@willdup @brimur , your arguments are self-destructive. You misread SCOTUS and Fourth Circuit rulings, overstate Garcia’s rights, and ignore inconvenient facts while cloaking your bias in “rule of law” rhetoric.
Your selective outrage and logical fallacies betray a partisan agenda, not a principled stand. The courts have spoken: the government must facilitate, not guarantee, Garcia’s return. Until you grapple with the actual law and facts, your histrionics are pointless.
The arguments are a masterclass in emotional rhetoric, selective outrage, and legal misinterpretation. I'm going to point out the logical fallacies, misrepresentations of the law, and blatant hypocrisy that undermine your arguments. I'm sure you're going to dismiss my arguments (again), blaming the length of this post or some other target you both regularly move. But, I'm used to it at this point and it's clear why you do.
My best attempt at making this organized and readable, despite the length:
1. Misrepresenting the Supreme Court’s Ruling
Both of you claim the SCOTUS decision is a resounding rebuke of the Trump administration, ordering it to “facilitate and effectuate” his return
@brimur you quote SCOTUS as requiring the government to “ensure his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.” @willdup , you claim that Trump is “giving SCOTUS the middle finger” by not complying. Let’s clarify what SCOTUS actually said.
They upheld the order to “facilitate” Garcia’s release and ensure his case is processed as it would have been absent the erroneous deportation. However, SCOTUS explicitly rejected the notion that the government must “effectuate” his physical return, as that would encroach on executive authority over foreign relations. The JD argued, and SCOTUS agreed, that the US cannot compel a sovereign nation like El Salvador to release a detainee. The order is about process, ensuring access to due process upon return, not guaranteeing repatriation
The administration is not defying the Courts by failing to bring Garcia back. It’s operating within the ruling’s boundaries, which acknowledge the limits of jurisdiction over El Salvador. @brimur , your claim that Trump could make one phone call to Bukele and secure Garcia’s release is speculative and legally irrelevant. It assumes Bukele’s compliance and ignores the diplomatic complexities of negotiating with a sovereign state. Your outrage over non-compliance is based on a misreading of the Court’s directive, a classic strawman fallacy where you attack a fabricated obligation
The Court explicitly rejected mandating return, citing executive authority over foreign relations and El Salvador’s sovereignty.
2. Fourth Circuit Misrepresentation
You lean on the Fourth Circuit opinion, quoting the “liberty” rhetoric to paint the administration as lawless. The ruling affirmed the other judge's order but didn’t mandate Garcia’s return. It addressed a specific error, not systemic policy. @brimur you cite this as proof that even conservative judges are appalled. But you’re cherry picking rhetoric and ignoring the legal substance.
The court criticized the government’s claim that it has no responsibility post-deportation, emphasizing that due process applies. However, it did not mandate Garcia’s physical return, nor did it find the administration’s actions broadly unconstitutional. @brimur , your note that Trump didn’t appeal the ruling doesn’t mean it's “accepted” as final. As I already noted before, it reflects strategic litigation, especially with SCOTUS's opinion with executive authority over foreign relations.
You extrapolate one case to a broader attack, ignoring SCOTUS’s ruling clarified the scope of “facilitate," ignoring that the government has acknowledged the error and is navigating diplomatic channels.
3. Logical and Legal Problems with “Never Been Convicted of a Crime”
@willdup your repeated assertion that Garcia “has never been charged or convicted” is a red herring and misleads on the legal standard for deportation. Immigration law (8 U.S.C. § 1227) doesn’t require convictions for deportation. Suspected gang ties or terrorist affiliations suffice. Evidence includes a trusted/reliable confidential informant, his 2019 arrest with gang members, and clothes signaling affiliation, etc. You dismiss this as “weak” and based on a “problematic witness.” But an immigration judge credited it to deny bond and clearly had the "other evidence" I've cited repeatedly and which has subsequently been released, at least in part.
Your framing of Garcia as an innocent man with "no criminal record" sidesteps the administrative error acknowledged by the government: deporting him to El Salvador despite a protection order, not deporting him at all. SCOTUS and the Fourth Circuit rulings address this error, not the validity of his removal. Your argument conflates criminal and immigration law, which distorts the legal reality.
4. Tier 3 Terrorist Organization Reference
@brimur , your jab about Tier 3 terrorist organizations isn't doing your argument any favors. MS-13’s designation under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B) means suspected members like Garcia lose withholding eligibility if proven. By raising this, you bolster the government’s case that Garcia’s 2019 protection is voidable, undermining your “innocent victim” narrative if the government proves membership by a preponderance of evidence, which it has done once already.
The Fourth Circuit noted that the government must prove MS-13 ties in a new proceeding, but you gloss over this, insisting Garcia’s relief was unassailable. By highlighting the Tier 3 issue, you inadvertently validate the legal basis for his deportation eligibility, contradicting your narrative that he’s an innocent victim of a lawless regime. This is a self-own, plain and simple. Your snarky responses to me on this issue completely missed the point.
5. Hypocrisy on “Rule of Law” and “Due Process”
Your “rule of law” and “due process” crusade is selective. @brimur , you compare Garcia’s case to lynchings and warn of a “burgeoning autocrat". @willdup , you invoked concentration camps.
Were you both just as outraged during Obama’s mass deportations or Guantanamo detentions? That administration deported millions, often with minimal process. Where were the histrionics? I assume there were none, as you have yet to reference your previous issues with those, as well. What about the drone strikes on suspected terrorists without trial? Your sudden devotion to constitutional purity reeks.
@willdup , your claim that “rights are not conditional” ignores that due process for noncitizens is not absolute. SCOTUS has long held that noncitizens have limited procedural rights in immigration matters (e.g. INS v. Lopez-Mendoza), and Garcia’s violation was specific: deportation despite a protection order. The courts addressed this, but you inflate it into a systemic attack, revealing your clear partisan nature on this issue.
Your slippery slope argument (that Garcia’s case endangers all Americans) is fearmongering unsupported by legal precedent.
@brimur , your assertion that “due process refers to persons, not citizens” is correct but incomplete. SCOTUS in Zadvydas v. Davis clarified that noncitizens’ due process rights are narrower than citizens’, especially in removal contexts. You overstate Garcia’s entitlements, ignoring that the government can lawfully detain and deport him if it follows proper procedures, which it’s now ordered to do. Your selective outrage about “lawlessness” when it suits your narrative is textbook hypocrisy.
6. Ignoring Inconvenient Facts
I’ve provided facts you both dismiss or distort. I’ve cited evidence you dismiss as “zero evidence” (@brimur ) or “weak” (@willdup ),but an immigration judge found it credible enough to deny bond. You both misstate facts, like Garcia’s “rolls of cash” or his “day labor site” arrest with “zero evidence” of knowing others. But court records show he was detained with suspected MS-13 members, a fact you sidestep and is strong evidence of his gang membership. Your refusal to engage with these details while accusing me of gullibility is projection.
You demand proof of guilt while ignoring the references to 'other evidence' in prior court records...yet accept Garcia’s innocence on faith, a blatant double standard. The Tennessee Star’s report on human trafficking (which has since been corroborated and @willdup ignored, as I predicted), aligns with ICE’s concerns about Garcia’s activities.
@willdup waved this away as “far-right” or “anonymous,” yet uncritically accepted Garcia’s narrative. 🤷♂️
7. Logical Fallacies
Your arguments are riddled with fallacies:
- Strawman: You misrepresent the Supreme Court’s ruling as mandating Garcia’s return, then attack the administration for not complying.
- Slippery Slope: @willdup 's claim that Garcia’s case threatens all Americans’ rights lacks evidence tying one erroneous deportation to systemic authoritarianism.
- Ad Hominem: @brimur 's nonsensical “Will Hunting” jab and @willdup ’s suggestion that I’m emotionally invested dodge substantive debate.
- False Dichotomy: @willdup “you’re either for the Constitution or Trump” ignores that one can support legal immigration enforcement without endorsing every administration action.
8. The Real Legal and Logical Problem
The issue is narrow: Garcia’s deportation violated a protection order. Courts ordered facilitation of proper process, which the administration is doing within the constraints of dealing with a sovereign nation. You demand his return, exceeding court orders and practical realities. Your apocalyptic rhetoric about constitutional crises and foreign gulags inflates this into a systemic attack on liberty, ignoring that the judiciary is functioning as intended
The legal problem with your position is that you demand outcomes (Garcia’s immediate return) that exceed the courts’ orders, authority, and practical realities. The logical problem is your refusal to acknowledge the government’s evidence, however imperfect, or the legal framework surrounding deportation.
You’re not defending the rule of law. You’re advocating for a policy preference and again demonstrating the regular "Trump did X, so X must be bad" trap, all disguised as constitutional purity.
You both may now go back to ignoring any and all valid points I make and try again to shift the debate.
Deuces.
I was going to ignore this post, but of course you had to wade back in. Thankfully, through the wonders of AI, I was able to generate a rebuttal without spending half a day and it perfectly captured my thoughts. Enjoy.
It’s hilarious that you accuse others of “emotional rhetoric” while writing a multi-thousand-word tantrum so bloated with projection, bad faith, and desperation that it’s practically a case study in what happens when you let personal grievances masquerade as legal arguments.
Let’s break your meltdown apart piece by piece:
1. You’re the One Misreading SCOTUS
You cling to the “facilitate vs effectuate” distinction like a lifeline because you know the bigger truth wrecks your narrative:
SCOTUS affirmed that the government illegally created the mess and must actively try to fix it — not just pretend to try, not just send one email and call it a day.
“Facilitate” doesn’t mean “shrug your shoulders and blame El Salvador.” It means take real, concrete steps to make Garcia’s due process rights meaningful again — not theoretical.
You weaponize a technical word game to excuse total inaction. That’s not law-and-order; that’s cowardice hiding behind semantics.
2. You Cherry-Pick the Fourth Circuit, Then Accuse Others of Cherry-Picking
The Fourth Circuit obliterated the administration’s idea that “once deported, it’s not our problem.”
You conveniently ignore that the court said the violation continues until fixed.
That means the government has a duty to actively work toward fixing it, not stand around hoping Bukele handles it.
If you think quoting the Fourth Circuit’s disgust at the government’s behavior is “emotional,” that’s just you coping with the fact that even conservative judges saw through the farce you’re still defending.
3. Your “No Conviction Needed” Point is Weak and You Know It
No one serious is arguing that a criminal conviction is legally required to deport someone.
The argument is that when you’re making life-altering decisions based on trash-tier evidence (like “he wore the wrong color shirt”), due process demands a real standard of proof, not immigration judge gut feelings.
You keep pretending due process is optional for non-citizens. It’s not. And the fact you’re so eager to erase that distinction says way more about your politics than it does about the law.
4. You’re Weirdly Emotional About MS-13 for Someone Pretending to be Rational
You get almost giddy dropping the “Tier 3 terrorist organization” label like it’s a killshot.
But you forgot the most basic principle: guilt isn’t collective.
MS-13 could be the devil incarnate, but if you can’t prove Garcia is a member, the government doesn’t get a free pass.
You can’t just slap a scary label on someone and strip their rights. That’s called authoritarianism — you know, the thing you pretend to oppose.
5. Your Hypocrisy Arguments are Lame and Played Out
“Where were you during Obama’s deportations?!”
Congratulations on discovering whataboutism.
It’s a dead argument.
It doesn’t matter if someone was silent in 2010 — what matters is whether the government is breaking the law now.
Trying to dodge today’s failures by pointing to yesterday’s only shows you have no actual defense.
HUMAN INSERT: I voted for Obama in his first election but not in his second and this issue is one of the reasons why. Your argument is still lame whataboutism, but in this case it’s also factually dead wrong.
6. Your “Facts” Are Weak Sauce
You’re still clinging to:
• Arrested near other people
• Wearing the wrong clothes
• Paid informant says so
If that’s your gold standard of “evidence,” no wonder you’re this angry — deep down, you know it wouldn’t survive real scrutiny.
You talk like a judge’s bond denial (which is a low threshold decision) is the same as a finding of fact. It’s not. It’s closer to a bail hearing than a trial verdict.
You’re counting on people being too ignorant to know the difference.
7. Your Logical Fallacies Are Projection, Not Accusation
Every fallacy you accuse others of — strawman, slippery slope, ad hominem — you commit first.
• You misrepresent what “facilitate” means.
• You mock slippery slopes even though erosion of rights often does start small.
• You attack motives instead of addressing the substance because you can’t defend the facts.
You call others emotional while clearly seething with personal resentment that someone challenged your bad take and made you write a thousand-line rant no one asked for.
8. Why Are You So Personally Invested?
Let’s be honest:
No one writes this kind of angry, bloated screed unless the issue hit something personal.
This isn’t about “law” for you anymore — it’s about ego.
You got called out, and now you’re clinging to whatever scraps you can find to avoid admitting you were wrong.
That’s why your post reads like a cross between a legal brief, a diary entry, and a therapy session.
Real legal analysis doesn’t sound like this. Wounded pride does.
Summary:
• You don’t understand the rulings.
• You can’t defend the actual facts.
• You’re wildly emotional while pretending you’re not.
• You’re just trying to win an argument, not get to the truth.
If you really cared about “rule of law,” you wouldn’t be this desperate to excuse breaking it.
You’re not defending due process.
You’re defending your own ego.
www.mediaite.com
