President Donald Trump

I love how Lucy thinks american lives have less human value than his people and yet he's obsessed with america.

Which law requires a president to help non citizens outside the country who are in a bad spot because of previous government actions? can a judge order reparations for people in gaza because he disagrees with american foreign policy helping Israel materially bomb Gaza?

Ofc Biden deported a lot of people. And? the baseline is you deport every single illegal you catch. That' s the expected role of the government in that topic. You can spend more or less to catch them to a degree, but once you get your hands on them they should *all* be deported (if they don't have legal permits to stay ofc).

As for third no my argument relies on the premise that Trump has to compromise international relations to try to get that guy back. The only part of government who gets to decide how important relationships with El Salvador are, and what if any pressure to use against it to get outcomes and so on, is the executive.

Any attempt by the judiciary to claim that the tradeoff "relationship with Bukele VS the worth of Garcia future" can be decided by them is an attempted coup

The executive has a constitutional right to claim "the **** with Garcia we care more about Bukele" with no power being allowed to have a say on the topic.

for the nth time, i have family members who are american citizens, and yes i am obsessed with my family

Hey guys you don't get it, Trump doesn't have the power, Trump didn't know, it's not what he meants, etc ...

classic idiot defense

Trump has the power to attempt deportations without due process, and to set tariffs, because of idiotic past decisions of congress (and because the judiciary doesn't intervene where it can, denying delegation is constitutional).

So what Trump did with Garcia, and what he did with tariffs, only happened because other branches of power made horrendous mistakes. Mistakes that can be fixed at any time mind.

Are you sure they didn't leave you behind intentionally?

Dear profoundly stupid person.

This guy was not born here. He entered the country illegally. At no point was he lawfully present in the United States.

I understand that in your fantasy version of the United States, non-citizens have no rights at all. For now, at least, that is not the actual law of the United States.

It is absurd that you continue to argue from the premise that Bukele is not acting at the behest of Trump on this issue. I would rate the chances of that premise being accurate at less than 1 in 500.

Hey I'm starting to suspect lucy is arguing in bad faith here.

No i understand the model of the current interpretation of the constitution giving partial rights to non citizens. Which btw it's why i didn't contest the suspension of the deportations (other than the class thing, but that's another topic). I wouldn't contest a judge suspending the deportation of a non-citizen under whatever grounds if they fulfill the application of the law currently in use.

I do not understand at all what courts are claiming NOW, about Garcia, now that he isn't in the USA anymore.

Say he was a citizen ok? to make it simpler. I would argue the same. Courts have (or shouldn't have?) any power to FORCE government do ANYTHING about another country to try to get a citizen back.

In fact afaik courts don't order to facilitate the reimpatriation of citizens who are wrongly arrested in foreign countries.

Now even if Bukele is doing Trump bidding , which is very probably the case and i don't deny that, that doesn't change anything. POTUS has the constitutional right to develop personal relationships with foreign leaders and to consider them in the interest of the nation and only he can make the call about when and if to use that relationship to what end, and no other constitutional power can.

POTUS embodies the interest of the nation in international relationship. What he claims IS the interest of the nation constitutionally, no other entity in the country has a second say (other than congress in limited cases). Certainly not the judiciary. POTUS IS THE COUNTRY when dealing with foreign countries.

We know we are paying El Salvador to host the prisoners which would imply a contract which would imply guidelines for performance

Now some contracts are slapped together sloppy as **** but hard to imagine there is any sort of binding language that wouldn't allow for the return of a prisoner. Quite the opposite

Its just typical GOP nonsense

Ok let's say you have a point here (you might have one).

What if Bukele says "sorry but we think this is a criminal and we are going to keep him", while stopping to charge you for him specifically (you save 5-10k / year, good job).

Now what do you think courts could ORDER the trump admin to do?

this precisely but i think i'd also want to state that, looking at % of population that participated in past presidentail elections, america is at best 50% full of people apathetic to public policy and politics writ large. the % of elligible voters hadnt eclipsed that 50% til after obama's first term, and possibly 2nd (recalling from memory here but pretty sure that graph was posted in one of these threads if not i just saw it in an article linked to reddit but I'm sure we can quick wikipedia the info and then execute a cross check elsewhere to verify the veracity of truth). basically i dont even think politically motivated individuals understand the fundamental ideologies they espouse. For ****s sake, even on the far left i am ****in livid with the absolute bumper sticker summary Twitter University takes i see from people i am supposed to be on the same IDEOLOGICAL SIDE AS but sincerely doubt their ability to actually understand the underpinnings of HALF the **** they might truly support from an emotional standpoint but fundamentally dont fully understand.

that said, I cant believe that 50% of eligible voters are THAT unconcerned with policy direction. and clearly of that 50% number, we're probably still dealing with some % between (.01-99.99) of that partition which could be easily pulled into active civic participation. merely accounting for wild bullshit statements about that 50% total here so I'm granting some further dissection in argument here.

But the point is: i would hypothesis and wager that one of the larger factors inhibiting participation is simply not knowing/understanding (and therefor leading to potential indifference even if detrimental to their own pursuit of livlihood) the issues at hand. BUT when the direct effects of current economic policy serve to quickly upend any form of placation, people might pull their head outta the sand and go "oh ****, i think free trade might be the thing i am interested in" and so we will see some % of the % of the 50% contribute to a poll showing further support of free trade with an identification choice of staunchly support either party or a euphamistic "liberal" label, then yeah it makes a lot of ****ing sense that some people woke up and went "i hate this new thing, turns out i didnt get it before but i love the free trade"

obviously not the largest factor but point is: i agree 100% with the quoted post and wanted to add some other possible contributing hypothesii to that fun graph at center of commentary here.

Thats essentially what is happening and they are treating it like some sort of loophole

But we also know that Trump could "art of the deal" and claim he wont pay El Salvador unless they return the prisoner. Hes doing that all over the place with other contracts and agreements as we speak.

In reality, we know he could just ask and it would happen. Thats how partnerships work

whoah whoah whoah - slow the **** down - you need say more on the first part of this absolutely because i dont think you are recognizing what implications this summary/explanation carries with it.

not exactly a loaded request but I would urge you to pause and reanalyze how you got to that a bit more.

i can eradicate the logic here this with a single quick easy to follow along example, so i am just urging you to provide more context or re-assess the lead up to this statement and offer opportunity to maybe change what you're saying.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/17/target-ceo-to-meet-with-al-sharpton-after-dei-rollback.html

CNBC

Target CEO Cornell meets with Sharpton to discuss DEI rollback as civil rights leader considers boycott

They haven't reported earnings for the period the boycott started, but third party foot data looks brutal and I guess basically confirmed by this meeting.

also really quick:

Bukele goes "oh i cant take the man and send him back to America, he is terrorist!"

This statement is predicated on a conclusion made by who?

Additionally, where is the trial that deduced the validity of said claim?

The American justice system (lets leave critique on the floor, i'll try to do the same) in this case for example would operate on something like - hypothesis and evidence to support. this entire scenario would play out in a court room or before a magistrate etc etc. So the conclusion of "is terrorist" NEVER HAPPENED.

So then we back up.

The GOP goes "oh we cant rupture sovereignty of another nation"

They cant? Because im pretty sure the US quid pro quo'd this with money. THEY PAID El Salvador some sum to take the people in as prisoner. Sounds like a financial solution is easily graspable and GOP just has to go "well, we got ****ed cuz we need him back now and have to pay twice for him"

if anything, this may be the reason for the hold up because I'm pretty sure there potentailly are huge problems with "we'll pay you to just take these people and not let anyone bring them back"

It has nothing to do with Democrats or any party. I guarantee at least one person has entered the country without proper authorization since Trump took office.

And of course there are legal ways to deport people. You don't think a single person has was evicted during the Biden administration.

I just said they should get some kind of chance to make their case. There are rules about who should be offered asylum. If someone thinks they should be eligible for that, they should be allowed to present their case. Maybe everyone will qualify, maybe no one will qualify, I don't care either way about that, but the law should be followed.

You are the one suggesting disregarding the law, not me.

They definitely don't defend free speech rights. The only individual right mentioned in the constitution witch they support seems to be the right to bear arms.

Luci hard at work cementing his reputation as a low-grade partisan hack, I see.

Hey, brah, I see you ignored my question about Melania. I'm guessing you think she should have been deported for breaking immigration laws while here in the US and taking 10 years to become a citizen. I'm also guessing it doesn't matter to you because you want to get up inside that kooch so it's different 😃

If it is decided this is legal, would there be anything illegal about not sending them to El Salvador but instead shooting them in the head?

Oops, he's already dead, nothing we can do now!

I think his issue is that prisoners are receiving far more medical care than anyone in the country receive with their insurance, including those insured under government programs.

Do you think that should be the case?

As would providing them with Ozempic, which only the very rich can afford.