1032004

Please provide a link with evidence of this. Thanks in advance

Hypotheticals about withholding payments are kinda pointless IMO since we know the admin would never do that. I’m more just saying that since we’re paying them (and we offered him transportation to get back), there’s no reason for El Salvador to say no if we simply asked. But if I had to bet no one from the administration actually did.

I never said SCOTUS said we had to return him, I said SCOTUS said we had to try. I also said that considering we are paying El Salvador to house him, there is no reason for them to not willingly send him back. And since we did offer a plane, it would not be “smuggling” as Bukele claimed. You sound like Bukele pretending to be confused when you’re really not.

I never said they had to get him back. I said they had to try to get him back. I also said considering we are paying Bukele, it should be easy to get him back if we simply asked. There is no reason for Bukele to say no, it would be one less prisoner they’d have to deal with, and we offered a plane so it’s not like they’re just letting a “dangerous terrorist” go free. I disagree with his ridiculous statement of “what do you want me to do, smuggle him into the US?” We offered a plane, it wouldn’t be smuggling!

He didn’t comply with the order. What he “cares about” is irrelevant. Hopefully we’ll get another ruling from the Supreme Court to better define “facilitate.” The order also required them to provide updates as to what they were doing to facilitate it, and I believe all that’s been said is they said they would provide a plane. If they asked then surely that would have been stated.

He didn’t. That was a media member. Well he does say he’s a master deal maker right? If he can’t get the President of a country he’s paying to house prisoners to send back one of the prisoners, at no expense to them and would thus result in less costs, then he may not be as good at making deals as we thought.

I can read just fine. They’re not requiring that they succeed in getting him back (effectuate), but they’re requiring them to try (facilitate). So far all I’m aware of them doing is offering a plane. But when Bukele was asked (by a media member) if he would send him back, he went into some nonsense about “smuggling him into the US.” Except it wouldn’t be smuggling since the US already offered a plane…

Not force. Ask.

But the Supreme Court has control over what Trump does (or should at least). And Trump has control over what El Salvador does with the prisoners we pay them to house.

I’ll quote if for you. Are you arguing that “facilitate” doesn’t mean try? On Friday, April 4, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland entered an order directing the Government to “facilitate and effectuate the return of [Abrego Garcia] to the United States by no later than 11:59 PM on Monday, April 7.” On the morning of April 7, the United States filed this application to vacate the District Court’s order. The Chief Justiceentered an administrative stay and subsequently referred the application to the Court.  The application is granted in part and denied in part, subject to the direction of this order. Due to the administrative stay issued by The Chief Justice, the deadline imposed by the District Court has now passed. To that extent, the Government’s emergency application is effectively granted in part and the deadline in the challenged order is no longer effective. The rest of the District Court’s order remains in effect but requires clarification on remand. The order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs. For its part, the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps.

It does. The Supreme Court said he shouldn’t be there, and we need to try to “facilitate his return.” Considering we’re paying them, that should be easy peasy. Cool, good thing the Supreme Court wants him back here and not in El Salvador.

Well the Supreme Court said one of them shouldn’t be there. You got a problem with the Supreme Court?

Yes

He also said Pinto and Peterson I believe before they were official, but of course there was a lot more smoke there

Oh the irony…

His brother was already here

Well then we could stop paying them. But obviously we won’t because the administration doesn’t want them to explain anything. Us paying them is also why they should willingly send him back if that’s what the Supreme Court says we should try to do which it is. I can’t think of any reason why they wouldn’t send him back here if we asked, that’s one less person they have to deal with.

I prefer to read primary sources, not biased media ones actually. I don’t believe I’ve stated that he is NOT a gang member, merely that the evidence for him being one is extremely weak. Read the documents and you’d likely agree. The allegations from his wife certainly don’t look good though, but that’s irrelevant to this case, and his wife is requesting him back and says her claims were exaggerated. I don’t really care about this particular guy all that much TBH. I care more about the precedent this sets. Even if he’s guilty of everything he’s accused of which he probably isn’t, he doesn’t deserve a possible life sentence.

They were extorting his family’s business. In El Salvador. So they knew where to find him there. A lot harder to find him in the US, and if they did want to find him, him being granted asylum wouldn’t have really helped him. Probably would have just made it easier to find him TBH

You were implying El Salvador didn’t need to explain their evidence. I said they should because we’re paying them. You said we’d pay if he was here too. But we have provided (crappy) evidence. So congrats, you proved yourself wrong.

Being granted asylum wouldn’t protect him from being killed. It wasn’t guaranteed he’d be granted asylum, so maybe he thought he’d be better off if he could lay low and just not have any interaction with the police. Which I believe he did for 8 years until trying to find work at Home Depot.

You know pretty much nothing about this case, that’s quite clear. It wasn’t MS-13 he was afraid of

Yes and “we” have “explained” the evidence against him being in MS-13, as flimsy as it is. So thanks for proving my point

He thought he would be murdered if he got sent back to El Salvador. He may not have thought he was in danger of that while living here

Considering we are paying them to keep him in prison, yes they should have to explain.