134
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

The same people that ordered his deportation are not the same people ordering that they have to try and bring him back

why are they ordering him back?

Trump wasn't the one that made the ruling that he was MS13. That was done by immigration and 2 separate judges 6 years ago, and then confirmed by the president of el salvador when he asked for him to be sent there.

And yet, that's not what happened.

[-] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 1 points 1 week ago

And yet, that’s not what happened.

It is though. What do you think happened?

why are they ordering him back?

Because they believe the stay of deportation overrides the illegal alien act that was used to deport him. That's up for debate, and hopefully will go through the courts to get a final ruling - though on the face of it it seems like it doesn't override it, so they were able to deport him.

[-] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

It is though. What do you think happened?

It isn't though. You know what happened.

illegal alien act

Spoiler, the us isn't at war

[-] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Spoiler, the us isn’t at war

Ok so you disagree with them invoking the act that legally allows them to deport these gang members. Now we're getting somewhere, and now we can see why you believe that "due process" wasn't followed.

It isn’t though. You know what happened.

What happened is what I said happened. If you disagree, feel free to explain what you think happened. If you don't/can't, then we'll assume that you agree with what I said happened.

[-] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

Ok so you disagree with them invoking the act that legally allows them to deport these gang members. Now we're getting somewhere, and now we can see why you believe that "due process" wasn't followed.

He's not part of ms13 by any credible means.

What happened is what I said happened. If you disagree, feel free to explain what you think happened. If you don't/can't, then we'll assume that you agree with what I said happened.

Nope, what happened is what i said happened. I've said my part already, you're welcome to assume whatever you want, doesn't make it any more true

[-] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au -1 points 1 week ago

He’s not part of ms13 by any credible means.

2 separate judges/courts disagree with you, and somehow I think they probably had a bit more to work with than you do.

[-] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

Right his finger tats. I forgot 🤣

[-] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au -1 points 1 week ago

You think the 2 separate courts/judges decided he was MS13 in 2019 based just on those finger tattoos?

[-] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago
[-] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 0 points 1 week ago
[-] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

Got anything from a reputable source? The DHS is no longer reputable thanks to trump. It's a fully propaganda page now.

[-] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The dhs article is referencing the previous court cases. Here is one where it was determined he is MS13:

https://www.justice.gov/ag/media/1396906/dl?inline

This was appealed and a separate judge came to the same conclusion.

Even pro-Garcia articles make many references to those court cases.

[-] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

That's your proof he is ms13? A blurb saying "someone" said he is?

[-] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The 2 judges saw confidential information proving his MS13 affiliation. This combined with the other evidence - hanging out with self confessed gang members, gang tattoos, wearing the same gang affiliated clothing as the self confessed gang members, etc - were enough to convince 2 separate judges he is a gang member.

Why do you think you know better than them? You didn’t even know these documents and rulings existed lol

Also it’s not my proof - it’s the judges and immigration and DHS’ rulings.

[-] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

hanging out with self confessed gang members, gang tattoos, wearing the same gang affiliated clothing as the self confessed gang members, etc - were enough to convince 2 separate judges he is a gang member.

Guilty by association, gotta love it!

Why do you think you know better than them? You didn’t even know these documents and rulings existed lol

I did, they are unconvincing, especially considering he had a stay, to not get deported. Yes I know there were 2 countries listed in the stay. It's bullshit. If he IS a gang member, he still needs to be tried, and found guilty of a crime

[-] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 0 points 1 week ago

lol seeking asylum yet hadn’t even tried to begin citizenship pathways in the 14 years he’d been in the country illegally.

Funnily enough the stay of deportation was because of MS13 rival gangs targeting him lol. Bit of a weird one if he’s not MS13.

[-] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

Funnily enough the stay of deportation was because of MS13 rival gangs targeting him lol. Bit of a weird one if he’s not MS13.

Right, because gangs never bother or harass non gang members.

[-] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 0 points 1 week ago

Just another coincidence for Garcia I guess. A coincidence that he was picked up hanging out with self admitted gang members. A coincidence he was wearing known gang clothes while with them. A coincidence he has tattoos that can easily be read as MS13. A coincidence that he says he can’t go back to El Salvador, MS13s home territory, because of MS13s rival gang wanting to kill him.

This guy is just a walking talking coincidence, all with the same gang. What are the odds?!

[-] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

It could very well be, yes. Guilty by association is not how to do things

[-] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 0 points 1 week ago

And it’s not how they did things.

[-] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Except for its how they did things.

this post was submitted on 02 May 2025
134 points (97.9% liked)

politics

23496 readers
2488 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS