Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Probably important to acknowledge that, other than diplomatic protests or actions, the US has no say over what Bukele does with his citizens, like Abrego Garcia. Or very little.

And, accordingly, it would be problematic/impossible for a US court to order or otherwise force a foreign leader to return a foreign citizen from his home country.

Trumpco is trying to pretend that that is the end of the inquiry.

Of course, Abrego Garcia is there because a) we sent him there b) not merely as a returnee to ES to wander around and for Bukele to try or jail or whatever but c) specifically that he be imprisoned there, for which we are paying, and apparently retain control over the "final disposition."

It should also be noted that the lawyer did not make the admission on behalf of the government, an ICE Agent did, by sworn declaration.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69777799/11/3/abrego-garcia-v-noem/

6.  On March 15, 2025, two planes carrying aliens being removed under the Alien Enemies Act (“AEA”) and one carrying aliens with Title 8 removal orders departed the United States for El Salvador. Abrego-Garcia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, was on the third flight and thus had his removal order to El Salvador executed. This removal was an error

* * *

15. Through administrative error, Abrego-Garcia was removed from the United States to El Salvador. This was an oversight, and the removal was carried out in good faith based on the existence of a final order of removal and Abrego-Garcia’s purported membership in MS-13

 

 

So they fired the DOJ lawyer for no reason at all? 

Posted
8 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

So they fired the DOJ lawyer for no reason at all? 

Well, I guess you can say he never should have filed that declaration or let that guy say that.

But, that starts to involve a lack of candor with the court.

As brisket often says, when you have an evidentiary shit sandwich, like the fact that Abrego Garcia's deportation was in error, you take a big bite right at the outset, you don't try to hide and ignore it.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well all they really ruled is that habeas corpus was the proper remedy and the case in front of Boasberg had dismissed the habeas claims in favor of the APA claims.

When you add in that they expressly found Abrego Garcia entitled to due process in a properly vemued habeas case, the path is now open for more far reaching orders on deportation. 

Not that they'll do that but they mightif Xinis and the plaintiffs build a good record of contempt for due process and SCOTUS orders. 

Twice, man, they did not fucking rule that Trump can deport anyone he wants under the Alien Enemies Act for the time being and that everyone has to individually challenge their detention, if they are thinking about saying he can't deport ANYONE under it later. Turn the fucking lawyer brain off for a minute and use your normal brain. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Probably important to acknowledge that, other than diplomatic protests or actions, the US has no say over what Bukele does with his citizens, like Abrego Garcia. Or very little.

Puh-lease. Come on, man. You can’t possibly believe that. If Trump wanted him back, he would’ve been back yesterday.

  • Like 3
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
34 minutes ago, safe sex said:

He can't be brought back because he's already dead. He died the first day he arrived in El Salvador. C'mon y'all.

I'm shocked they haven't used the false flag card yet   

He never existed and the photos are of a crisis actor.

  • Drool 1
Posted
3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Probably important to acknowledge that, other than diplomatic protests or actions, the US has no say over what Bukele does with his citizens, like Abrego Garcia. Or very little.

yes-uhhuh.gif

 

  • Haha 1
Posted
13 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, I guess you can say he never should have filed that declaration or let that guy say that.

But, that starts to involve a lack of candor with the court.

As brisket often says, when you have an evidentiary shit sandwich, like the fact that Abrego Garcia's deportation was in error, you take a big bite right at the outset, you don't try to hide and ignore it.

the poor sap made the mistake of telling the truth while representing the DOJ.

Should have know better.

Posted

Trump would never bring back an illegal immigrant into the country. This was never going to happen.

Since this is a political board, its bad politics for Dems to make this an issue. Arguing for an illegal/undocumented immigrant to be forced back is a loser issue. Dems need winning issues. Even calling it a constitution crisis is a losing issue based on this case itself.

Now for the poor guy himself. I don't think any of us know whether or not he is associated with MS-13. His problem now is that he's in his home country where they don't care. If he's innocent of these accusations, he's screwed. El Salvador has decided that they would rather lock up innocent people rather than letting one MS-13 member free. He could literally spend the rest of his life there.

  • Fuck You 11
Posted

Wouldn't it be a good PR move to bring him back? "See, we're not monsters." 

Unless, of course, he's dead. Or if they just REALLY want this precedent to stick. Gotta start somewhere.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Trump would never bring back an illegal immigrant into the country. This was never going to happen.

Since this is a political board, its bad politics for Dems to make this an issue. Arguing for an illegal/undocumented immigrant to be forced back is a loser issue. Dems need winning issues. Even calling it a constitution crisis is a losing issue based on this case itself.

Now for the poor guy himself. I don't think any of us know whether or not he is associated with MS-13. His problem now is that he's in his home country where they don't care. If he's innocent of these accusations, he's screwed. El Salvador has decided that they would rather lock up innocent people rather than letting one MS-13 member free. He could literally spend the rest of his life there.

The Supreme Court voted 9-0.

He doesn't even have to be returned to the country, he just has to have a hearing. He has rights as a human being.

And I think it is pretty clear that anybody locked up there is staying indefinitely.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
2 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Wouldn't it be a good PR move to bring him back? "See, we're not monsters." 

Unless, of course, he's dead. Or if they just REALLY want this precedent to stick. Gotta start somewhere.

No, from Trump's standpoint bringing him back is a sign of weakness. And fully admitting a mistake which is not allowed under Trump.

The guy is not coming back. Anyone thinking that John Roberts can or could force it, is mistaken.

  • Fuck You 4
Posted
20 hours ago, Ojo Rojo said:

Vladeck's latest on the Abrego Garcia case:

  Hide contents

143. The State of Play in the Abrego Garcia Case

The Trump administration isn't defying the letter of Thursday's Supreme Court ruling. But it's daring the federal courts to take much more aggressive steps to block its immigration policies.

Monday brought a ton of headlines, many of them misleading, respecting the various statements made by President Trump and Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele about the fate of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia—the Salvadoran national who the Trump administration wrongfully removed from the United States in March and who, according to the Justice Department, remains imprisoned in the CECOT mega-jail in El Salvador. Given last Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling, many of the headlines suggested that Trump is openly, if not gleefully, defying the Court. Other stories seemed to accept, without any real challenge, the government’s suggestion that it’s powerless to do anything about Abrego Garcia’s fate—and that the federal courts therefore are, as well.

I’ve written before about both the background of the case and Thursday night’s (unanimous) ruling by the justices, and won’t rehash those analyses here. Rather, I wanted to ask and try to answer three questions about what is happening, and what is likely to happen next—that is, about what Trump is (or, really, isn’t) doing; what Judge Xinis might do next in Abrego Garcia’s case, specifically; and what the federal courts might (and, indeed, should) do in immigration cases more generally if the government keeps up its (mockingly) lawless behavior.

1: Is the Trump administration defying the Supreme Court?

In spirit, yes; directly, no.

As I explained last Friday, the central problem with the Supreme Court’s ruling on Thursday night, in which the justices unanimously affirmed the power of federal courts to review Abrego Garcia’s detention and to order the government to at least attempt to return Abrego Garcia to the United States, is that it left a little bit of wiggle room—by (1) not mandating Abrego Garcia’s return; (2) not setting any deadline for any next steps; and (3) using malleable language (“facilitate”) to describe the government’s underlying obligation. Critically, the Court “affirmed” the heart of Judge Xinis’s order that the government has such an obligation. But it also was deliberately vague about the scope of that obligation—especially as balanced against “the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.”

To be clear, the Trump administration, and especially Stephen Miller, keeps mis-describing what the Supreme Court actually ruled last Thursday. Miller, for instance, has publicly claimed that the Court unanimously rejected the power of federal courts to intervene in this case—which is laughably and demonstrably false. (From the Court’s opinion: “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.”).

And the Justice Department’s foot-dragging before Judge Paula Xinis (the Maryland district judge presiding over the case on remand) has been unquestionably inconsistent with the spirit of the Court’s ruling. But at least some of this mess is the Supreme Court’s fault. If the government had actually attempted to do everything within its power to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return, and it simply was unable to do so, then that would be entirely consistent with the Supreme Court’s mandate. The problem is that, thanks at least in part to the government’s own public behavior both before Thursday’s ruling and since, no one actually believes that the government is making even modest efforts—let along exhaustive ones—to comply.

2: Can a federal court order the government to invade El Salvador?

Of course not, but that’s not the point.

In a Tuesday morning tweet, Vice President Vance rhetorically asked a critic whether they were “proposing that we invade El Salvador to retrieve a gang member with no legal right to be in our country?” Leaving aside that there actually is a statute on the books that requires the use of military force against a foreign government in an analogous circumstance, this is a ridiculous strawman. If a federal court orders a defendant to take all lawfully available steps to remedy an ongoing legal violation, the defendant has an obligation to do so—even if those lawful steps turn out to be insufficient. So, for instance, a federal court could order the government to request Abrego Garcia’s return. A federal court could order the government to stop paying El Salvador to detain Abrego Garcia. A federal court could order the government to pursue any and all diplomatic means to “effectuate” Abrego Garcia’s return. And it could require a senior government official with direct knowledge of the facts to testify as to what efforts the government has (and has not) made in this case—and, to illustrate the distinction, what efforts the government has made in other, prior cases where it has been able to get folks back who were wrongfully removed, extradited, or otherwise transferred.

Finally, even if a federal court can’t order the government to invade El Salvador, it can at least attempt to impose consequences on the government for failing to take all possible steps to procure Abrego Garcia’s release. Thus, a court could consider monetary sanctions (against Secretary Noem, for example) if, by a specific date, the United States hasn’t, in the judge’s view, done everything lawfully possible in this case. The sanctions thus become the incentive for more aggressive efforts at “facilitating” Abrego Garcia’s return. A court could refer lawyers who refuse to follow its instructions or otherwise fail to live up to their obligations of candor to the tribunal to their state bars. And so on. In other words, there’s a wide swath of daylight—and of judicially available relief—between invading El Salvador and just taking the government at its (facially preposterous) claim that it’s totally powerless. (Indeed, if the United States really is totally powerless in this case, what does that say about the Trump administration??)

It wouldn’t surprise me if this is where things go in court—with Judge Xinis ratcheting up the pressure on the government, and contemplating, if not imposing, escalating sanctions for every day in which it does nothing to even try to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return, at least to her satisfaction. (The next hearing before Judge Xinis is set for 4 p.m. today.) That might get this case back to the Supreme Court quickly—where the justices will have to decide what to do now that President Trump has so publicly called their bluff. My suspicion is that even justices who are more sympathetic to the need for deference to the President when it comes to foreign affairs will not take kindly to the conduct we’ve seen since Thursday.

3: Can federal courts prevent other cases like this one?

Yes—and this is perhaps the most important way the courts can impose consequences for the Trump administration’s openly (indeed, mockingly) lawless behavior. For if the Trump administration is going to so publicly take the position that anyone removed from the United States is no longer its responsibility, and that courts are powerless to compel it to take any steps to bring back even those who were removed in error, then it seems like there’s an obvious response from the federal courts: No more removals of anyone until and unless the entire judicial process has run its full course.

That means no more use of the Alien Enemy Act until the Supreme Court (and not just a district court) has specifically ruled on both whether it applies to Tren de Aragua in the first place, and, even if it does, how much process the government must provide to prove that specific individuals are members of TdA (and, thus, removable under the Act). That means no more ordinary removals under the Immigration and Nationality Act (the normal process) until and unless individuals the government claims are subject to removal (like Mahmoud Kahlil) have had a full opportunity to challenge the factual and legal basis for their removal—not just before an executive branch immigration judge, but in an independent federal court. The obvious antidote to post-removal lawlessness and non-compliance is to ramp up pre-removal judicial review. That ought to ensure that there won’t be future cases like Abrego Garcia’s—and it might even provide incentives for the government to behave in his case, too.

***

I’ve thought, from its inception, that Abrego Garcia’s case is as big a test case for the rule of law during the Trump administration as anything else we’ve seen. Part of that is because, if the government can wrongfully remove someone like Abrego Garcia to a Salvadoran prison without any consequence, it can do that to any of us—alleged gang member or not; Salvadoran or not; citizen or not.

But part of it is because Abrego Garcia is also a case about what, historically, has been a gray area when it comes to the relationship between the federal courts and the executive branch. Federal courts can’t tell the executive branch what to do, but they can tell it what it can’t do, and they can provide increasingly powerful incentives for the executive branch to choose to take specific steps on its own. Maybe those incentives can’t come in Abrego Garcia’s case, specifically. But the government simply can’t afford to alienate the entire federal judiciary. And a world in which the federal courts become reflexively skeptical of any effort to remove anyone from the United States is one in which the Trump administration’s deceptive and deceitful conduct in this one case will prevent it from accomplishing many of its broader immigration policy goals. Of course, Trump and his advisers might think that’s a price worth paying. But like so much of their behavior in this case to this point, that, too, would be revealing.

 

I'm just here to point out that Professor Vladeck's wife is really fucking cute and would totally fucking get it.

Of course, she's apparently into really smart guys, which kinda impairs my chances.  But still, . . . .

  • Haha 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
Just now, Nice Guy Eddie said:

No, from Trump's standpoint bringing him back is a sign of weakness. And fully admitting a mistake which is not allowed under Trump.

The guy is not coming back. Anyone thinking that John Roberts can or could force it, is mistaken.

Yeah. I agree.

But maybe that Maryland Senator can make a difference by exposing how barbaric this is. We'll see.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I'm just here to point out that Professor Vladeck's wife is really fucking cute and would totally fucking get it.

I have to do everything around here.

GLjuEnGC_400x400.jpg

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Drool 1
Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

He literally has no lips. It is weird:

image.png.c9f122cc7f123c0efed1866f3a73f01e.png

image.jpeg.65eeb0436df3fdbc6c3e9b047ef0990f.jpeg

18 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

 

So, Trumpkins....WHY DO YOU SUPPORT AL QAEDA TERRORISTS BY GIVING THEM WHAT THEY WANT?

Al Qaeda and our conservative christian friends serve the same lord.

Edited by Celery Man
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
27 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Trump would never bring back an illegal immigrant into the country. This was never going to happen.

Since this is a political board, its bad politics for Dems to make this an issue. Arguing for an illegal/undocumented immigrant to be forced back is a loser issue. Dems need winning issues. Even calling it a constitution crisis is a losing issue based on this case itself.

There are some olds in a deep red corner of Iowa who'd strongly disagree.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
36 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Trump would never bring back an illegal immigrant into the country. This was never going to happen.

Since this is a political board, its bad politics for Dems to make this an issue. Arguing for an illegal/undocumented immigrant to be forced back is a loser issue. Dems need winning issues. Even calling it a constitution crisis is a losing issue based on this case itself.

Now for the poor guy himself. I don't think any of us know whether or not he is associated with MS-13. His problem now is that he's in his home country where they don't care. If he's innocent of these accusations, he's screwed. El Salvador has decided that they would rather lock up innocent people rather than letting one MS-13 member free. He could literally spend the rest of his life there.

I remember you saying the same shit after Glenn Youngkin narrowly won the VA governorship in 2021. No matter the situation, your desire is always for Democrats to act more like Republicans. They keep doing that in elections, even campaigning with some Republicans last year, and it never seems to help. If anything, it hurts them politically. It's funny how you refuse to learn anything from your recommended approach constantly failing.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, UrbanAchiever said:

There are some olds in a deep red corner of Iowa who'd strongly disagree.

Yeah, but I'm not sure that they move the needle electorally.  The reality is that there is a sizable chunk of the voting population that is scared to death of brown immigrants, so framing this as an infringement of the rights of brown immigrants (illegal or not) may continue to push them away.  I'm not sure how many of them you can win over on this topic, but I think the more reasonable play is to point out what the administration is doing (sending folks with a legal right to be here to a foreign Gulag to rot for the rest of their lives without any right to defend themselves), noting that "eventually they're going to come for you or your neighbors."  The idea would be to lay out the Trump game plan in advance and note every step along the way as it happens, so they have credibility when they say "they really are coming for you next." It would be great if we weren't so selfish as a country that this would matter without it being personal, but the reality is it's going to get personal soon enough.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
49 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

The Supreme Court voted 9-0.

He doesn't even have to be returned to the country, he just has to have a hearing. He has rights as a human being.

And I think it is pretty clear that anybody locked up there is staying indefinitely.

Trump, on Fox news, said that SCOTUS "ruled  9-0 in my favor"

45 minutes ago, Red Five said:

I have to do everything around here.

GLjuEnGC_400x400.jpg

Very cute.  She looks like she should have a British accent.

Posted
53 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

No, from Trump's standpoint bringing him back is a sign of weakness. And fully admitting a mistake which is not allowed under Trump.

The guy is not coming back. Anyone thinking that John Roberts can or could force it, is mistaken.

The judicial branch can declare acts done by the executive branch as illegal, so no we are not mistaken.

And he was a legal resident when he was unlawfully abducted not an illegal. Jesus fucking Christ it’s like I’m playing cards with my brother’s kids 

  • Hook 'Em 9
Posted
45 minutes ago, fuggled said:

Boasberg is now the first judge to find Trump's DOJ in contempt.  Buckle up.

 

I should have said found probable cause, not contempt yet.

Posted
43 minutes ago, achooloco said:

The judicial branch can declare acts done by the executive branch as illegal, so no we are not mistaken.

And he was a legal resident when he was unlawfully abducted not an illegal. Jesus fucking Christ it’s like I’m playing cards with my brother’s kids 

They’ve been revoking legal status of anyone they feel like. I’m sure they will claim they revoked his legal refugee status because of his gang involvement, then continue to not provide evidence of gang involvement. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
28 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

They’ve been revoking legal status of anyone they feel like. I’m sure they will claim they revoked his legal refugee status because of his gang involvement, then continue to not provide evidence of gang involvement. 

They have been but they didn’t at the time he was unlawfully picked up and deported. 

Posted

It's funny to read the transcripts where the DOJ lawyer is like "No really judge, they're really trying hard to get him back!"

"Have they asked for him to be returned?"

"Um...."

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

This is how Trump plans to eventually ship Americans off to El Salvador. Don’t think this can’t happen. Hitler made it happen. Auschwitz is not in Germany. It’s in Poland. And, oh, Eric Prince is the personification of evil:

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/11/military-contractors-prison-plan-detained-immigrants-erik-prince-00287208

Former Blackwater CEO Erik Prince and a team of defense contractors are pitching the White House on a plan to vastly expand deportations to El Salvador — transporting thousands of immigrants from U.S. holding facilities to a sprawling maximum security prison in Central America.

The proposal, exclusively obtained by POLITICO, says it would target “criminal illegal aliens” and would attempt to avoid legal challenges by designating part of the prison — which has drawn accusations of violence and overcrowding from human rights groups — as American territory.

  • Rage+1 3
Posted
2 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Trump would never bring back an illegal immigrant into the country. This was never going to happen.

Since this is a political board, its bad politics for Dems to make this an issue. Arguing for an illegal/undocumented immigrant to be forced back is a loser issue. Dems need winning issues. Even calling it a constitution crisis is a losing issue based on this case itself.

Now for the poor guy himself. I don't think any of us know whether or not he is associated with MS-13. His problem now is that he's in his home country where they don't care. If he's innocent of these accusations, he's screwed. El Salvador has decided that they would rather lock up innocent people rather than letting one MS-13 member free. He could literally spend the rest of his life there.

He's not an illegal immigrant, dude. That's the whole fucking issue!

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
18 minutes ago, Satchel said:

This is how Trump plans to eventually ship Americans off to El Salvador. Don’t think this can’t happen. Hitler made it happen. Auschwitz is not in Germany. It’s in Poland. And, oh, Eric Prince is the personification of evil:

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/11/military-contractors-prison-plan-detained-immigrants-erik-prince-00287208

 

Former Blackwater CEO Erik Prince and a team of defense contractors are pitching the White House on a plan to vastly expand deportations to El Salvador — transporting thousands of immigrants from U.S. holding facilities to a sprawling maximum security prison in Central America.

The proposal, exclusively obtained by POLITICO, says it would target “criminal illegal aliens” and would attempt to avoid legal challenges by designating part of the prison — which has drawn accusations of violence and overcrowding from human rights groups — as American territory.

Really am starting to wonder if I need to start scrubbing my internet presence so I don't end up being deemed worthy of a one-way ticket to the gulag by our dear leader...

Posted
3 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Shut the fuck up. If you give up on core rule of law issue where the government ILLEGALLY kidnapped a man and sent to a prison in a foreign country, you might as well give up the whole fucking country. This is a stupid thought. You are fucking stupid for having it or for considering as a fucking reasonable "political position".  

 

3 hours ago, Valmy77 said:

The Supreme Court voted 9-0.

He doesn't even have to be returned to the country, he just has to have a hearing. He has rights as a human being.

And I think it is pretty clear that anybody locked up there is staying indefinitely.

 

3 hours ago, hookem2010 said:

Kilmar Abrego Garcia was here legally.

 

2 hours ago, UrbanAchiever said:

There are some olds in a deep red corner of Iowa who'd strongly disagree.

 

2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

I remember you saying the same shit after Glenn Youngkin narrowly won the VA governorship in 2021. No matter the situation, your desire is always for Democrats to act more like Republicans. They keep doing that in elections, even campaigning with some Republicans last year, and it never seems to help. If anything, it hurts them politically. It's funny how you refuse to learn anything from your recommended approach constantly failing.

 

2 hours ago, hobbes2702 said:

Fuck right off. If it’s bad politics to say that the president can’t disappear people and needs to follow Supreme Court rulings then so be it.

 

2 hours ago, achooloco said:

The judicial branch can declare acts done by the executive branch as illegal, so no we are not mistaken.

And he was a legal resident when he was unlawfully abducted not an illegal. Jesus fucking Christ it’s like I’m playing cards with my brother’s kids 

Man, you guys need to lay off Eddie. He is a Nice Guy.

  • Haha 4
Posted
48 minutes ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

Shit is about to get interesting 

And.... 

 

@Nice Guy Eddie says we shouldn't care or try to help because it isn't a political winner. Illegally kidnapping people that have a legal right to be in the United States isn't important enough. Sending those kidnapped people to a foreign prison isn't important enough. The government refusing to follow court orders, include from the Supreme Court, just isn't important enough. Again, we have to wait until some generic white guy that is a citizen of the United States is deported. But really, even that isn't important enough because if the only basis someone has for citizenship is birthright citizenship and having been legally considered a citizen for a few decades, then really why should we care? Birthright citizenship is controversial and just isn't a political winner right now. When will Nice Guy Eddie care? When will it be important enough to him for people to fight for? Who the fuck knows. Probably sometime after he has spent a few years in a shithole prison in El Salvador. Maybe.   

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
10 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

That this isn't an immediately disqualifying phrase for any position or proposal...

Honestly surprised he's already not a cabinet member.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
39 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

@Nice Guy Eddie says we shouldn't care or try to help because it isn't a political winner. Illegally kidnapping people that have a legal right to be in the United States isn't important enough. Sending those kidnapped people to a foreign prison isn't important enough. The government refusing to follow court orders, include from the Supreme Court, just isn't important enough. Again, we have to wait until some generic white guy that is a citizen of the United States is deported. But really, even that isn't important enough because if the only basis someone has for citizenship is birthright citizenship and having been legally considered a citizen for a few decades, then really why should we care? Birthright citizenship is controversial and just isn't a political winner right now. When will Nice Guy Eddie care? When will it be important enough to him for people to fight for? Who the fuck knows. Probably sometime after he has spent a few years in a shithole prison in El Salvador. Maybe.   

Really fixated on me. Cool.

  • Fuck You 2
Posted
16 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Puh-lease. Come on, man. You can’t possibly believe that. If Trump wanted him back, he would’ve been back yesterday.

Reading comprehension.

Posted
3 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Really fixated on me. Cool.

Your stupid ass is fixated on "illegal immigrants" when the motherfucking Supreme Court case was about the LEGAL resident he deported to a fucking death camp you dumb bitch. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Haha 2
Posted

I think Eddie’s love for crypto leads him down some weird political paths that he thinks are normal.

Eddie, the weirdo libertarians who love crypto and bitch about the governmental tyranny of age of consent laws, but cheer on the illegal rendition of alleged immigrants to a third world gulag, are not normal. They’re not anywhere close to the average American nor the median voter. They’re dumb, sick freaks whom normal people find repulsive.

  • Hook 'Em 2


×
×
  • Create New...