180
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2025
180 points (98.9% liked)
politics
24177 readers
3788 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Note that this is someone being returned from Mexico, not El Salvador.
For all we really know the agreement with El Salvador is a guaranteed one way deal that we pay them to handle and they're refusing to play ball beyond that. Maybe they're wanting more money to send people back and that's why the Admin isn't complying with the courts.
Or maybe they're just fucking lying and you don't need to make up excuses for them that they've never before even hinted at.
I'm not making any sort of excuse and nothing in my comment came close to that. You should check your reading comprehension skills, because they're clearly lacking.
I haven't seen anyone write up a breakdown of what the fuck the actual agreement with countries like El Salvador looks like. Just some general numbers back at the beginning about some costs. No breakdown of whether the payments are based on the number of people, a general monthly cost for everything regardless of occupancy, something on a per-person level, time limits for holding specific individuals, etc.
No information on whether it's purposely intended to be one way or not. You honestly think this Administration put in any sort of provisions for getting people back, or would they specifically word it as a one way deal? Something like we send you people and pay you $x per month, y minimum time, etc. and we never see them again.
Whether the prisons are considered US territory while occupied for this purpose, whether any US law enforcement has any jurisdiction, etc. You know, the types of things that normally are setup well before anything it built.
The entire purpose of these places seems to get the people out of the US and promptly forget about them, they don't need to actually deport them correctly if you just get them off US land and hand them to El Salvador or whatever other nation to do whatever they want with them. With that goal it seems entirely possible that whatever the fascists wrote up for an agreement doesn't have any provisions for getting people back, or might even have penalty fees for returning people because they never intended to do that.
There's some sort of a reason why we're seeing some people be retrieved from some places like Mexico and no returns from places like El Salvador. What is the difference?
Idk why people are downvoting you when its clear as day that El Salvador is playing this administration like a fiddle.
Get paid to take people in, knowing its against our laws. Wait until our courts point out its illegal. Then refuse to return your new golden goose bargaining chip until you get handed everything you want on a silver platter.
Considering this is the most two faced administration in history, theyve set themselves up a lot better than even most of our traditional allies have as far as negotiations go
They're continually paying El Salvador for this on an ongoing basis per Chris Van Hollen. To a place they could easily withhold funding if they wanted to until he was sent back
He was deported to Mexico (illegally), but he's a citizen of Guatemala. After that, he travelled from Mexico to Guatemala on his own. So his return to US was facilitated from Guatemala.
This seems to be the party line in the sealed ex parte filings that have been presented to judges. I've also seen allegations that the deal is a handshake deal only--nothing in writing.
Judge Boasberg at least is taking them at their word, with some strong warnings about perjury.