or flip-flop, or some combination of the two - which we've already seen plenty of[1]. ---------- [1] the seemingly arbitrary and capricious tariff changes announced almost every day ever since the-day-after-April-fools-day.
- thoroughburro 2y ago
  So, he’s being brought back then?
  - ben_w 2y ago
    Roll a D20: if it's even he comes back, if it's less than 10 he mysteriously disappears.
    - NekkoDroid 2y ago
      I wouldn't even put the odds of him coming back at 50% 20: He gets brought back in good condition, 19-16: He is gonna get brought back in terrible condition, 15-11 he doesn't come back, 10-1 he is dead
      - ben_w 2y ago
        Note that I said "even" and "less than ten". Even ignoring damage he's already suffered in the prison, the "good outcomes" are still only 30% (10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20).
  - dionian 2y ago
    If you read the SCOTUS ruling, all it upholds from the lower courts decision is that the USG must 'facilitate', not 'effectuate' his release. AFAIK the Court doesn't have a way to order El Salvador to do so
avhception 2y ago
Wasn't the argument for the right to bear arms always that it would prevent a criminal government from having it's way? Now, how's that working out so far?
- watwut 2y ago
  No. It was what peoppe who want to use guns to force own autocracy say. The people with guns support these measures.
  - DFHippie 2y ago
    This. The 2A absolutists want guns to pacify their neighbors, not the government.
  - readhistory 2y ago
    This is nonsense. Plenty of nonviolent, peaceful groups carry arms. Leftists (e.g. Anarchists, Marxists, Socialists, Communists, Queer Liberation, Black Liberation, etc.) groups typically are pro-firearms. Not always, but plenty are. The Black Panthers, famously, were armed, but so are are orgs like the Pink Pistols. Martin Luther King Jr. had many guns for self defense, and carried a revolver at times. Marx famously said that workers should be armed. Centrists (e.g. Democrats, some Labour parties) typically abhor guns, and value the decorum and principle of the instution to keep us all safe. They are a "if society is well ordered, then there's no need for arms" group. Right wing folks (e.g. Republicans, Proud Boys, KKK, etc.) are the folks who you are describing -- by and large supporting these measures and also want to use firearms to exert control. It's really, really important if you consider yourself to be a progressive to ask, "Who will gun control laws in America be used to prosecute? Will that be minority groups dispraportionately?" Historically and presently, armed minorities are more difficult to oppress, and many many leftist groups have historically and presently been armed for the purposes of community defense. By suggesting that arming oneself is a right wing position you erase history and erode current efforts for folks to build community safety systems.
- alabastervlog 2y ago
  Not “always”. It wasn’t the reason that became an amendment, national defense was. People later emphasized that rather off-label justification when state militias were nationalized and the main purpose of the amendment became wholly obsolete.
pnutjam 2y ago
https://documentedny.com/2025/04/14/ice-bukele-cecot-tren-de-aragua-el-salvador-new-york-deported/ https://documentedny.com/2025/04/14/ice-bukele-cecot-tren-de... Probably more then one.
flanked-evergl 2y ago
[flagged]
- atkailash 2y ago
  Cite? Really? I haven’t seen an article about the situation or the visit that didn’t mention it.
- ziddoap 2y ago
  If you google "innocent man sent to el salvador" you'll get dozens on dozens on dozens of results from which you can pick your favorite news site to catch up.
  - flanked-evergl 2y ago
    I checked the first two results and not one of them said the man was innocent [1][2]. It's okay if the claim is baseless and there is no citation, but asking me to find a citation for someone else's baseless claim is not really okay. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/14/abrego-garcia-trump-administration-el-salvador-nayib-bukele https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/14/abrego-garci... [2]: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-meet-with-el-salvadors-president-amid-questions-over-deportations-2025-04-14/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-meet-with-el-salvador...
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      Our system deems people innocent until proven guilty of a crime. That has not happened - he is not charged with any. Can you cite anything showing him having been convicted of something?
      - flanked-evergl 2y ago
        I made no claim one way or the other. I asked you to cite a claim.
        2y ago
gotoeleven 2y ago
[flagged]
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  Funny, because the administration testified in court that it was a mistake that he was sent. Claiming the stay was illegal was retconned after the fact, not the cause for the deportation.
  - flanked-evergl 2y ago
    This is entirely disconnected from reality [1]. If he was not an illegal alien, he would not have been deported at all. [1]: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/abrego-garcia-and-ms-13--what-do-we-know https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/abrego-garcia-and-ms-13...
    - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
      The claim that administration supporters are now using is that the legal 'administrative stay' placed upon him was illegal, That is what 'stay' means in the context of what I said, not his 'stay in the country'. Maybe don't get so righteous next time especially when you don't bother to understand what someone says.
ltbarcly3 2y ago
This is not an accurate account of the situation. While I don't agree with the actions the government is taking here, I also don't think we are entitled to our own private facts about it. Mr Garcia does not have a criminal record, but he was ordered to be deported years ago. He was able to get a temporary reprieve from this by hiring lawyers and working through the legal process, but he did this by almost certainly committing perjury by claiming there were criminal gangs who would kill him if he returned to El Salvador. If you believe the filings in immigration appeals you would have to believe that 99% of the people in the world are being personally pursued by criminal gangs. Perhaps you believe this but I don't find it to be credible. Regardless, whether the legal process is effective doesn't matter here, it IS the legal process and must be followed. My point is the fact Mr Garcia was deported is not itself the issue, it's that it was done in a way that ignores the rule of law (even though it did respect due process). Legally Mr Garcia should be deported eventually, he was only allowed to stay temporarily until he is not "at risk for his life" if he were deported, but the legal process must be respected. SCOTUS did not command anyone be brought back. They declined to issue an emergency decision blocking an order to 'facilitate' his return, but specifically sent back to the lower court and took issue with the order to 'effectuate' his return. So they are not commanding the government to bring him back, rather they are commanding the government to not prevent his return. Yes this is tedious but reality is often tedious. > They can now disappear and deport anyone they want I think you have not made any case that it is valid to assume that we would go from "one person who has already been ordered for deportation by a federal court" who was very publicly deported to "anyone they want" and "disappear". I basically agree with your sentiment inaccuracy and hyperbole doesn't benefit anyone.
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  Protection rackets are pretty big in central america. Look at the publicity about the avocado industry. Protection rackets only work when you go after those people that escape your 'protection' payments. So yes, it's reasonable to assume every person that said no to the racket and fled to the US becomes a pretty big target, it's part of the founding principles/business model of running a protection racket.
  - 2y ago

xnx 2y ago

> then refused to bring him back when the courts It was extra ridiculous/insulting/terrifying to see the heads of both countries in the same room saying that there was nothing they could do about the situation.

tromp 2y ago
SCOTUS granting the president far reaching immunity was an invitation for the president to be in contempt of SCOTUS whenever it pleases him, and to just piss on the constitution he took an oath on defending.
rescripting 2y ago
It’s possible he is already dead, as he was basically sent right in to the arms of the gangs he fled from.
- defgeneric 2y ago
  The fact that no charges have ever been brought against him by the Salvadoran government, yet they still claim to be holding him there lends credence to this. Why would they not simply release him? If he's dead it would be a major problem for Bukele's government as well as the US government. So evidently we're in "disappeared" territory now.

DaiPlusPlus 2y ago

> This was just a test, and it was successful It's too soon to say it's "successful": SCOTUS was 9-0 against and that was still only a few days ago, so far from being a success it's now turning into a constitutional crisis... assuming the administration doesn't fold, or flip-flop, or some combination of the two - which we've already seen plenty of[1]. ---------- [1] the seemingly arbitrary and capricious tariff changes announced almost every day ever since the-day-after-April-fools-day.

thoroughburro 2y ago
So, he’s being brought back then?
- ben_w 2y ago
  Roll a D20: if it's even he comes back, if it's less than 10 he mysteriously disappears.
  - NekkoDroid 2y ago
    I wouldn't even put the odds of him coming back at 50% 20: He gets brought back in good condition, 19-16: He is gonna get brought back in terrible condition, 15-11 he doesn't come back, 10-1 he is dead
    - ben_w 2y ago
      Note that I said "even" and "less than ten". Even ignoring damage he's already suffered in the prison, the "good outcomes" are still only 30% (10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20).
- dionian 2y ago
  If you read the SCOTUS ruling, all it upholds from the lower courts decision is that the USG must 'facilitate', not 'effectuate' his release. AFAIK the Court doesn't have a way to order El Salvador to do so

avhception 2y ago

Wasn't the argument for the right to bear arms always that it would prevent a criminal government from having it's way? Now, how's that working out so far?

watwut 2y ago
No. It was what peoppe who want to use guns to force own autocracy say. The people with guns support these measures.
- DFHippie 2y ago
  This. The 2A absolutists want guns to pacify their neighbors, not the government.
- readhistory 2y ago
  This is nonsense. Plenty of nonviolent, peaceful groups carry arms. Leftists (e.g. Anarchists, Marxists, Socialists, Communists, Queer Liberation, Black Liberation, etc.) groups typically are pro-firearms. Not always, but plenty are. The Black Panthers, famously, were armed, but so are are orgs like the Pink Pistols. Martin Luther King Jr. had many guns for self defense, and carried a revolver at times. Marx famously said that workers should be armed. Centrists (e.g. Democrats, some Labour parties) typically abhor guns, and value the decorum and principle of the instution to keep us all safe. They are a "if society is well ordered, then there's no need for arms" group. Right wing folks (e.g. Republicans, Proud Boys, KKK, etc.) are the folks who you are describing -- by and large supporting these measures and also want to use firearms to exert control. It's really, really important if you consider yourself to be a progressive to ask, "Who will gun control laws in America be used to prosecute? Will that be minority groups dispraportionately?" Historically and presently, armed minorities are more difficult to oppress, and many many leftist groups have historically and presently been armed for the purposes of community defense. By suggesting that arming oneself is a right wing position you erase history and erode current efforts for folks to build community safety systems.
alabastervlog 2y ago
Not “always”. It wasn’t the reason that became an amendment, national defense was. People later emphasized that rather off-label justification when state militias were nationalized and the main purpose of the amendment became wholly obsolete.

pnutjam 2y ago

https://documentedny.com/2025/04/14/ice-bukele-cecot-tren-de-aragua-el-salvador-new-york-deported/ https://documentedny.com/2025/04/14/ice-bukele-cecot-tren-de... Probably more then one.

flanked-evergl 2y ago

[flagged]

atkailash 2y ago
Cite? Really? I haven’t seen an article about the situation or the visit that didn’t mention it.
ziddoap 2y ago
If you google "innocent man sent to el salvador" you'll get dozens on dozens on dozens of results from which you can pick your favorite news site to catch up.
- flanked-evergl 2y ago
  I checked the first two results and not one of them said the man was innocent [1][2]. It's okay if the claim is baseless and there is no citation, but asking me to find a citation for someone else's baseless claim is not really okay. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/14/abrego-garcia-trump-administration-el-salvador-nayib-bukele https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/14/abrego-garci... [2]: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-meet-with-el-salvadors-president-amid-questions-over-deportations-2025-04-14/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-meet-with-el-salvador...
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    Our system deems people innocent until proven guilty of a crime. That has not happened - he is not charged with any. Can you cite anything showing him having been convicted of something?
    - flanked-evergl 2y ago
      I made no claim one way or the other. I asked you to cite a claim.
      - 2y ago

gotoeleven 2y ago

[flagged]

_DeadFred_ 2y ago
Funny, because the administration testified in court that it was a mistake that he was sent. Claiming the stay was illegal was retconned after the fact, not the cause for the deportation.
- flanked-evergl 2y ago
  This is entirely disconnected from reality [1]. If he was not an illegal alien, he would not have been deported at all. [1]: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/abrego-garcia-and-ms-13--what-do-we-know https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/abrego-garcia-and-ms-13...
  - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
    The claim that administration supporters are now using is that the legal 'administrative stay' placed upon him was illegal, That is what 'stay' means in the context of what I said, not his 'stay in the country'. Maybe don't get so righteous next time especially when you don't bother to understand what someone says.

ltbarcly3 2y ago

This is not an accurate account of the situation. While I don't agree with the actions the government is taking here, I also don't think we are entitled to our own private facts about it. Mr Garcia does not have a criminal record, but he was ordered to be deported years ago. He was able to get a temporary reprieve from this by hiring lawyers and working through the legal process, but he did this by almost certainly committing perjury by claiming there were criminal gangs who would kill him if he returned to El Salvador. If you believe the filings in immigration appeals you would have to believe that 99% of the people in the world are being personally pursued by criminal gangs. Perhaps you believe this but I don't find it to be credible. Regardless, whether the legal process is effective doesn't matter here, it IS the legal process and must be followed. My point is the fact Mr Garcia was deported is not itself the issue, it's that it was done in a way that ignores the rule of law (even though it did respect due process). Legally Mr Garcia should be deported eventually, he was only allowed to stay temporarily until he is not "at risk for his life" if he were deported, but the legal process must be respected. SCOTUS did not command anyone be brought back. They declined to issue an emergency decision blocking an order to 'facilitate' his return, but specifically sent back to the lower court and took issue with the order to 'effectuate' his return. So they are not commanding the government to bring him back, rather they are commanding the government to not prevent his return. Yes this is tedious but reality is often tedious. > They can now disappear and deport anyone they want I think you have not made any case that it is valid to assume that we would go from "one person who has already been ordered for deportation by a federal court" who was very publicly deported to "anyone they want" and "disappear". I basically agree with your sentiment inaccuracy and hyperbole doesn't benefit anyone.

_DeadFred_ 2y ago
Protection rackets are pretty big in central america. Look at the publicity about the avocado industry. Protection rackets only work when you go after those people that escape your 'protection' payments. So yes, it's reasonable to assume every person that said no to the racket and fled to the US becomes a pretty big target, it's part of the founding principles/business model of running a protection racket.
- 2y ago