cambion

Rather than "dig the hole deeper" as you say though, I'll just point out what I'd be willing to accept as evidence that GroveHillWanderer's interpretation (and the NYTs) is in fact the correct one. Rather than just the one we want to believe in, as we're all in the same boat here (remember that I did write earlier that "I like this version") Basically, one of: court filings that use the interview as evidence to make the push to get Garcia and/or some (or all) of the other folks sent to CECOT back, or another source for the interview that adds additional quotes (for example https://halifax.citynews.ca/2025/04/30/in-their-words-what-judges-and-trumps-government-say-about-abrego-garcias-mistaken-deportation-2/ adds in “I’m not the one making this decision. We have lawyers that don’t want to do this,” of which the second sentence is missing from the ABC News article), or a followup interview or statement from either the president or someone in the administration which can also be interpreted to say that POTUS can get Garcia back but simply chooses not to. Also, no time limits to any of the above (e.g. courts can sometimes work slowly, so perhaps we don't see the related court filing for a month or two - I'm still happy to accept the evidence and update my stance once it becomes available.) Also, this is not an exclusive list. If you or another can make the case for something else to be on this list, I'm willing to keep an open mind and consider it.

Just so we're clear, what you are saying is that this, `Selective hearing. He might have just been answering the second part of the sentence ("there’s a phone on this desk") while ignoring the first part ("You could get him back").` doesn't make sense? As in these are "words or language having no meaning or conveying no intelligible ideas" as per the dictionary definition of nonsense? (See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nonsense ) As I can see how reasonable people can disagree on which interpretation is the correct one, but to say that the explanation I wrote isn't understandable is another matter entirely. Perfect illustration here. He said he could ... he could what? Pick up the phone? (Obviously from the context I know you mean he said he could indeed bring Garcia back, but it shows the perils of trying to interpret weasel words - which more or less covers everything that this president says.) Actually, from the ABC News article, he was quoted as having stated the following. "I'm not the one making this decision." "I-- no, no, no, no. If-- follow the law. You want me to follow the law." (in response to "You're the president," Moran told him.) So it's not quite the slam dunk here either, as he seems to be attempting to say (clumsily in this instance) that he's waiting on his administration's lawyers to tell him that he should pick that phone up. (Of course, he also says that he would have made the phone call already if he thought Garcia were a "nice guy" which undermines this very argument.)

I respectively disagree. Aside from the one sentence that stevenl pointed out (which I had to explain a bit), the statements are ambiguous. (This is where one of the NYT does a disservice by not reproducing part the original exchange and paraphrasing instead.) Yes. This is also a reasonable interpretation. In fact, I like this version because it means that the courts can indeed order the administration to bring Garcia back home. What's important here is, though, is it the only one? That's kind of the point though. Some of the articles are pointing out that since the president said this, the administration won't be able to argue in court that they can't actually get Garcia back. The question I suppose is less if my interpretation is reasonable, but would the Supreme Court buy it (or something like it)? If SCOTUS buys it then they'll say, "he didn't admit that he could bring Garcia back, and the diplomatic note is enough to show that they tried to facilitate it, and we accept that the government has done all that it can to correct the mistake."

Which one? Doesn't he have three now? I think the original attribution is accurate, his mother was Canadian-born but he was born in South Africa and spent his childhood there. So he's both.

Let me explain my interpretation of this part a bit more. Think of who we're talking about. Selective hearing. He might have just been answering the second part of the sentence ("there’s a phone on this desk") while ignoring the first part ("You could get him back"). Now any reasonable person would think to answer the entire sentence, say with something like "I could get him back" or "I could at least pick up the phone" (and so if such a person just answered with "I could" you'd be spot on to say that the person said yes to actually getting him back) but in this case... The other point is that the current president is often wrong. So even if he says he could do it, could he actually? The other NYT article reports something concerning on that point.

I remember that certain folks were really concerned when Clinton became President. They were really unhappy with his draft dodging status. That was also when the US came the closest to abolishing the draft post Jimmy Carter. I'd argue that Clinton wasn't really a draft dodger though. He legitimately deferred because he wanted to finish his education at Oxford, but came back in August 1969 and signed up. Now, he could have applied for UK citizenship or French citizenship and moved to avoid it, but he didn't. He stayed and signed up for the draft. It's not his fault that he got a high draft number and never got called. Joe Biden I didn't know about, but he got a 1-Y - so he got a valid medical exemption. Seems like it was for asthma, but keep in mind that disqualifies you from joining the US military even today: https://www.usamm.com/blogs/news/can-you-join-the-military-with-asthma (Canada will let you join but that was very recent, that changed only a few months ago, https://www.cbc.ca/lite/story/1.7465456 ) W. Bush actually served in the US military during the Vietnam war. Musk wasn't a US citizen back then - he didn't even arrive to the US until 1995. So he couldn't have dodged the US draft (he wouldn't have been eligible to join even if he had wanted to). Mitt Romney didn't serve but he was acting as a missionary in France. Forcing a person in that position to join the army and take up arms with intent to kill somehow just doesn't sit right, unless one is trying to argue that Romney should have been drafted to serve as a military chaplain or something... So only with the current President would I really take issue. If he had a legitimate reason, like Clinton (who had many options to avoid the draft yet tried join but just lucked out) or Romney (who was trying to answer a higher calling at the time) or Biden (who had a legitimate disqualifying medical condition), then I wouldn't. But according to https://vietfactcheck.org/2020/09/15/did-trump-dodge-the-vietnam-war-draft/ he faked an injury to avoid the draft. That's a problem in my book. But for this guy... sadly that's par for the course. So sad.

The quotes of that conversation look a bit different from the other source I was reading, https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-abrego-garcia-back-el-salvador/story?id=121298276 “You could get him back, there’s a phone on this desk,” said Terry Moran, an ABC News correspondent “I could,” Mr. Trump replied. Mr. Moran said Mr. Trump could call President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador and get Mr. Abrego Garcia back immediately. (From NYT) / "You could pick it up, and with all--" Moran began to say. (from ABC News) "I could," Trump said again. "--the power of the presidency, you could call up the president of El Salvador and say, 'Send him back right now,'" Moran explained. (from ABC News) “And if he were the gentleman that you say he is, I would do that,” Mr. Trump said. (both) Basically, it looks like he's saying he could pick up the phone and make a phone call asking for Garcia back. But unfortunately, not that he thinks Bukele would say yes. There's another NYT article which claims that recently (within a week of now) diplomatic entries were made to ask for Garcia back, but that this was refused, see https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/30/us/politics/trump-abrego-garcia-bukele-el-salvador.html Exactly. This is about rule of law and granting due process. Now consider this. Originally, there were three planes sending folks to CECOT. Judge Boasberg ordered them to stop, and the response of the US was to say that two of them were already overseas when his written order was issued and so Boasberg lost jurisdiction. Boasberg didn't quite agree, and there are findings of contempt with additional proceedings on the way because of this. But there was a third plane that hadn't taken off yet. Abrego Garcia was on the third plane. It left afterwards. Boasberg was told that the folks on the third plane were not deported under the AEA, but because they already had final deportation orders. We know this is true for Garcia - but the government ignored his withholding of removal order, which was the administrative error that they admitted in court to Judge Xinis. At least in the court of public opinion, they seem to be trying to walk this back and say that Garcia should stay deported because of AEA (by implying he's an MS-13 member and all that). Interestingly they're not making the same argument in court though, which is telling. They can't really - if they admit that Garcia was deported because of the AEA act, then the third plane was clearly and inarguably in contempt - more of a slam dunk case against the administration. So they can't really ever admit that Garcia was deported because of the AEA. I wonder if this is why they were so much against discovery - because that might turn up evidence of the above.

On the plus side, the facility that Garcia is located at right now sounds much better. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/kilmar-abrego-garcia-el-salvador-prison-rcna203429 Now, there is an interesting irony here. From the same article, So it's potentially evidence that the government of El Salvador doesn't consider Garcia a member of MS-13 (or any other gang). (IMHO it's very strong evidence of this point.) Though the counter argument is that someone high up (such as Bukele) ordered that a secret exemption be made in Garcia's case, possibly due to the widespread international coverage and attention that he has attracted. (But I'm very doubtful that this would have happened for someone genuinely suspected to be a gang member.)

So Jose Hermosillo was taken in when he was crossing the border (albeit by accident - he started from the US side and got lost as per the article mentioned earlier). A lot of these seem to happen at the border. Something similar happened to US citizen Bachir Atallah as per https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/18/us/us-citizen-detained-canada/index.html - even though he had ID (he was crossing at an official port of entry with his passport). Now, from the photo in the article, I guess that Atallah could pass as white, but his name does mark him as being from Lebanon originally. Otherwise, there are folks who are clearly white who have been detained - but they are also not US citizens. Such as Canadian Jasmine Mooney, and Germans Fabian Schmidt and Charlotte Pohl & Maria Lepere - the last two from https://nypost.com/2025/04/21/us-news/german-teens-traveling-to-us-jailed-and-deported-over-loosely-planned-vacation-being-found-suspicious/ Honorable mention goes to Davino Watson - who is another US citizen detained by ICE, and clearly not Latino. (But he is not white either - he is black as per his photo in https://www.latimes.com/archives/story/2018-04-27/ice-held-an-american-man-in-custody-for-1273-days ) That said, Jensy Machado and the other guy from Florida seem to be exceptions to the border rule. I wonder if these will become more common now? So another honorable mention, this time to Canadians Cassie MacDonald & Maggie MacDonald who were similarly pulled over at a traffic stop as per https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/halifax-musicians-pulled-over-asked-canada-or-us-1.7488950 - but perhaps this proves your point, since they weren't reported to ICE and were let go by the local police.

In some ways that would be quite a shame to see. The US used to be one of the freest places, where carrying identification was not compulsory* There are only five states that offer the Real ID compliant enhanced drivers license that serve as proof of citizenship - MI, MN, NY, VT, & WA. Other states that offer Real ID compliant enhanced drivers licenses only serve as proof of legal residency (and so are available to green card holders and aliens living on valid work visas). That said, according to https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/10/trump-supporter-ice-detained Jensy Machado of Virginia got released after finally getting a chance to show his drivers license. Article is not clear but likely he had a Real ID version - so perhaps that's going to be enough? Someone else might bring this up, so I'll address it head on. The US Passport Card was introduced in 2008 and one of the purposes it serves is an alternative form of ID that is Real ID compliant for those that lived in states that were not able to get Real ID compliant in time. (That's the primary reason I got mine back then, back when these requirements first started coming out and before it became clear that the deadline to require Real ID would keep getting pushed back.) Proof - https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/News/passports/how-a-passport-can-help-you-fly-domestically.html However, it's the same application form to apply for that as the usual US Passport booklet. I'd wager that even fewer folks have the card than the passport, and most that do have the card have both. (Now if you have both, it makes sense to leave the booklet at home and take the card everywhere as ID. But again that's likely a small percentage of people living in the US overall.) That's quite a bit disturbing actually, that the biometrics of US citizens are being stored in ICE's system for aliens. * Not entirely true if you go far back enough. Prior to the Civil War, freedman often were required to always carry their freedom papers and produce them on demand, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_papers

I think it's obvious because they explained why. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf Technically, someone who speeds is violating criminal law (as that's where minor driving offenses are spelled out). But is such a person really a criminal? Just for speeding? Sadly, if Garcia had entered following the proper procedures (at a proper port of entry and declaring asylum there) he likely would have been approved and would still legally be in the US right now. The sole reason his refugee claim was denied was because he waited too long to file it, he had to do it "within a year" of arriving as per https://www.wakeuptopolitics.com/p/25-facts-about-kilmar-abrego-garcia (in which case his entry without inspection would have been forgiven).

We have some very smart justices here who are well aware of this. I have faith that they'll figure something out. It's helpful that it's not the President or the office of the President who is directly responsible - in most cases the authority and actual violating action is delegated to some individual in some department somewhere, like the guy at ICE who loaded Garcia onto the plane or the staffer at DHS who either overlooked or deliberately ignored the withholding of removal order. So one way forward is for a judge to find those people above in contempt, and then go the private lawyer route. The President won't be directly affected - but he also would have a hard time to to protect those who are affected. Unless every officer and official in the Executive branch is fully onboard with disobeying, or martial law is somehow declared throughout the US, these guys will feel the pain of being held in contempt and will end up complying. I also see inspiration with the EPA of the past - allow federal agencies cannot sue each other, the EPA has some powers to enforce compliance onto other federal agencies. https://ehsdailyadvisor.com/2018/11/whats-epa-enforcement-like-at-other-federal-facilities-and-agencies/

Yup. Seems like we agree on the most important parts here. Personally, I'd prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt, at least until a court clearly finds otherwise. Innocent until proven guilty not only before the law, but also in our hearts. Ouch. Sorry to hear about that. Hope everything turned out alright.

Not even Latin America necessarily. Considering the nationwide prominence (even Australia is reporting on him now, e.g. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-04-19/kilmar-abrego-garcia-meets-us-senator-/105192988 ) he could probably find a place farther afield. Back in 2019, this is what happened to a different person - I don't think his identity was ever revealed, he was just known as "Henry" - but after his deportation from the US back to El Salvador, he was accepted into a country in Europe as per https://www.propublica.org/article/ms-13-member-who-secretly-helped-police-is-deported

I provided both facts and opinions in the post that you quoted. I tried to edit the original post to add emphasis on fact vs opinion, but it seems that I passed a time limit on that or something that prevents me from editing it. But for example, here's a fact from that post that I'll repeat for illustration: "Other photos do not show the actual letters or numerals present on the hand. Those were clearly added." - This is a fact.