Talk:Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia: Difference between revisions

Name

The sources out there all seem to use different variations of his name making WP:COMMONNAME tricky. Any suggestions on what to name this article are welcome. Hobit (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

The motions filed by his attorneys say "Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia" (with an n in his middle name), but the news articles that I've seen in Spanish spell his last name as Ábrego García. I'm still inclined to use the English spelling of his last name, as I think that's the spelling that is used by more news sources. I'm also inclined to omit his middle name. I actually think that the article should be renamed something like "Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia," as it's the manner of his deportation and the resulting lawsuit that make this notable. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Like Detention of Mahmoud Khalil. Bremps... 19:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I think it does make more sense as an event article and support the move. It will, of course, require a bit of a rewrite of the lede. Hobit (talk) 22:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I checked further re: names with accents, and both WP:UE and WP:ENGLISH say that we should use the spelling in English. I've left a note for an experienced editor who works a lot with foreign languages, double-checking how the name should be treated in the body of the article. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, I went ahead and moved it, and only afterwards realized that I hadn't corrected the spelling of his first name. So we'll need to move it again. Sorry about that. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Move makes sense to me. Remember (talk) 01:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Suggest renaming something like Removal and Imprisonment, rather than Deportation, and also changing the language throughout to avoid calling this a deportation. Deportation is a misnomer in this case, given that a) Garcia was sent to a third country rather than his country of origin, b) he was imprisoned there despite lacking a criminal conviction, and c) the process did not follow a legal process generally used to deport those without legal status. 2601:19B:4101:6B90:0:0:0:71EE (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Garcia was not sent to a third country, he is Salvadoran. Mason7512 (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Btw, this is precisely the elementary problem this article should clarify: What is or are his surnames, legally speaking in the US and/or El Salvador? Ábrego is a surname, not a first name in the main, thus making García his mother's surname. However, in the US it's possible this fundamental biographical and legal information remains unclarified or confused. LudovicMarsiliani (talk) 15:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

His US lawyers use the name Kilmar Armando Abrego Garia. English RSs refer to his last name as Abrego Garcia, so that is what we use for en.wiki. Some Spanish sources use Abrego García, and some use Ábrego García. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I just added a note at the beginning noting the variations of his name being reported. Mason7512 (talk) 00:26, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME

@Yilku1, I see that you just moved Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to Deportation of Kilmar Ábrego García. The former is his WP:COMMONNAME, so I'm curious why you moved it. Are you also planning to change all of the instances of Abrego Garcia in the article to Ábrego García? FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

It's a Spanish name so I added the accents. Or then what? Should we remove all the accents of all Spanish names?

"Are you also planning to change all of the instances of Abrego Garcia in the article to Ábrego García"

I did that before moving it. Yilku1 (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

"Should we remove all the accents of all Spanish names?"

No, since some common names include accents. But many other common names don't, despite the fact that the name has accents in Spanish (or other diacritics for names from other languages), and this is one of the ones that doesn't (it's hard to find any English sources that include the accents in his name). Do you believe that WP:COMMONNAME is no longer consensus for names with accents and that all relevant pages should be moved? FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I now see that reporting in Spanish sometimes uses Ábrego and sometimes uses Abrego. Do you know which is correct? FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

@Yilku1 Good move. I'd support having it reinstated under the correct graphy. Bedivere (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

There's a relevant discussion at WT:Article titles § Is WP:COMMONNAME still consensus for people's names that have diacritics. I don't think it makes sense to have one rule for Spanish names and a different rule for names in other languages that use Latin alphabets. Also, we'd need to determine which of Ábrego vs. Abrego is correct. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Legal status of Abrego Garcia

Two things: What was Abrego Garcia's immigration status between him entering the country and being deported? And are the accusations that he is a member of MS-13 unfounded? I'm linking an AP article which is currently the 5th reference on the page and which I'll be quoting extensively from for easy reference. Sorry if this isn't typical, I'm not very familiar with editing on wikipedia

"Abrego Garcia fled to the U.S. illegally around 2011,"

"In 2019, Abrego Garcia went to a Home Depot looking for work when he was arrested by county police"

"Abrego Garcia later told an immigration judge that he would seek asylum and asked to be released" when? I'm not sure, but I'm almost certain 2019

"ICE…alleged that he was a certified gang member based on information that came from a confidential informant"

"According to Abrego Garcia’s attorneys in his current case, the criminal informant had alleged that Abrego Garcia belonged to an MS-13 chapter in New York, where he has never lived."

"The judge said the informant was proven and reliable and had verified his gang membership and rank."

"In October 2019, an immigration judge denied Abrego Garcia’s asylum request but granted him protection from being deported back to El Salvador because of a “well-founded fear” of gang persecution"

"Since then, Abrego Garcia has checked in with ICE yearly while the Department of Homeland Security issued him a work permit, his attorneys said in court filings."

https://apnews.com/article/trump-deportation-salvador-maryland-abrego-garcia-7b17b702b77a24d92a28dd4be5755fdd Who is Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the man ICE mistakenly deported to an El Salvador prison? JRBuch12 (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Even if he were a confirmed member of a designated terrorist organization such as MS-13, which is illegal under US law, Justice Sotomayor points out in her concurring opinion that it is still typical for legal proceedings to be carried out in the US, which makes this case unusual. JRBuch12 (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

To answer your questions:

(1) legal status: I think the situation is that Garcia entered the US illegally and then didn’t submit an asylum claim in time to request asylum then was found to be able to be deported but could not be deported back to his country due to the potential for violence against him in his home country and thus giving him status to remain in the US pending resolution of that issue. I don’t know whether to label that as being “legally” here or not but I think the sources all agree that this was his status.

(2) Gang membership:the accusations about being a member of the gang were found to be credible for purposes of a bail determination but that is not the same as determination for criminal or civil penalties. Thus there has been some evidence provided regarding his affiliation with a gang but it hasn’t been the subject of long fact finding and legal determination such that it is a dispositive legal conclusion. So I wouldn’t call the accusations “unfounded”, I would call them “unresolved”. But that’s just my understanding. Remember (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

@Remember:: is it of interest to you that Bail in the United States states: "The regular rules of evidence do not apply at a bail hearing. The prosecution typically proceeds by "proffer" alone. Instead of presenting witness testimony and documents that would be admissible at trial, the prosecutor merely makes an unsworn oral promise to the judge as to what the evidence will show as to the suspect's dangerousness, likelihood of guilt, and propensity to flee the jurisdiction"? --Kizor 01:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I think that is very useful to note. I assumed as much. I’d ideally like a source to say this explicitly in the current case if possible. Remember (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I mean gang membership should be said to be unconfirmed since the administration is using shaky “evidence” (e.g. tattoos) to accuse/label people as gangs and call them such 128.54.26.97 (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

He was protected from being deported to El Salvador. Besides, there still needs to be due process/hearings/orders before deportation, and also due process/trials/sentencing before imprisonment. 128.54.26.97 (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh hey, you beat me to making a new section. Reuters describes Abrego Garcia as "a Salvadoran migrant who lived in the U.S. legally with a work permit." In a caption, but still. NPR says that he got "withholding of removal" status and a work permit in 2019; "Since then, Abrego Garcia has lived and worked legally in Maryland". So he is living the US legally (or was until his abduction (which it is when you grab someone living in the US legally without a warrant and imprison him indefinitely without trial). And he was an illegal immigrant.

CRASH!

Did you hear that? That was the sound of the incoming nitpicking. Alas, I don't know my ass from my elbow, law-wise, so: If he was an illegal immigrant from 2011 and then lived in the US legally since 2019, does that mean he was a legal immigrant since 2019? Was it the "withholding of removal" protected status, the work permit, either, or both that meant that he lived in the US legally? A work permit isn't a travel document (or a work visa), am I right that it doesn't count for being allowed to legally be in America, only for what you're allowed to do there? Tangent: I wikilinked "work permit" to Employment authorization document instead of work permit as three seconds each of glancing at those articles' leads tells me that's what the phrase refers to in the States, was this correct? Did he stop being an illegal immigrant once he was legally in the States? Can we talk of him legally being in the States, or is there a distinction between that and legally living in the states? --Kizor 19:15, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

My understanding is that he lived in the US from 2011, illegally. Since 2019 it was documented by the police and ICE that he was living in the country, and he is granted "Withholding of Removal" status. Homeland Security issues him a work permit, and he checked in with them yearly.

In the US, according to ICE's website, Withholding of Removal status is similar to asylum, but can be applied for after being in the country illegally for a year. The main difference however is that WoR requires more evidence to prove you'll be harmed by being deported to a specific country, >51% chance of harm. WoR immigrants cannot get permanent residency, and can be deported to a different country if such an arrangement is made by the government. JRBuch12 (talk) 05:16, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Proper procedure for deportation of illegal immigrants must be followed. Any other action should be voided. He didn't properly seek asylum. The judge's decision to "withholding of removal" shall be VOID. Although El Salvador was dangerous in 2011 it wasn't officially labeled as uninhabitable by the U.S. Even if it was why should the U.S.A. be the country where everyone in the world gets to seek asylum. He did say in his defense that the gangs were trying to extort his mother's business PupUsa for money. Saying they were going to make her son a gang member and then murder him. The story sounds fishy. Kind of like he was a gang member and got scared and left. It was improper for ICE to not deport him in 2019. The current D.O.J. is doing the process right in 2025. He should be deported to his home country and be forced to spend time in jail probably 90 days for first offense and our country should pay for it. After he is released he could apply for citizenship because he is married although the marriage should be VOID because he got married in our country as an ILLEGAL ALIEN. Mikeblake00 (talk) 10:17, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

It seems to me you may have a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia does. It does not come up with original analysis of a situation but instead restates and summarizes what reliable sources have said about a notable issue in the world. Even if you were correct in all your analysis it wouldn’t matter to what we can say because it would be original research. What you need to do if you want information to be contributed to the article is find reliable sources that assert something you think is notable and then that information can be included with attribution. I hope that helped make things more clear. Thank you for your input. Remember (talk) 12:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Mentioning of wife and child as US Citizens in the lead

Currently the sentence in the intro reads as follows: “This occurred despite his having a U.S. immigration judge's order protecting him from removal to El Salvador since 2019 and a wife and five-year-old child who are both American citizens.”

The bolded information is information that some editors want removed and others want preserved. I’m bringing the issue to the talk page to resolve so we don’t keep editing in circles on this issue. Please put your thoughts below.Remember (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• Include wife and child info in lead - I would vote to include the information in the lead since I think it is both relevant practically (most people are abhorred that the US government would separate someone from their wife and child who are both US Citizens) and legally (often the citizenship status of close family members is taken into account for legal decisions by courts). Also the wife and child are also plaintiffs in the lawsuit to bring him back. Remember (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• Move to bio section These facts aren't mentioned anywhere in the body of the article and don't seem to have any bearing on the legal case. The lead should summarize important points from an article, not to introduce new facts/ideas. --Bob drobbs (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  The article does mention that his wife and child are US citizens and mentions that they are parties to the lawsuit against the government. Remember (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  A quick search shows that there's only 4 mentions of the word "citizen" in the article. Three of the four are in the lead. One is in regards to a legal argument about citizens being deported, nothing to do with his wife or child. Bob drobbs (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  Ah, now I see. I believe it used to be there but I think the citizenship of the wife and child was removed in some earlier edited version. I’ve added the information back in the body of the article. Remember (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  I'm still leaning toward move. I haven't seen any evidnece that this is part of any legal argument here. And it makes the article feel more "human interest" than "encyclopedic". Bob drobbs (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  I agree. Nowa (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  Comment. I'll have to think more about whether I have a preference. In the meantime, I'm wondering why the citizenship of his wife and biological child is relevant, but the citizenship of his step-children (also American) is not. He's acting as a father to all of the kids. His wife refers to all of them as his children (for example, here and here). FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  Honestly I didn’t know the position he was in with regards to his step-children (like whether he has custody or sees them at all). Happy to add that too but I originally avoiding noting information about them because I didn’t have a good RS that gave me insights into that relationship for me to describe. Happy to have that info added. Remember (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  He and his wife are raising all three kids. Here's an AP article saying "Abrego Garcia has lived in the U.S. for roughly 14 years, during which he worked construction, got married and was raising three children with disabilities, according to court records," and another saying "The couple are parents to their son and her two children from a previous relationship." I'm guessing that he doesn't have legal custody, in that they might also be plaintiffs in the suit if he did. But helping raise them, and his absence matters to them. I can't find the reference right now, but I read a statement from her about how hard it is to care for all three by herself. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  I agree the information should not be in the lead. I see no reliable source in the body that states "often the citizenship status of close family members is taken into account for legal decisions by courts", nor even if that were the case, that a reliable source mentions that whether he should be deported has anything to do with whether his wife and children are US citizens.ReferenceMan (talk) 00:17, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  Here is a reliable source that talks about how the family status is taking into account by ICE officers “An ICE spokesperson said the agency considers individual circumstances when determining whether to detain someone.” It also discusses the issues of deporting family members when a spouse or parent is a non-citizen and changes between Trump and Biden, which seems relevant in this situation as background - link. Remember (talk) 01:09, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  Also family member status is important for gaining extreme hardship waivers that can stop a deportation if it would cause extreme hardship on a US citizen. See brief discussion in New Yorker article here - “She can get a waiver permitting her to remain in the U.S. if she can prove that her prolonged absence would cause “extreme hardship” for certain members of her family. But, because of processing delays, getting the waiver can now take three and a half years.” link. Remember (talk) 01:18, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  I don't have a particularly strong opinion here. But I'd really like to see a RS which connects this particular case and his wife/child being citizens before putting this in the lead. Bob drobbs (talk) 02:19, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  My point is that it is not just a legal issue, it is also a personal and narrative issue that I think most readers would find notable (that’s why it’s mentioned in most news articles). This person wasn’t just deported and imprisoned and has no one. He was deported and imprisoned in a maximum security prison and taken away from his wife and his children that are US citizens. I think most readers would find that to be one of the most notable aspects of this case. Remember (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  So we hopefully agree it may or may not be relevant to the legal case, but that more importantly it may or may not be relevant to the narrative. In this case I'm still not sure, I think it clutters the lead JRBuch12 (talk) 04:22, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• 'CommentIf you're going to mention his wife, it should be noted when they actually got married. It should also mention that she filed charges against him for domestic abuse. I'm not sure how you can include one, but not the other. Especially since the domestic abuse charges is a contributing factor in deportation. Also not sure why the page says "illegally deported". He had two deportation orders... the only thing that was an issue was sending him to El Salvador. But, since MS-13 is a terrorist organization, that order doesn't apply.172.56.73.141 (talk)

To address your issues: (1) it is mentioned in the article when they got married and the charges for domestic abuse just not in the lead which I think makes sense given the crowded nature of the lead; (2) you say the domestic abuse is a contributing factor in the deportation but we have no sources saying that this issue played any role in the government deciding to deport him; if you have a source to support that please provide it; (3) the page says “illegally deported” because the government in arguments already acknowledged it was illegal and the Supreme Court made that finding too; we only restate others findings, we don’t make determinations ourselves for a wiki article; and (4) you assert that his withholding status was moot due to the fact of alleged MS-13 affiliation which is what the Trump administration has asserted but that issue has not been adjudicated in court but what has already been adjudicated is a finding that the deportation was illegal given the arguments that the government made at the time of the Supreme Court decision. Remember (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Article structure - District Court vs District Court

I find it super confusing to have "District Court oversight after remand" as a different section from "United States District Court" particularly as everything else is broken up by court and none of it is necessarily sequential with things happening in parallel.

So, I'd strongly suggest moving all of the District Court stuff into the District Court section.

But I didn't want to be overly bold here. Any objections to making this change? Bob drobbs (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I personally find the current format way more understandable than if that content was moved. So, I would be opposed to this. I see it like this: If the content was moved, readers would read through the current contents of District Court then read the first part of the "after remand" content, then have to skip to SCOTUS section for context, and then returned to read the rest of the District Court section.
The main point of the current ordering is a semi-chronological telling of events- in my opinion- not strictly by court. Mason7512 (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Agreed with Mason. I tried to make the legal process generally flow chronologically to reduce confusion. Remember (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

In that case, any chance we can clarify the other titles to make it more clear it's chronological-ish instead of just grouped by court? Bob drobbs (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps something like:

• Initial consideration in a United States District Court
• Appeal to a US Court of Appeals
• Emergency docket appeal to the US Supreme Court
• Return to the United States District Court

FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

maybe we can changed the subsection name:

• Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals -> Original Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals,
• Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals -> Pre-SCOTUS Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, or
• Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals -> First Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

possibly with -deliberation or -ruling at the end

for now, I think it would work Mason7512 (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

That works for me. Remember (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

But the issue isn't about the court of appeals. It's about the separate district court sections. I'll revise my previous suggestion for the 4 subsection titles:

• Initial consideration in the Maryland district court (or: Initial consideration in a US District Court)
• Appeal to the Fourth Circuit
• Emergency docket appeal to the US Supreme Court
• Return to the Maryland district court (or: Return to the US District Court)

Assuming that you meant that to be about the US district court rather than the 4th Circuit, I don't think Original/Pre-SCOTUS/First work as the distinguishing word, as Original and First suggest that there was a change in the district court rather than a return to the same court, and Pre-SCOTUS refers to something we haven't yet gotten to. Also, for all we know, there's going to be another appeal to SCOTUS's emergency docket. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:47, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I copy/pasted the wrong section title. Concerning Original/Pre-SCOTUS, etc.: I wasn't sure on the wording, that was just what came to mind when trying to pitch an alternative to combining the sections, a way to separate the sections by chronology. I am 100% not specifically in favor of them. You or someone else can probably put it in better words. Mason7512 (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree as well, a chronological sequence is what makes most sense. It's even possible that there will be another situation where Xinis rules, and Trump appeals to the 4th Circuit and possibly SCOTUS on the emergency docket again. But we could add a sentence or two at the top of the Contesting deportation section, explaining the sequence a bit. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

It strikes me that it may be time to start a new article that is a timeline version of essentially this article. It's likely that both would be helpful. I'd like to say I could start it, but (and this is a good case for the timeline, tbh) I haven't been able to follow the developments over the last few days; it feels like a Herculean task to get caught up, though I will do so soon. Which is all to say: if anyone else wants to get it started, please do! Iknowyoureadog (talk) 07:42, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

New filing

Looks like Trump administration is arguing that the previous restrictions on removal no longer apply based on the idea that MS-13 is now a terrorist organization. “ On March 15, 2025, Abrego-Garcia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, was removed to El Salvador, pursuant to Title 8 of the United States Code. Although Abrego-Garcia has an order of removal issued by an immigration judge, I understand that he should not have been removed to El Salvador because the immigration judge had also granted Abrego-Garcia withholding of removal to El Salvador. However, I also understand that Abrego Garcia is no longer eligible for withholding of removal because of his membership in MS-13 which is now a designated foreign terrorist organization. I have reviewed the declaration of Mr. Michael Kozak, which was filed in this case yesterday, April 12, 2025. It is my understanding that Defendants have no updates for the Court beyond what was provided yesterday.” We should add this argument. Link to filing. [1] Remember (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

If you have a BLP-compliant source discussing that part of their argument, add a sentence about it. I already added their refusal to answer Xinis's questions again and their argument that they have no responsibility to seek his return. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I’ll see what I can find when I can. Busy in real life. Remember (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I totally understand. Sometimes I also post things in case someone else wants to make use of it. It can easily wait or be left out right now (if it's really important, the judge and RSs will let us know). FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I am new here. I just obtained the court docs referenced above from pacer. Is that a BLP-compliant source? How can I help? jpshackelford

in general people don’t like to cite to primary sources and instead want citations to be to secondary sources. I found a source to cite the following to “While acknowledging that he “should not have been removed to El Salvador because” of the immigration judge’s ruling, Evan C. Katz of ICE wrote that Abrego García “is no longer eligible for withholding of removal because of his membership in MS-13 which is now a designated foreign terrorist organization.” And I was going to add it. But thank you for the offer! Remember (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

@Jpshackelford: Welcome to Wikipedia! No, court documents cannot be used as a source for statements about living persons, per a policy, WP:BLPPRIMARY, that says, "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." However, it can sometimes be useful to read court documents, in the sense that they put you in a position to go in search of a source that is compliant with the policy on content about living persons (that general policy is WP:BLP). FWIW, CourtListener often has free copies of court documents, so you don't necessarily have to spend money on Pacer; if you add their extension to your browser and you do buy a document from Pacer, the extension will also allow that document to be added to their free materials for others to use (more info here). In the article, we've linked to the CourtListener dockets for this case, and you'll be able to see which documents are freely available and which aren't. In terms of helping, is there some aspect of the case that interests you? If so, read the section about it, and see if there's anything important that you think is missing, and then search for a reliable source with that info (here's the policy about reliable sources: WP:RS). FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

contradiction in leade

The first sentence of the lead says that Garcia was in the US illegally: "Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia is a Salvadoran citizen who was an illegal immigrant residing in Maryland."

But the last sentence of first paragraph says: "he was legally present in the U.S."

This as written is confusing (was he in US illegally or not at the time of his arrest?). I think the first sentence is intended to convey that he emigrated to the US illegally, but the last sentence seems to say that he was given asylum. thoughts? referring to this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deportation_of_Kilmar_Abrego_Garcia&oldid=1285602207 CipherSleuth (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Looks like that was added by an ip address, and has already been cleaned up. Bob drobbs (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

thanks. I should have looked at the edit history more closely. CipherSleuth (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I tried to clarify precise legal status in the lead. Hopefully, the current wording works for everyone. Remember (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I've seen reporting saying that he was in the country legally, but I've never seen any good discussion of this. That he had a withholding of removal order did not make his presence legal; it only meant that he couldn't be deported to El Salvador. He wasn't granted asylum (he applied too late). The government has claimed that he had a final deportation order. Perhaps they're referring to the BIA hearing that occurred after the judge granted the withholding of removal, where they affirmed the original judge's deportation order? So the government is currently treating his presence as illegal. But I do not trust all of their statements to be truthful at this point. He had a work permit and was checking in with ICE annually, which suggests some kind of legal status. Has anyone seen a good discussion of his post-2019 legal status? FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I think maybe "legal" or "illegal" may be too simplistic to describe the current situation given all the associated connotations with just that phrase. The current situation as I understand it is that the US Government had determined that he didn't have a specific status to be in the United States indefinitely as an immigrant but he did have status to remain and not be deported to El Salvador given the threats to his safety. I don't know if we have a simple phrase to refer to this type of status besides the fact that he had a "withholding of removal". Remember (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Agreed that it's not simple. Post-2019, he had a work permit from DHS, he had a legal withholding of removal order for El Salvador (which allowed his removal to any other country), and he had an order to check in with ICE annually, which he abided by. So post-2019, the US was aware of his presence and location, gave him permission to work, and did not attempt to deport him. We could just leave it at that. Or we can try to survey RSs, and if they disagree, we say that. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. I’m happy either way and happy with your efforts to clarify things.Remember (talk) Remember (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Reuters describes Abrego Garcia as "a Salvadoran migrant who lived in the U.S. legally with a work permit." In a caption, but still. NPR says that he got "withholding of removal" status and a work permit in 2019; "Since then, Abrego Garcia has lived and worked legally in Maryland." I stuck them in the withholding of removal subsection (and based on them, a couple days later I reworked the clarification Remember wrote about this to the lead, hopefully not un-clarifying it.) --Kizor 00:23, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Lead rewrite?

This is quickly becoming a major news story. I'd suggest a rewrite of the lead starting with the most important points and then filling in more details:

1) Accidentally deported
2) Supreme Court said to facilitate his return
3) Trump and Bukele said no.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm open to a rewrite, but I suggest we do it on the talk page first otherwise I think we will have circular editing wars and people try to revert to the previous version and others try to create something new. So I would suggest you pitch something below. For myself, I think the current intro works but I am always happy to improve for readability and clarity. Remember (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm open to a rewrite. I also just rewrote the lead myself. I'm a bet leery of talk page negotiations that fast-developing articles can far outpace, I'm ok at ingesting large amounts of badly organized text in our articles and regurgitating it in a form where it's at least had a once-over, and I have previously worked on high-activity articles on high-profile breaking news.

My reasons for rewriting are that I'm impudent, selfish, and wanted to make a difference. The above is just why I thought it might work out okay.

My priorities were the same as Bob's, with the addition of 1a) ...and jailed, as part of the US-El Salvador deal to jail U.S. deportees. The fact that the U.S. is sending deportees to a foreign prison, as opposed to sending them to a foreign country where the justice system decides that they're bad bad dudes and jails them, is important to note in general and also about our dude specifically. Including what everyone else changed, we went from this to this, which I think states the important things as Bob listed them better, and is less of a cluttered "this happened, then that happened" and a bit more of a thought-out overview. The "When asked during his meeting..." paragraph is a bit out of place, and if I was productive I'd turn the "Return to the Maryland district court" subsection into a new section about facilitating his return or contesting his return or something (after all, are the legal proceedings still contesting his deportation, or is that part done and now they're arguing about what to do next?), and toss that paragraph into a subsection about the administration's resistance. @FactOrOpinion: my thanks for tirelessness with the "illegally" bit, I hope adding that it was the Supreme Court calling it illegal will help. @Remember:, @Bob drobbs: what I just did: for, against, angry? --Kizor 21:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I made some revisions to the lead to clarify and make sure we’re weren’t misleading anyone regarding the nature of what occurred. Remember (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

They're sweet, thank you for making them. For future reference, are there things we should be particularly careful about in order to not mislead people? I re-added a mention of this being per the agreement in exchange for money, per 1a) above, plus it's relevant to the third paragraph, where Sotomayor speaks of the U.S. government and not the Salvadoran government deporting and incarcerating people. But speaking of not misleading, is my source for that sufficient? Relevant part: "Bukele has been a key ally to Trump as he ramps up deportations to the notorious Salvadoran prison. The Trump administration is paying the Salvadoran government $6 million to house migrants there." --Kizor 22:35, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I took an attempt at re-doing it on a draft page. I cut away a LOT of the lead just keeping highlights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Deportation_of_Kilmar_Abrego_Garcia

Thoughts? Bob drobbs (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

New round of trimming the lead is mostly done. Remaining item: we went from this: The Supreme Court required the U.S. to "facilitate" Abrego Garcia's release but stopped short of a lower court's directive to both "facilitate and effectuate" his return.[19] The administration interpreted "facilitate" to mean it is not obligated to arrange his return[20] and can meet its obligation by admitting him into the U.S.[20] and providing a plane[21] if El Salvador chooses to release him, which President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador refuses to do. Bukele stated in an Oval Office meeting that he would not "smuggle a terrorist into the United States".[22] to the current: The Supreme Court upheld a District Court's ruling requiring the administration to "facilitate" Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador. The Supreme Court further directed the District Court to clarify what specific actions the Executive Branch needed to take to "effectuate" his return, and said the government should share with the court its actions taken to return Abrego Garcia.[19] The administration interpreted "facilitate" to mean it is not obligated to arrange his return[20] and can meet its obligation by admitting him into the U.S.[20] and providing a plane[21] if El Salvador chooses to release him, which President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador refuses to do. Bukele stated in an Oval Office meeting that he would not "smuggle a terrorist into the United States".[22]

@Madwonk:, you called the previous version a "cherrypicked quote and phrasing", and added the longer quote cited directly to the Supreme Court decision. The cite didn't stand - can't use court documents like that, apparently - but can you tell me why it's cherrypicked? The source says "The court partly granted and partly rejected an emergency request", and states in more detail that it required the administration to facilitate his return like the lower court said, but didn't require it to also effectuate his return like the lower court also said. However, it's true the source also said the lower court has to clarify its directive on what "effectuate" meant, which wasn't reflected in how we (okay, I) put it. I'm restoring the older phrasing, but with an added "directing the lower court to clarify what it meant by "effectuate."" (I think laying out that the administration also has to share with the court what actions it takes is too much detail, as it's just a reporting requirement.) Please let me know if that addresses the problem or if the new version still sucks. --Kizor 18:58, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Lock page?

This page has already become a political flashpoint, with frequent vandalism to change the lede to misstate the person’s residence status. Suggest locking the page to prevent continuous vandalism. Anonymouse202 (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

100%. I'd suggest Semi-protected -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Protection requested. ✅

Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase#Deportation_of_Kilmar_Abrego_Garcia

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Admin chose to semi-protect us for 4 days, after which it will expire.

Let's see if we're still headline news and need to be protected again after that... Bob drobbs (talk) 20:05, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested a 2 week extension on the semi-protection.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase#Deportation_of_Kilmar_Abrego_Garcia Bob drobbs (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

On a related topic, this page was the 2nd highest traffic'd article on all of wikipedia yesterday. We'll probably have to extend the protection when it expires, and let's keep up the good work! -- Bob drobbs (talk) 15:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Detention per the agreement between US and El Salvador?

The lead states that Abrego Garcia is being detained “per the agreement between the two countries to jail U.S. deportees there in exchange for money.” Do we have a source that supports this assertion? I know the US paid El Salvador for certain detentions but is this one of the ones paid for? Remember (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

The source says "The Trump administration is paying the Salvadoran government $6 million to house migrants there," but it doesn't specify whether Abrego Garcia is in this group. I don't know how that could be determined without either a Trump admin. statement or access to the agreement between the two countries. I'd probably remove it from the lead and include something in the body, where we can say a bit more. Certainly the 3 flights that took people to CECOT were part of the agreement to imprison US deportees there for pay, even if we cannot vouch that every prisoner is part of that agreement, or if the Salvadorans were just sent back and then Bukele chose to imprison them at his own expense. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

This 3/16 tweet from Bukele said "Today, the first 238 members of the Venezuelan criminal organization, Tren de Aragua, arrived in our country. ... The United States will pay a very low fee for them, but a high one for us. ... the U.S. has also sent us 23 MS-13 members wanted by Salvadoran justice ...," which suggests that the payment doesn't cover the Salvadorans, though it's not certain; it could just be that he wanted to discuss the Venezuelans and Salvadorans separately. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• You're right. I figured the source was iffy (and says a lot about me that I went ahead anyway). It's infuriating: we have AP saying there's an agreement to accept and jail deportees from the U.S. of any nationality. We have The Atlantic saying that Abrego Garcia's lawyer is seeking to withhold that payment. And we have sources for how Abrego Garcia was never charged or tried in El Salvador. But even the source we have that says Garcia's lawyers are seeking to withhold funds to stop the agreement to imprison US deportees there for pay doesn't spell it out that Garcia is part of the agreement to imprison US deportees there for pay.
  
  Would it be tolerable if we shored up what's in the article with The Guardian saying that the US paying El Salvador to detain deportees in CECOT has bearing on Abrego Garcia's case and AP stating Abrego Garcia's lawyers say the US is paying El Salvador for his imprisonment? Or would that be SYNTH, considering that, yeah, it's AP saying his lawyers are saying that, not AP saying that. --Kizor 23:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• ABC states: "Abrego Garcia was sent to El Salvador as part of what the Trump administration described as a $6 million deal with Salvadoran authorities in which they would house deported migrants in exchange for payment." I've replaced the old source with this. However, the article behind the words "$6 million deal" only speaks of the over 200 Venezuelans "as part of a $6 million deal", it doesn't mention El Salvadorans. Is that a problem? --Kizor 23:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  I’m going to remove the language from the lead given this discussion. Remember (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

ABC's straightforward mention of exactly what we were looking for looks like a usable source to me, even though the other article it links to only talks of Venezuelans. @Remember: what's your take on it? (Also, while we're at it, I'm still kinda new to pinging people on Wikipedia, so is doing so here an appropriate way to ask for your attention or is it impolite and demanding?) --Kizor 00:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Pinging me here works for me. As for the source, I think it’s still unclear given that the source you say ABC is referring to doesn’t back up the claim. But I’m happy to be persuaded otherwise and happy to do differently if others feel differently. Remember (talk) 00:58, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. The thing ABC's article contains a link to is another article by ABC, and not a reference or explainer either, just a normal article. So... the issue is less of a "not in citation given", more like half that, half an inappropriate "see also"? --Kizor 01:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• I'm not thinking that clearly right now, but that doesn't strike me as SYNTH to say something like "Abrego Garcia's lawyers have said that the US is paying El Salvador for his imprisonment," citing the AP; but we can't write "the US is paying El Salvador for his imprisonment," citing the AP. If there's reporting on it, we can also say that the Trump admin. hasn't made the agreement public, and A.G.'s lawyers have asked Xinis to order the government to provide a copy of the agreement or provide a witness who can testify about it. We might get some reporting about that soon, depending on how Xinis responds to the request. I'm guessing that she's not happy with the admin's claims that they don't need to comply with Friday's order. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I re-added it with a "his lawyers argue," citing AP, that I'd like to get rid of. I also tossed in the AP article from February about the agreement. --Kizor 01:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

This PolitiFact article notes that A.G. has never been charged with a crime in El Salvador (nor, as far as I can tell, even charged with any crime), so it's questionable that they'd imprison A.G. if not for a U.S. request that they do so. That implies that the U.S. is paying, though the article doesn't say that. It's unlike the situation with this Salvadoran member of MS-13, César Antonio López Larios, who was also deported to CECOT on 3/15, but who has been in pretrial detention after indictment at different times in both the US and El Salvador. I still don't think we have enough info to put it in the article, but I'm now more convinced of the likelihood that US is paying for him to be imprisoned. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

@Remember:, @FactOrOpinion: heads up, ABC's new article states: "Abrego Garcia, who has been living in Maryland with his U.S. citizen wife and 5-year-old child, is being held in El Salvador's notorious CECOT prison, along with hundreds of other alleged migrant gang members, under an arrangement in which the Trump administration is paying El Salvador $6 million to house migrants deported from the United States as part of President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown." It doesn't have the link issue that was the stumbling block of the previous one, so I solved the unwieldy length and inaccurate statements this part of the lead was having by bulldozing them and replacing them with this, but I still want to run it past you two. Remember, you've been more careful than me to be truthful and fair, and FactOrOpinion, I guess you're cool too. My lingering question about how this article puts it is, wasn't the $6M just for the Venezuelans? But we know the agreement's to jail deportees of any nation; we know it's overwhelmingly been used to jail Venezuelans but hasn't been limited to them, nor intended to; and we know that since the prisoners have been overwhelmingly Venezuelans, the $6M it's cost the USA to jail just the Venezuelans is also close to what the whole thing's cost so far unless there's a 1000% surcharge for detaining Salvadorans without trial or something. So the way ABC puts it, a $6M deal to jail migrants, seems accurate to me. --Kizor 00:03, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, and yesterday Sen. Van Hollen said that when he asked Salvadoran Vice President Ulloa why they were holding Abrego Garcia in prison, given that he hadn't been convicted of any crimes in either El Salvador or the US, Ulloa said it was because the US was paying El Salvador to hold A.G. at CECOT. I trust Van Hollen's word. Judge Xinis also ordered expedited discovery on Tuesday, and A.G.'s lawyers have asked for a wide variety of documents, and then starting on p. 49, interrogatory questions that a small # of Trump admin. officials will have to answer, one of which is "List each payment that has been, or will be, made or withheld in connection with the detention at CECOT of Abrego Garcia and other individuals removed or deported from the United States or transported by You from the United States to El Salvador, including when each payment was or will be made or withheld, in what amount, by whom, and to whom." So hopefully we'll also learn more details soon. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't trust his word, but now we have the article too. --Kizor 23:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Todays filing in case

The most recent filing in the case is here - [2]. Government asserting that the withholding status no longer applies because he is a member of MS-13 and that El Salvador won’t return him. We need a reliable source to cite this to if we want to include it but including it here for understanding of the case for those following the case. Remember (talk) 23:46, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Law requiring the Secretary of State to notify Congress of international agreements

Sen. Shaheen, the ranking Dem. on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, sent this letter to Rubio today (scroll down a bit for the text of the full letter, there's also a link to a nicer pdf copy). She asked that he "expedite the release of all those who have been unlawfully detained in El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center," including Abrego Garcia, and went on to note:

Pursuant to the Case-Zablocki Act (1 U.S.C. § 112b), as amended by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 (P.L. 117-263), the State Department is generally obligated to provide to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee agreements or non-binding instruments that are the “subject of a written communication from the Chair or Ranking Member” of either Committee. ...

This letter constitutes the statutorily required “written communication.” As such, please provide the text of any implementing agreements, arrangements for international agreements, or non-binding instruments referenced in the attached declarations by you and Senior Bureau Official Kozak, or any such agreements, arrangements, or non-binding instrument made within the past four months related to the deportation of Venezuelan nationals or other alleged criminals to El Salvador, as soon as possible.

There's no agreement among editors about what is and isn't considered WP:SPS. If it's SPS, it can't be used for a statement about living persons, per WP:BLPSPS. I haven't been able to find good coverage of this yet, so this is a heads up asking those interested to be on the lookout for reporting about it, as it would be significant for this article and March 2025 American deportations of Venezuelans (and perhaps also for the J.G.G. v. Trump + offspring cases) to be able to have more specific info in the article about the law's requirements / whether the Administration is complying and, if it isn't classified / is made public, to learn what the agreement is. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Footnote numbering

Why is the footnote numbering not in order? Like footnote 8 is the first one you read? Can someone fix this? Remember (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

the preceding references 1-7 are located in the note concerning his name (labeled [a]). I don't think there is a way to change that, they come first, so will be displayed first. Mason7512 (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you! That makes sense. Forget my comment. Remember (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

SCOTUS ruling: unanimous? also, the footnote

Several times, I've removed the word "unanimous" from the SCOTUS ruling, and several times, it's been reinserted. Yes, many reliable news sources call it a unanimous ruling, but as constitutional law professor Steve Vladeck states, "Technically, we don’t know that Thursday night’s ruling was unanimous. As I’ve explained before, when the Court doesn’t issue a signed opinion, we can’t ever be sure of the vote count unless enough justices publicly dissent. But it certainly seems unlikely that there were stealth dissents from last night’s order." (His faculty page: he has a named chair and has argued before SCOTUS, and constitutional law is one of his foci. He also wrote a book about the court's shadow docket.) He's a better source than news sources, so per WP:BESTSOURCES, I don't think that we should say "unanimous," even if it's very likely.

I just read Vladeck's linked discussion about opinions and orders, and he pointed out that there's such a thing as "Opinions Relating to Orders: If there is no opinion of the Court, but at least one Justice writes a separate opinion either concurring in or dissenting from the disposition, it will appear on this page." I'm not a lawyer and hadn't know that there's a difference between orders and opinions. But the Opinions Relating to Orders page is where this ruling appeared, so I guess the general response from the court was an order, and Sotomayor's statement is an opinion.

@Pedropaulovc, you added a footnote saying "Unanimous and signed opinions are not considered per curiam decisions, as only the court can officially designate opinions as per curiam." I don't think that's correct, per your citation, but it's also moot: now we know that it was an unsigned order, not an opinion, and hence couldn't be a per curiam opinion. I'm inclined to remove the footnote, but if it's kept, it has to be modified to be accurate. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

This is an irrelevant technicality. For all intents and purposes this was a unanimous decision. Reliable sources are overwhelmingly describing this as an “unanimous” or “9-0” decision. So this is what Wikipedia should say.

Some examples:

• “Late in the day on April 10, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion relating to an order in the case of Noem v. Abrego Garcia.”https://natlawreview.com/article/deportation-ruling-highlights-potential-separation-powers-clash-scotus-today?amp
• “In a 9-0 ruling, the justices declined to block a lower court's order” https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c62gnzzeg34o.amp

{{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I disagree that it's "an irrelevant technicality", since policy says to use WP:BESTSOURCES, not the majority of GREL sources. Yes, many GREL news sources say "unanimous." Many other GREL news sources say that there were no noted dissents without calling it unanimous (examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). It's best to be accurate. FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

The SCOTUSblog article you reported mentions: "In an unsigned opinion without any recorded dissents". This is the accurate description however it is too technical. I think WP:TECHNICAL applies here. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree that it's overly technical and confusing to the reader but could we perhaps make it technically correct and clear by including both:

"On April 10, the Supreme Court released an unsigned order with no public dissents, described by many (most?) sources as 'Unanimous'"

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

That mostly works for me, but I don't think most readers interpret "sources" the way WP uses that term. Maybe "described by many journalists as 'unanimous'"? FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Still seems a bit excessive to me. How about calling it "unanimous" but with a footnote explaining? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I have some mixed feelings here, but I'm leaning toward Gtoffoletto's proposal.

I definitely don't like just the technical version, and agree my compromise is overly wordy. Bob drobbs (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Sure, that's OK with me. The footnote can say something like "Unsigned orders do not specify a vote count(citation 1), so it is not known whether the court was actually unanimous, only that there were no public dissents."(citation 2) FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I like this wording and those sources JRBuch12 (talk) 01:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Fine by me as a start. I think we should further simplify the note. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:20, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I simplified it a bit further and added the footnote. Hopefully that text works for everyone. Thanks for working with me to find a consensus solution. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:45, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Help: Spanish Wikipedia article of Kilmar is slander

Greetings, I've been translating this article and including information contained here into the Spanish Wikipedia, but a couple of users insist in falsely claiming Kilmar is a dangerous criminal and a gang member. They went as far as to create a template of him as a member of Mara Salvatrucha and falsely denounced me for "vandalism" even though I've included references to my edits. About half an hour ago I've been blocked from editing for one day. I would like to know if anyone here can help make the article in the Spanish Wikipedia less MAGA. Rosameliamartinez (talk) 10:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Given I can't edit the Spanish Wikipedia, it would be helpful if anyone places templates at the beginning of that article indicating that the neutrality of that article is disputed, that there are unverifiable claims (specially the part where he is classified as a gang member is particularly egregious). Rosameliamartinez (talk) 10:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

@Rosameliamartinez, I have no experience with es.wiki, and my Spanish is not good enough to contribute there. But if it's like en.wiki, it's possible to appeal a block, and you'll be able to post an appeal on your user talk page even though you can't edit the rest of the wiki. If that's not possible on es.wiki, you might seek help from one of the WikiProjects that focus on Spanish-speaking countries (e.g., WP:MEXICO), on the assumption that there will be more Spanish speakers there. Either way, I suggest once you're unblocked, you seek help from other editors on es.wiki, pointing out the issue, noting the importance of not making defamatory claims on a BLP article, and saying that you don't want to engage in edit warring or be falsely accused of vandalism, and so need help dealing with it. If it's like en.wiki, there will be relevant noticeboards where you can ask for this kind of help, analogous to WP:BLPN here. I see that someone has added the disputed neutrality template. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2025

Remove the braised article! 2603:8001:6802:5617:EC22:190A:9340:5C76 (talk) 10:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• Not done It would be helpful if you could leave a specific suggestion on how to improve the neutrality of the article.

Nowa (talk) 11:25, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

@Nowa For example, not talking about "issues" with the deportation of a person who was in the country illegally and who was ruled to be a MS-13 gang member by two separate courts 80.98.149.110 (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Abrego Garcia was never "ruled to be a MS-13 gang member by two separate courts", multiple sources directly debunk this: Politifact,The Washington Post. You are referring to a pre-trial bail determination, not a conviction nor legal ruling on allegations of membership (which requires a higher standard of evidence). He entered the country illegally, but was not in the country illegally at the time of his deportation. It's understandable that you may be misinformed, but please do not spread lies about living people. Mason7512 (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

The Politifact essay was very helpful. Apparently he was denied bail from ICE custody back in 2019 because he was accused of being a gang member by one of the people he was with. The courts did not rule on whether he was a gang member or not, only that being accused of being a gang member was enough for ICE to deny someone bail. Subsequently, he was released by ICE after he received protection from being deported to El Salvador due to credible threats of harm if he were to be returned there. All of this appears to currently be covered in the article.Nowa (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2025 (2)

In the 5th paragraph of the "Background" section, "immigration" is misspelled as "immigrationi" in the phrase "the standards of evidence are lower in an immigrationi bond hearing than in a trial" Getchoo-uh-huh (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done — https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deportation_of_Kilmar_Abrego_Garcia&diff=prev&oldid=1285809866 BappleBusiness^[talk] 23:25, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Semi-Protected Edit Request: Replace Paraphrase with Quotation from Immigration Judge

In the "Background" section under the "October 2019 immigration court proceeding" subheading, the first paragraph currently has a quotation of a summary from an NPR reporter about Garcia's 2019 hearing. However, the direct quotation from the judge in 2019 is available in U.S. Supreme Court: Noem v. Abrego Garcia, 24A949 (reference #7).

Article currently reads, "However, Immigration Judge David M. Jones granted him "withholding of removal" status that would prevent his deportation to a specific country due to the threat that gangs would pose to him, finding that (as NPR put it) 'he was more likely than not to be harmed if he was returned to El Salvador.'"

I feel that 1. it is best to have direct quotation as opposed to a quotation of a paraphrase, 2. readers who are biased against NPR may view this as not a fact but as an opinion, and 3. the text within the parentheses is somewhat informal and detracts from the tone of the article.

Thus, I suggest using the original quotation from the judge in the following revision:

"However, Immigration Judge David M. Jones granted him "withholding of removal" status that would prevent his deportation to a specific country due to the threat that gangs would pose to him, finding that Garcia faced a "clear probability of future persecution" and "demonstrated that [El Salvador’s] authorities were and would be unable or unwilling to protect him.” [7][19][27]

I am unsure if the document being quoted in the Supreme Court ruling is available. Did my best to look around to no avail.

Additionally, my apologies if anything is formatted incorrectly, this is my first edit request! Open to any and all feedback. Thanks! Striving4peace314 (talk) 08:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

The proposed text has “El Salvador” in brackets which may be confusing to readers. Perhaps the brackets could be explained in a footnote. Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPPRIMARY, we cannot use court documents as sources for content about living persons. Unless that quote appears in a reliable secondary source, it cannot be used in the article. FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I tried looking up the quote to see if any reliable secondary sources covered it. I couldn't find much. This article in Reason (magazine) is helpful, but shows that the quote is problematic. In the quote, Sotomayor shows "El Salvador" in brackets. That means it wasn't in the original text. The full quote in the original Immigration Judge (IJ) decision makes several references to Guatemala. So it is Sotomayor's opinion that the IJ was actually referring to El Salvador. My feeling is that we don't use the quote until if/when more RS more fully clarify it. Nowa (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

The article you linked to isn't published in Reason; it's from the Center for Immigration Studies. It's unclear to me whether Arthur's discussions go through any kind of editorial review or if they're more akin to a personal blog (in which case we cannot use that either, per BLPSPS, even though it's hosted by CIS). Perhaps you meant this discussion in Reason. Volokh describe this as "a group blog" (again probably SPS, even though it's hosted by Reason).

If it's important to have a quote, the best source I've found is this CNBC article, which quotes Justice Sotomayor quoting from Jones: "The Government remains bound by an Immigration Judge's 2019 order expressly prohibiting Abrego Garcia's removal to El Salvador because he faced a 'clear probability of future persecution' there." An earlier version of that article has a longer quote from Sotomayor: "The Government remains bound by an Immigration Judge’s 2019 order expressly prohibiting Abrego Garcia’s removal to El Salvador because he faced a ‘clear probability of future persecution’ there and 'demonstrated that [El Salvador’s] authorities were and would be unable or unwilling to protect him.'" That's equivalent to what Striving4peace314 wanted to quote directly from Jones. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. You are right, I posted the wrong article. The one you linked to was the one I had in mind. According to its Wikipedia entry, reports by Center for Immigration Studies "have been disputed by scholars on immigration, fact-checkers and news outlets, and immigration-research organizations." I don't think, therefore, we can use it as RS. Reason magazine, on the other hand, seems reliable enough to me to use as a reference. We also have, as you pointed out, the earlier version of the CNBC article, although a later version did remove the Sotomayor quote about (presumably) El Salvador authorities being "unable or unwilling" to protect Garcia. All in all, I'm on the fence about including the "unable or unwilling" quote. It feels like an important observation, there is some RS coverage, but since this is a contentious article, I'm not sure it's necessary in terms of increasing the reliability of the article relative to the PBS quote. Nowa (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I went ahead and added it, with a footnote re: the bracketed [El Salvador]. It's the last sentence of the first paragraph in the "October 2019 immigration court proceeding" section. See if you're OK with that text. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good. Nowa (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Suggestion to move text to footnote

I would suggest we move the following text to a footnote. While it is useful in the article to clear up any confusion related to this issue, I think it works better as a footnote:

An article in Time Magazine reported on April 10, 2025 that "the gang continued to harass the family after they moved to Guatemala, which borders El Salvador." A few days later, The Hill reported that "the immigration judge’s order granted Abrego Garcia protection against removal, but referred a number of times to 'Guatemala' rather than El Salvador for reasons that are unclear." The immigration judge also referred to El Salvador, as in this instance: "Here, the respondent has not shown that it is 'more likely than not' that he would be tortured if he were to be returned to El Salvador."

Remember (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC) Remember (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree about putting it in a footnote, and I'd cut it down to just the quote from The Hill.

FWIW, having read the ruling, I personally think that the judge simply lost track and started writing "Guatemala" when he meant "El Salvador." He didn't explicitly write that the family moved to Guatemala. He wrote "At present [in October 2019], even though the family has shut down the pupusa business, Barrio 18 continues to harass and threaten the Respondent's two sisters and parents in Guatemala," which implies that they moved there without saying that they moved. Earlier in the ruling, he explicitly noted specific moves, each of which was a very local move: "He was born in 1995 in Los Nogales neighborhood, San Salvador, El Salvador. ... [Because of threats from the Barrio 18 gang, they] moved from Los Nogales to the 10th of October neighborhood. This town was about 10 minutes away ... Finally, the family decided that they had to close the pupusa business and move to another area, Los Andes, about a 15 minute drive from their last residence." To me, "finally" suggests that they did not move again. Even if they did move, it doesn't say when / whether it was before or after A.G. left for the U.S. But of course, my personal interpretation can't go in the article; that would be OR. Still, this is why I'm inclined to only include the statement from The Hill. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for moving it! Remember (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome! It got me to learn how to use the efn template, so that's a plus. I ended up adding another sentence+citation to make it clear that the government has stated that it was a withholding of removal to El Salvador, so despite the immigration judge having sometimes written "Guatemala," all of the lawyers and judges in this 2025 case have interpreted it as a withholding of removal to El Salvador. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with removing this quote: “the gang continued to harass the family after they moved to Guatemala, which borders El Salvador.” It was in not just Time Magazine but also CBS, Associated Press, etc. We are supposed to follow reliable sources rather than oppose them. Anyone who has doubts about it should think it over: Abrego Garcia came to the U.S. in 2012. The immigration court decision was in 2019. Even if Abrego Garcia’s final residence prior to the U.S. was in El Salvador, his family may well have moved to Guatemala between 2012 and 2019. That move to Guatemala could be relevant for any number of reasons (e.g. the immigration judge considered his social group to be his family, and so it would be awkward to say that he faced discrimination in El Salvador because of his social group if his social group had already moved to another country). Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I think if you check, you'll find that there's a single story, written by Ben Finley of the Associated Press and republished by many other news media through AP's distribution system. For example, that's the case with the Time story, which identifies "Ben Finley / AP" as the author. Here's the original AP source. I don't have the impression that the places that republish AP News stories independently check them. They don't seem to edit them: that identical sentence, "The gang continued to harass the family after they moved to Guatemala, which borders El Salvador," appears across the republications. If you can come up with a story about it that isn't quoting Finley's story, please cite it, and we can discuss it further. Otherwise it's not reliable sources (plural), only one source. If you think "it would be awkward to say that he faced discrimination in El Salvador because of his social group if his social group had already moved to another country," then that's just more evidence that his family remained in El Salvador, since the judge did grant a withholding of removal to El Salvador and considered his family to be his social group. The judge's ruling makes no sense if his family was no longer in El Salvador. The judge never wrote that the family moved to Guatemala, despite discussing other moves in detail, naming the neighborhood each time and identifying how far they moved each time. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:49, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia policy, “Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.” When an AP article is republished by another reliable source, that increases the prominence of the information. As for what the immigration judge said and meant, we already say in the footnote that it’s unclear. This image may be helpful for you in that regard. Anyway, I’m simply asking to please quote the AP/CBS in the note that you added. It seems like a small request. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:50, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I take it that you haven't found any source that isn't simply republishing Finley's story. I disagree that it's multiple sources. It's a single source reprinted a bunch of times, just like Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet gets reprinted a lot. I'm familiar with WP:NPOV, and I don't agree that it's DUE. Another editor can change it. As for your image, I'd already read the entire document, thanks (I even quoted from it above). Consider this quote from Justice Sotomayor's statement, where she quotes from Judge Jones' ruling:

The Government remains bound by an Immigration Judge’s 2019 order expressly prohibiting Abrego Garcia’s removal to El Salvador because he faced a “clear probability of future persecution” there and “demonstrated that [El Salvador’s] authorities were and would be unable or unwilling to protect him.”

Do you think she was wrong to replace "Guatemala" with "[El Salvador]", but all of the other justices just held their tongues about a significant error? FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I haven’t looked for a source beyond Finley because it’s completely unnecessary assuming we follow policy. CBS, Time Magazine, and the rest do not republish everything that AP writes, only the stuff that they deem most significant. As for Justice Sotomayor, I have no idea if she was correct or not, I have no opinion about it, and it’s almost entirely irrelevant to this unfortunate discussion about whether we should briefly mention in a note that the family in question moved to Guatemala. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

You haven't convinced me that it improves the article or that NPOV requires it. Nothing is stopping you from trying to convince someone else. I think Justice Sotomayor's quote is extremely relevant. The issue is whether Jones made any mistakes in writing "Guatemala" when he meant "El Salvador." Sotomayor concluded that he did. Other justices joined her concurrence, and of those that didn't, not a single one suggested that she was wrong. They all seem to agree that Jones wrote "Guatemala" when he meant "El Salvador." FactOrOpinion (talk) 04:15, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Justice Sotomayor is no more a reliable source than Justice Thomas or President Trump, and I have not proposed to add anything to the existing note, about any of them. Nor have you AFAIK. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

If you think that the Supreme Court is not a more reliable source of legal information than Trump (who is known as a fountain of false and misleading statements), I don't know what to say. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Here is the further source your requested, plus the Finley source….

• Ramirez, Nikki and Bart, Ryan. ”The Trump Admin’s Lies About Kilmar Abrego Garcia, Debunked”, Rolling Stone (April 16, 2025): “Barrio 18…continued to harass members of his family who fled to Guatemala.”

• Finley, Ben. “What to Know About Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Deportee SCOTUS Ordered Trump Admin to Return”, Associated Press via Time Magazine (April 10, 2025): “the gang continued to harass the family after they moved to Guatemala, which borders El Salvador.” This article was also published by NBC Philadelphia, NBC Chicago, Yahoo News, Fox, U.S. News & World Report, ABC, Seattle Post Intelligencer, etc.

Please note that, “Most editors say that Rolling Stone is a partisan source in the field of politics, and that their statements in this field should be attributed.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:54, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

The problem (as I see it) with the information is that it is too confusing to be of much use to the reader. We have sources saying that some of his family moved to Guatemala at some point to escape harassment but they were still harassed. But because we don’t know when that happened or to whom, I’m not sure it matters much. We also don’t know if the family members ever moved back to El Salvador or whether this was also just a mistake insofar as there were other apparent mistakes of substituting Guatemala for El Salvador at times in the filings. So I’m just not sure what information would be useful to present to the reader based on the sources you’ve presented. Maybe if you stated exactly what sentences you would like to include in the article, that might be helpful. Then we could debate that proposed addition. Ideally there would be a source that clears up all this confusion but I doubt one is coming soon. Remember (talk) 12:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

The questions you raise about which and when family members were in Guatemala are very important questions. Those questions will not enter readers’ minds, however, if we exclude this well-sourced information. As I said above, the note that already mentions Guatemala should also include this quote: “the gang continued to harass the family after they moved to Guatemala, which borders El Salvador.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

What about the following for the footnote (with references to be added):

There have been some confusing statements related to Guatemala in the reporting related to the deportation. Some sources have reported that members of Abrego Garcia’s family continued to be harassed by gang members after they moved to Guatemala, which borders El Salvador. The Hill reported that "the immigration judge's order granted Abrego Garcia protection against removal, but referred a number of times to 'Guatemala' rather than El Salvador for reasons that are unclear." Regardless, the government never disputed that the withholding of removal order that was granted was for El Salvador and not Guatemala, stating in one court document that "ICE was aware of his protection from removal to El Salvador". Remember (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Thst proposed text would be an improvement, thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Unless there's a source commenting on reports in the media and saying something like "there have been confusing statements related to Guatemala in the reporting related to the deportation," I think that kind of text would be OR.

I still don't think it makes sense to include the AP statement, given that Sotomayor's quote from Jones' ruling implies that he was simply inattentive and wrote "Guatemala" when he meant "El Salvador," and since we only have one GREL source so far suggesting otherwise, rather than sources (plural) (it's a single Associated Press story by Ben Finley saying "The gang continued to harass the family after they moved to Guatemala, which borders El Salvador," republished by lots of other news outlets, but identified in those outlets as an AP story by Finley with the same text). There is a further problem that Jones made it clear that "family" did not include Abrego Garcia, writing in 2019 "At present ... Barrio 18 continues to harass and threaten the Respondent's two sisters and parents in Guatemala," whereas the AP story does not make it clear. My stance is that one GREL source saying something doesn't make it DUE and doesn't guarantee that they got the details right. We could take it to NPOVN to get some input from others. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Happy to have it taken to NPOVN. I don’t have strong feelings on this and mainly want to make sure that we provide the reader with clarifying comprehensive well-sourced info. Remember (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2025

the Trump administration does not admit of mistakenly deporting Mr. Kilmar abrego garcial who is a documented illegal El Salvadorian alien, as clarified in numerous verbal accounts in youtube videos by President Trump and the deputy chief of staff Stephen miller. A recent and higher order court and jurisdiction level executive order has prompted the deportation of Mr. Garcial back to el salvador over a previous lower-level immigration ruling. 2A01:9700:3913:7300:68BD:7404:DB0C:A19C (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

The government stated in more than one of its court briefs that it mistakenly deported A.G. to El Salvador, and the government's statements were reported by multiple RSs. Trump and Miller can claim whatever they want while not under oath, but that doesn't change the fact of what the government wrote in its court briefs, which is what matters legally. And no, not a single court ruling "has prompted the deportation of Mr. Garcial back to el salvador over a previous lower-level immigration ruling." FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Illegally deported?

How do you illegally deport someone that is a citizen of another country? 63.133.226.182 (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

He had a judge's order that made it illegal to deport him to El Salvador. He could have been legally deported to a different country, but instead the government sent him to the one country they were legally forbidden to deport him to. As the Supreme Court said: "The United States acknowledges that Abrego Garcia was subject to a withholding order forbidding his removal to El Salvador, and that the removal to El Salvador was therefore illegal." FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Then the title of the article and the descriptive text should not say “deported” which is a term for a legal process of removal; the term used should be Extraordinary rendition Fivey (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

When the article was named, there were no court rulings yet, and maybe the article will eventually be moved, but right now, RSs are referring to it as deportation. I don't think that Extraordinary rendition is correct either, since that's extraterritorial (country A abducts someone from country B and transports them to country C), whereas the US arrested him within the US (which is likely legal: his own lawyers said "Should Defendants wish to remove Plaintiff Abrego Garcia to El Salvador, the law sets forth specific procedures by which they can reopen the case and seek to set aside the grant of withholding of removal. Should Defendants wish to remove Plaintiff Abrego Garcia to any other country, they would have no legal impediment in doing so."), and it was the removal that's illegal. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

The Extraordinary Rendition wiki has been edited to show the legal definition of extraordinary rendition. The previous description of extraordinary rendition based itself entirely on an opinion regarding a specific example of removing individuals from a third country. While this happens, extraordinary rendition does not definitively require the individual be removed from a third country. What we've seen in the Garcia case is a perfect example of erroneous rendition and the article should be changed to reflect that. As well as having this case added to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition#%22Erroneous_rendition%22 section of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition. SydCarlisle (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. All three of the sources you added say that the purpose of extralegal rendition is interrogation (e.g., "Its very purpose is to send people for interrogation ...," "transfer of a person ... for imprisonment and interrogation," "transferring a prisoner to a foreign country for the purposes of detention and interrogation"). AFAIK, there is no evidence that Abrego Garcia was deported in order to interrogate him, nor evidence that he was interrogated after his arrival in El Salvador. If you want to the page to be moved to one with a different title, I suggest that you either add a specific alternative to the "Rename to "Deportation and Imprisonment/Detention of ..."" section below, or add a new topic proposing a specific new title. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

The edits SydCarlisle are referring to on the Extraordinary rendition page have been reverted as lacking consensus or support from reliable sourcing; regardless our policies do not allow us to use other wikipedia pages as a source.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Saying “according to the [publication]” and then a quote

There have been a couple of times people have added quotes from someone and then in the sentence attributed it to a publication. Like saying “according to the New York Times, Mr Johnson said “I think it’s a good idea”. To me this seems unnecessary and a bit of implied calling into question whether the reporting is accurate at all so I would just delete the reference to the publication and say “Mr Jones said …” But I wasn’t sure if Wikipedia had a specific guide on this or if people were providing attribution to the publication for some other reason I wasn’t aware. Just checking what is the proper protocol before I start removing the names of the publications. Remember (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Since no one responded, I’m going to remove references to the publications when I think they are extraneous. Happy to discuss if anyone disagrees. Remember (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I cited Huffington Post and The New Republic, both biased sources. WP:BIASED says that while we have to be neutral, reliable sources don't have to be, but attribution may be appropriate. I deemed them reliable for the undemanding job of giving us a printed source to cite for a direct quote of what a spokesperson said on video. I didn't think attributions were needed, but I tossed them in to keep the peace in case of any objections. Now that you've raised the issue, I've removed them. --Kizor 20:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I could be wrong. If someone thinks we should add them back based on wiki policy, please let us know. Thank you for the help Kizor and for the additions of text! Remember (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Don't thank me if I add text, thank me if I know when to stop. But you're welcome. --Kizor 23:15, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Protective order mention

Hey should this protective order from 2021 be mentioned in the article? https://x.com/DHSgov/status/1912567112733753563 --Scoutstheman

Can you find a reliable source that mentions it? Remember (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Breaking news. After it was posted by DHS on twitter a few hours ago, news outlets are indeed are covering them posting it.

Newsweek Washington Examiner and I assume a bunch more sources will have coverage of it soon. Seems we should cover it, the question is where and how?

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

My inclination is to put it in the Reactions / Trump administration section. It's part of their public argument, but unless they introduce it into their court filings, it's not legally relevant. That section should probably be enlarged a bit anyway, per NPOV. They've made all sorts of claims (that he engaged in human trafficking, ...). FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I like that idea of it being under the trump administration reactions but if it does become some kind of legal evidence against him I'd suggest considering moving it to the background section alongside his alleged MS-13 connection. Given that both would be used against him I think it would make sense for them to be both located in the same section. Scoutstheman (talk) 03:25, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I think that when we consider adding it, we need to be sure to keep in mind Wikipedia:BLP policy and be very careful with the language used if we do. I agree with FactOrOpinion in that its place would be under reactions (as it is irrelevant to the deportation itself as of now) if it is included. Mason7512 (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

It definitely feels like a smear campaign not a legal argument. I agree the reactions section is appropriate.

Also, see the Newsweek article. Maybe we should also include part of the response/rebuttal from his wife. Bob drobbs (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree if we include the information we should include the statement from his wife regarding the issue. Remember (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I also agree and went ahead and made the addition to the reactions section. Nowa (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

A new 4th Circuit appeal

The Trump Admin. has filed a notice of appeal with the 4th Circuit, to appeal Xinis's 4/10 order (the one she wrote right after SCOTUS ruled). It has a different docket #, but I'm not a lawyer and don't know why. I assume that it will be assigned to a different panel of judges. Just noting this as a heads up, since it means another legal element to attend to (keeping track of filings, figuring out how to name the section and where to place it). FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

They filed a motion for (1) an emergency stay pending appeal of Xinis's 4/10 amended order that they facilitate A.G.'s release/return, and (2) a writ of mandamus to vacate her 4/15 order for expedited discovery (and I need to add content about that order). The motion was filed yesterday, and they filed a concurrent motion in the district court, asking Xinis to stay her orders pending appeal. Xinis denied their motion today; I haven't seen news about either that motion or her denial yet, so I haven't added anything to the article about it yet. The 4th Circuit also denied their motion, in a unanimous opinion described by The Hill as a "blistering". For the time being, I've added a few sentences about the 4th Circuit's ruling at the end of the Return to Maryland district court subsection in the "Facilitating" his return section, but I'm not sure that's the right place. Clearly the 4th Circuit is not the district court. But it wasn't clear to me where to add something like a Return to Fourth Circuit subsection, or how to deal with the fact that it was a concurrent motion to both the district court and the 4th Circuit. Should I add a Return to Fourth Circuit subsection at the bottom of "Facilitating" his return? I don't know what will best help readers understand all of this back-and-forth. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Others didn't like this idea in the past. But there is so much going on in parallel in different courts, I'm again going to propose the idea of organizing the legal cases/ruling by court not trying to keep things across multiple courts in chronological order.

It makes sense to me. 🤷‍♂️

Though, maybe at some point to add to that there could be a bulleted timeline? Bob drobbs (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I think it's too confusing if it's not chronological. Another possibility would be to retitle the Return to Maryland district court section Return to the lower courts for right now, and we can see how it plays out. Unless the DOJ appeals to SCOTUS and they grant an emergency stay (which hopefully they wouldn't, given their previous order), it will continue to proceed in the district court for the next week and a half. A bulleted timeline might be useful; we'd need to decide what year the timeline starts. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:54, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2025 (2)

Underneath the “background” section, “they would make sure her eldest son, Cesar, joined their gang instead,” change “joined” to join. 166.181.80.247 (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done thank you for catching that! Mason7512 (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Missing comma?

Extremely minor, but the article is protected. In the Refusal section, it currently says the following: According to the administration the Supreme Court's requirement to[...]. I believe there should be a comma after "administration", as in According to the administration, the [...]. Thank you for your understanding. 2600:1700:6181:899F:A46B:20C3:75BD:A2A7 (talk) 03:29, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for noticing / pointing it out. FactOrOpinion (talk) 04:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Misinformation section

Can we create a separate section for all the misinformation spread by trump and his sycophants, that has since been debunked (gang membership, restraining order, etc)? 46.97.170.73 (talk) 12:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I’m not necessarily opposed to such a section but it would be useful if we had sources documenting this as a trend. I’ve seen this in Rolling Stone (link) but unfortunately Rolling Stone is not considered a reliable source for a lot of things. Do we have other sources to support a section on this? Remember (talk) 12:18, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

It's all in the article already, but scattered across multiple sections. It would be more helpful if it were all in the same place. Most people coming to this article will probably do so because they heard the false claims circulating and will want to verify them. 46.97.170.73 (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

What misinformation? He was noted to be a gang member by a detective, the Gang Unit, and a confidential informant. Furthermore, two immigration judges agreed with this assessment. How is that misinformation? Also, there is no doubt that there were two restraining orders filed against him by his current wife. That's 100% verifiable. So I don't know what misinformation you're talking about? Mkstokes (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I mean there have been a variety of false and misleading statements at times. JD Vance for example stated that he was “convicted” when that never happened. Trump asserted that he “won” the case 9-0. Some people have asserted or implied that the courts actual adjudicated whether he was a gang member when that was only something that was used for a quick bail determination that is not the same thing as an actual tried fact. So there are things that could be discussed. But I think it would be best to lean on a reliable source rather than compile the information ourselves. Remember (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Immigration is a civil case, not criminal. Thus the burden of proof is much lower and the process is different. Your reference to a "tried fact" doesn't apply. As a civil case, the Immigration Judge said he was MS-13 and when it was appealed, that judgement was upheld. That's the end of it from a due process standpoint, period. Mkstokes (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

AFAIK, there's zero evidence of the arresting officer working with a "gang unit." The first immigration judge, who accepted the allegation of his being a gang member, was only assessing it for whether he was eligible for bail (no trial, the standards of evidence are lower than in a trial, and there was no opportunity to question the police officer who made the claim because that officer was suspended and pleaded guilty to misconduct shortly after), and the appeals court did not assess it, only whether the first judge made a "clear error." There was only one restraining order filed by his wife, and she chose not to press charges. Misinformation includes things like: zero evidence that "he was found with rolls of cash and drugs," zero evidence that "Intelligence reports found that he was involved in human trafficking," zero evidence for Bondi's claim that he's "one of the top MS-13 members." He's never been charged with any crime in the US or El Salvador. Ask yourself: if he's a top MS-13 member, why didn't the Trump Admin. challenge the withholding of removal order in 2019 and have him deported then? But I agree with Remember, we'd only create a specific misinformation section if RSs are characterizing the info that way. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Wrong, there is no "trial" in the traditional sense. Once again, this is a civil case, not a criminal one. Think traffic court or divorce court. The judge makes a decision and that's it. Also, the report provided by the detective is called a GFIS, which means Gang Field Interview Sheet. Of course the Gang Unit gave him the information to complete it! There were two TROs, not one. When you say "zero evidence" i don't think you understand the nature of legal evidence. Verbal testimony is evidence, so saying "zero" is just wrong from a legal standpoint. Him hanging out woth known gamg members is evidence (circumstantial evidence). Having a car full of people with zero luggage is evidence (circumstantial). Pretending to not speak English is evidence. No offense, but your understanding of the legal process is lacking. Mkstokes (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Nothing I said was wrong. It's true that there was no trial, because it was a bond hearing. (And for the record, there are often trials in civil cases.) It's true that in a bond hearing, the standards of evidence are lower than in a trial, including a civil trial. In an immigration court bond hearing, the burden of proof is on the immigrant. I know what GFIS stands for, thanks, which does not make the cops part of a "gang unit." As the GFIS says, the men were picked up for loitering.

As for "There were two TROs, not one," I have no idea which case you're referring to, but if you can present the two TROs you're referring to, I'll look at them. I'm aware that "Verbal testimony is evidence," but testimony occurs in court or a deposition, under oath. A GFIS is not testimony. And if you bothered to read the GFIS, you'd find that it did not say "he was found with rolls of cash and drugs," nor "Intelligence reports found that he was involved in human trafficking," nor has Bondi provided evidence for her claim that he's "one of the top MS-13 members," which were my claims, so don't try to move the goalposts to things I did not make a claim about. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

"His attorney also contacted the [Prince George’s Police Department] Inspector General requesting to speak to the detective who authored the GFIS sheet, but was informed that the detective had been suspended. A request to speak to OTHER officers in the Gang Unit was declined."

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/abrego-garcia-and-ms-13--what-do-we-know Mkstokes (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

“Other officers in the Gang Unit”…if you’re going to make an argument, make sure you read your sources thoroughly. 2600:387:15:4F16:0:0:0:B (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, the provided article is much more critical of the MS-13 membership claim given it involved two levels of hearsay from people who never gave testimony under oath. 2600:387:15:4F16:0:0:0:B (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Information already in the article based on the wife's own testimony clearly explains why the restraining orders are not as significant as trumpists claim them to be. 46.97.170.73 (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Attempted to add the section in question.Remember (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

DHS website

DHS has now put out a “fact sheet” on Abrego Garcia. See here - [3]. This seems notable to mention in the article but not exactly sure how. Remember (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we should cite it directly, only in terms of what RSs say about it. I found one discussion, and I assume that there are (or will be) others. I'd put this in the Reactions / Trump admin. section, or maybe there needs to be a new subsection about this playing out not only in a court of law but also in the court of public opinion. As an aside, they should be ashamed to have redacted police officer names while not doing so for family addresses and a minor child's name. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion, they didn't redact the names because they are already out there! My goodness, there's a fundraising website with the wife's name and several news articles with the kid's names. It's in the public domain. The officers' information is not. Once again, an expression of your bias. Mkstokes (talk) 09:02, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

What about the addresses? — W.andrea (talk) 11:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I said nothing about redacting his wife's name, and the officer's name, Ivan Mendez, is also "already out there" (for example, here). I haven't seen even one news article reporting the full name of his young son (5 years old now, not even 2 years old at the time of the 2021 document), much less the family's address and the grandmother's address. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

A mention of the post has already been added to the article in § Trump administration, and I added a citation to the post itself at the end. That section doesn't cover all the info in the "fact sheet" though. — W.andrea (talk) 14:17, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I just removed the DHS citation, as that webpage is full of court documents. WP:BLPPRIMARY says Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. If RSs consider the information there to be significant, they'll report on it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

They already have reported on it... WP:BLPPRIMARY also says Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source. I'm fine whether it's cited or not, just want to understand what you're saying. — W.andrea (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

We can use the RSs reporting on it. But we cannot use court documents as primary sources for BLP content, ever. You cut off the sentence you just quoted: Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies. "Subject to the restrictions of this policy" means that if some other part of the BLP policy says "don't use this kind of source for BLP content," it cannot be used, notwithstanding that primary sources can sometimes be used in limited ways. In particular, "subject to the restrictions of this policy" includes "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh OK. I took the citation to be supporting the assertion about the DHS, the Department of Homeland Security posted ... but I understand disallowing it because it contains court records (as well as personal details). And I guess it could also be understood as supporting the assertions about Abrego Garcia and his wife, which we don't want. — W.andrea (talk) 21:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC) edited 21:23

Please explain how one can "augument" a secondary source after that "reliable secondary source" has discussed the court document? What you've made an argument for it that primary source information can NEVER be used on a WP:BLP, when it clearly says it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source. Why would the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons page say it "may" be used when you assert it can NEVER be used. It's simple. You can cite both the secondary source's article AND the primary source info discussed in said article if the article also discusses the primary source materials. What could be clearer than that? Why even put in "may" when in practice it means NEVER. Mkstokes (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I already responded to this very issue in the comment just above yours, which I encourage you to read and understand. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

The WP:USEPRIMARY guidelines say

An article about a person: The person's autobiography, own website, or a page about the person on an employer's or publisher's website, is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary‡ source for information about what the person says about themself. Such primary sources can normally be used for non-controversial facts about the person and for clearly attributed controversial statements. Many other primary sources, including birth certificates, the Social Security Death Index, and court documents, are ""USUALLY"" not acceptable primary sources, because it is impossible for the viewer to know whether the person listed on the document is the notable subject rather than another person who happens to have the same name.

So, clearly, primary source can sometimes be used as opposed to ""NEVER."" Are you asserting that the court documents might not be for the Abrego Garcia and all the news sources citing them are mistaken? Note it says ""USUALLY,"" not never. So your explanation is grossly insufficient. Mkstokes (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

clearly, primary source can sometimes be used as opposed to ""NEVER."" I know! Which is why I never suggested that primary sources can never be used. You seem confused. My statement was that court documents cannot ever be used. There are many, many kinds of primary sources that are not court documents, and sometimes those other primary sources can be used. Are you asserting that the court documents might not be for the Abrego Garcia They cannot be used as sources for WP content content about living persons. all the news sources citing them are mistaken I said nothing about news sources, and they're irrelevant here, since news sources aren't court documents. Since you aren't willing to attend to relevant distinctions, I'm done here. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

You're not reading the guidelines. WP:USEPRIMARY specifically mentions ""court documents."" I'll repeat. It says Many other primary sources, including birth certificates, the Social Security Death Index, and ""COURT DOCUMENTS,"" are ""USUALLY"" not acceptable primary sources. Usually does not mean ""NEVER"" in any form or fashion in this universe, period. You're the one not willing to attend to relevant distinctions. Come to think of it, this shouldn't be a biography of a living person anyway! Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia is not a living person, so none of the WP:BLP should apply. But Wikipedia has decided it does. 🤦🏾‍♂️ Mkstokes (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia is not a living person

Kilmar Abrego Garcia is a living person. Please read WP:BLP more closely, e.g. Material about living persons, information about living persons, and This policy applies to ... material about living persons in other articles. In other words, it's not only about biographies per se – that's just the main area where it's applicable. — W.andrea (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2025 (UTC) edited 11:28, 18 April

Yes, @W.andrea, I understand Wikipedia's policy for designating this a BLP. I just disagree with it. My real concern is @FactOrOpinion's clear bias. When that user says "They're distorting what little evidence they do have. It's all a public relations campaign," or says "That DHS page only shows how little evidence they have of gang membership," they make clear their bias against including DHS evidence in the article. So I'm not surprised when they ignore Wikipedia's crystal clear policy stating primary source materials "MAY be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source." They don't like what that evidence provides, so they've made a decision to exclude is because they think it's wrong. The purpose of authoring a Wikipedia article is not to create an opinion piece. It's to provide the information as is and let the reader decide on their own. That's also why the Supreme Court document saying the government action was illegal should be included as well. Why someone wouldn't want this is beyond me and using Wikipedia Lawyering to exclude the stuff you don't like is unacceptable. 🤬 Mkstokes (talk) 08:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I just disagree with it.

How so? For comparison, are you familiar with the policy on libel? — W.andrea (talk) 11:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, @W.andrea, I'm familiar with both the Wikipedia policy on libel, the legal definition of libel, and the defense of libel. Tell, me please how posting a court document is in an way libelous? Mkstokes (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I think you've totally misunderstood what I'm saying. I'm not saying it's libel, that's just a related policy. I'm asking you why you disagree with WP:BLP. — W.andrea (talk) 12:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is the only place on the planet that refuses to use primary source materials for articles about a living person. Rather, it will only use secondary source material about a living person. So, even if the Supreme Court says X, if a "reliable" secondary source doesn't write about it, X is deemed to not exist on Wikipedia for living persons. Meanwhile, in this same article, we are looking askew at "hearsay" evidence. Secondary sourcing almost by definition is hearsay, which is why every academic institution on the planet prioritizes primary source information over secondary source information. Moreover, WP:USEPRIMARY explicitly says it's okay to use court documents for living persons in some circumstance.

Wikipedia editors throughout the site purposely misinterpret WP:BLP, as @FactOrOpinion is doing here. They do this as a way of filtering out information that challenges their narrative. @FactOrOpinion knows this and also knows that the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard will go their way because despite the clear language on WP:USEPRIMARY, they have chosen to ignore it. So, why don't they just change both WP:BLP and WP:USEPRIMARY to say "court documents are never allowed regarding living persons? Because they know it would be a stupid guideline and putting it in writing would expose the game. So, it's better to just have a de facto guideline especially if it always gets you the result you want, the suppression of factual information that is damaging to the narrative. It is not a coincidence that this user utterly disagrees with the information published by Homeland Security and also refuses to have it be citied in the main article. In contrast, I think the Supreme Court opinion about the deportation being illegal should also be cited in the main article, because I want the facts provided, not a narrative that supports my political agenda.

Finally, Abrego Garcia isn't as important as the processes that took place here. Thus in no way is this a biography - an account of someone's life written by someone else. Mkstokes (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Moved to User talk:Mkstokes

I'm moving my response and Mkstokes' reply to me, as they are solely about behavior and do not improve the article. It is not an attempt to move all of their behavioral comments to their talk page, as those comments may also include policy or content discussion or be in threads that involve other editors. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:53, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Mkstokes, re: I'm not surprised when they ignore Wikipedia's crystal clear policy stating primary source materials "MAY be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source." They don't like what that evidence provides, so they've made a decision to exclude is because they think it's wrong.

a) If you think that I "ignore Wikipedia's crystal clear policy," you can take me to WP:AN. Beware that it may WP:BOOMERANG.

b) The policy you're excerpting says "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies" (emphasis added). I already pointed you to a comment where I explained how that bolded text constrains the use of court documents as sources in the article. We all have to pay attention to the policy in its entirety. Also, you cannot counter core policy by pointing to text in WP:USEPRIMARY, an essay.

c) The External links section has links to court documents, court dockets, and the DHS page. The court case infoboxes also have links to the dockets. I haven't removed any of these links, because it's not against policy to have such links. I don't have any problem with what the documents show. I don't have a problem with text in the article addressing what's in the court documents, as long as it can be sourced to RSs. I am simply trying to abide by a core policy, which does not allow us to use court documents as sources for content in the body of the article. Please stop projecting motivations onto me that aren't mine. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:37, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

#1 on that fact sheet confuses Abrego Garcia being found with rolls of cash with being found with a sweatshirt that had pictures of roles [sic] of money on it. According to the Gang Field Interview Sheet that the fact sheet is using as a source, and which Pam Bondi's office published yesterday, Abrego Garcia was one of four people arrested for loitering outside of a Home Depot, when approached two of them discarded items and small plastic bottles containing marijuana were found at the scene, and Abrego Garcia was wearing a "Chicago Bulls hat and a hoodie with rolls of money covering the eyes, ears and mouth of the presidents on the separate denominations." (The GFIS states that See no evil hear no evil speak no evil is indicative of Hispanic gang culture.) The fact sheet's accusation that "he was found with rolls of cash and drugs" is untrue. I'm peeved and tempted to remove the fact sheet as an unreliable, poor-quality source per WP:BLP, but would that be the right thing to do or would it just feel good? --Kizor 14:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I already removed the source, as I don't think it's consistent with the prohibition against using court docs for BLP content. That GFIS is the one submitted by the cop who was suspended a couple of weeks later and then pleaded guilty to sharing confidential info with a sex worker. It's ludicrous for DHS to suggest that he was arrested with drugs when the police didn't charge him with anything related to drugs; are they suggesting dereliction of duty? A "Chicago Bulls hat and a hoodie with rolls of money covering the eyes, ears and mouth of the presidents on the separate denominations" doesn't even make sense to me. Was the officer saying that images of bills were sewn onto the hoodie, and then images of rolls of money were sewn over the eyes, ears and mouths of the images of the presidents in those bills? How could actual rolls of money cover the eyes, ears and mouths of images of presidents, whether sewn images or the images on actual bills? That DHS page only shows how little evidence they have of gang membership. That GFIS sheet says he had "chequeo" status, which is a fairly low MS-13 status, despite Bondi's claim that he's "one of the top MS-13 members." They're distorting what little evidence they do have. It's all a public relations campaign. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

All this analysis looks like original research. You're making a biased analysis of the facts, then using that analysis to determine if something should or shouldn't be added or published. Your opinion of the EVIDENCE is immaterial. Mkstokes (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I said nothing about what content "should or shouldn't be added or published." I made a statement about having removed a source that's not allowed per WP:BLPPRIMARY, and if you look at the edit where I removed the source, I did not remove any content, as the content that was there had other sources, and those were acceptable sources. Don't project actions onto me that I did not do. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2025

He was not illegally deported. He is a citizen of El Salvador and illegally entered the United States under his own admission. The president and DOJ are working well within their means. First source: DOJ fact sheet.

https://www.justice.gov/d9/speeches/attachments/2017/04/18/department_of_justice_fact_sheet_on_ms-13_0.pdf

Second source: Prince county gang field interview sheet, Department of Homeland Security Record of deportable/inadmissible alien and DOJ board of immigration appeals review.

https://www.justice.gov/ag/media/1396906/dl?inline 12.42.84.242 (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

This is already addressed in the article and multiple times on this talk page. Neither of the sources prove what you say nor are sufficient for direct citation per WP:BLPPRIMARY. As FactOrOpinion put it in a previous talk page disscussion:

He had a judge's order that made it illegal to deport him to El Salvador. He could have been legally deported to a different country, but instead the government sent him to the one country they were legally forbidden to deport him to. As the Supreme Court said: "The United States acknowledges that Abrego Garcia was subject to a withholding order forbidding his removal to El Salvador, and that the removal to El Salvador was therefore illegal."

Mason7512 (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

This statement is patently false, @Mason7512. The burden of proof for a civil case is "the preponderance of the evidence," the lowest legal standard possible. Thus, given that multiple sources provided evidence of his MS-13 membership and two immigration judges determined it was acceptable, that is clearly sufficient in a civil case. There should be no reason why someone cannot cite both an article from a reliable source that discusses the primary documentation and the primary documentation as support for the article. This is the clear meaning of "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source." I can't think of any other way to AUGMENT a source when that source discusses a primary legal document. Can you? Sorry, @FactOrOpinion is just wrong in his assessment of this policy, period. Mkstokes (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

The burden of proof in [some] civil cases is not relevant in this context unless. It is not your place to determine if a burden of proof is met (for what, you do not specify) and assert your determination as fact. That is clear original research.

There are not multiple sources that provide "evidence of his MS-13 membership", there is testimony by one informant and claims by government/law enforcement entities citing this testimony.

Two immigration judges didn't determine the testimony was “acceptable” (which is not a legal term, so I don't know what you're referring to). An immigration judge ruled that the testimony was sufficient grounds to deny him bail, and another agreed with that decision upon appeal.

None of this shows that RSs support what the original IP claimed, which was that he was in the US illegally at the time of deportation and the government was "working well within their means". Reliable sources, in fact, say the opposite. Mason7512 (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay, here's a legal term. The court said "...the evidence shows that he is a verified member of MS-13." Also, "The BIA has held, absent any indication that the information therein is incorrect or was the result of coercion or duress, Form I-213, is "inherently trustworthy and admissible." Anything else is original research on your part, end of story. You disagree with the judge. Fine. So does the defense counsel and the defendant. That doesn't make it untrue and certain doesn't block it from being published in a Wikipedia article merely because you thought the process was wrong. Stick to the facts and not your original research. Mkstokes (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Please wait to reopen this edit request until a consensus has been reached. PianoDan (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2025 (2)

It says he was deported illegally, this should state he was deported legally. 2600:1009:B129:8E66:D1E7:9BB2:CE9A:1C5A (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

If you read the article you would see that the Supreme Court found the deportation to be illegal and even the government asserted in its case that it was incorrect and why they referred to it as an “administrative error.” Remember (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. PianoDan (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

False or misleading statements in this article

Notably, the officer and lead detective who attested to his gang membership was suspended during the investigation due to serious misconduct allegations.

This implies the misconduct was related to Kilmar's case. It wasn't, as the source makes clear. This is misleading.

His lawyers argue that his imprisonment is part of an agreement to detain U.S. deportees there in exchange for payment, a claim that was confirmed by U.S. senator Chris Van Hollen, who had spoken with Félix Ulloa, El Salvador's vice president.

The source does not say that Senator Van Hollen "confirmed" anything, just that he said something. This is misleading.

On April 10, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Abrego Garcia's removal to El Salvador was illegal. The Court rejected the administration's defense, which claimed it lacked the legal authority to exercise jurisdiction over El Salvador and secure his return. Justice Sotomayor noted that this argument implied the government "could deport and incarcerate any person, including U.S. citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene."

This implies Sotomayor made this statement in a controlling decision. She actually made this argument in a dissenting opinion. This is misleading.

A few months after his marriage, Abrego Garcia applied for asylum and withholding of removal. His request for asylum was denied, as one must submit an asylum application within a year of arriving in the U.S.

The article says "He applied for asylum, but that option is only available to those who have been in the U.S. around a year." The source says "around a year". It's not an editor's job to change that to "less than a year". "Around a year" certainly inspires less confidence than "less than a year", which is more definitive. Editing away ambiguity in a source makes it sound more authoritative and is therefore misleading.

§ Meaning of withholding of removal

This entire section with the exception of the sentence: Reuters and NPR describe Abrego Garcia, having received the status, as living in the U.S. legally. is original research and requires a secondary source describing the primary sources.

On March 12, 2025, after working at his job as a union apprentice, Abrego Garcia picked his son up from his grandmother's house. His son, who was five years old at the time, has "autism and a hearing defect, and is unable to communicate verbally." After leaving the house, ICE officials stopped his car, told him that his immigration "status had changed",

The cited source says exactly none of this.

On April 4, 2025, Judge Paula Xinis ruled that his detention, without any kind of judicial documentation warranting it, was illegal

In the cited source, the judge says that his deportation was illegal. The cited source does not include any statement from the judge about the legality of El Salvador imprisoning him, which makes sense, given that El Salvador is a foreign country with its own laws.

I'll just leave it at that because I'm running short of time, but at this rate, I expect the entire article to be filled with misleading statements, false statements, and original research not supported by citations. 199.189.228.86 (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Sotamayor statement

FYI- Sotamayor’s statements were not a “dissent”. It was simply stated in the document as a separate statement, which is what it says in the article. It agreed with the decision of the case and thus wouldn’t be dissenting. Remember (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Also for the text:

On March 12, 2025, after working at his job as a union apprentice, Abrego Garcia picked his son up from his grandmother's house. His son, who was five years old at the time, has "autism and a hearing defect, and is unable to communicate verbally." After leaving the house, ICE officials stopped his car, told him that his immigration "status had changed".

I added back the original sources which for some unknown reason were previously removed. Thank you for finding that. I don’t have time right now to respond to all other complaints but I’ll try to address them when I can (unless someone addresses them before me). Remember (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I will be working on them as well. Nowa (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Re: Sotomayor opinion.

The cited source discusses both cases simultaneously. Not to do original research, but the article doesn't make things clear. In Noem v Garcia, Sotomayor, joined by Kagan and Jackson quoted herself from a prior dissent in J. G. G:

The Government’s argument, moreover, implies that it could deport and incarcerate any person, including U. S. citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene. See Trump v. J. G. G., 604 U. S. ___, ___ (2025) (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 8). That view refutes itself.

Describe that how you wish. But the two options are: it's from a dissent in Trump v J. G. G., not Garcia, or its a quote from the dissent in Trump v J. G. G., included in a 3 member statement in the unsigned Noem v Garcia. Either way, the article as written implies that her statement is part of a unanimous opinion, which it is not. Indeed, she dissents in writing in her statement:

Because every factor governing requests for equitable relief manifestly weighs against the Government, Nken v. Holder, 556 U. S. 418, 426 (2009), I would have declined to intervene in this litigation and denied the application in full. Nevertheless, I agree with the Court’s order that the proper remedy is to provide Abrego Garcia with all the process to which he would have been entitled had he not been unlawfully removed to El Salvador.

But again, any of this is only necessary because the source is ambiguous. I don't really care about this, but as a reader without background knowledge, I would not understand any of this by reading this article. 199.189.228.86 (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

You are mistaken that "In Noem v Garcia, Sotomayor, joined by Kagan and Jackson, quoted herself from a prior dissent in J. G. G." She referred to her dissent in Trump v. J. G. G., but she did not quote it. The quote from her Noem v. Abrego Garcia statement that appears in the article does not come from Trump v. J. G. G.

You are also mistaken that "she dissents in writing in her statement." There were no dissents. Re: "This implies Sotomayor made this statement in a controlling decision," you inferred that, but that doesn't mean that the text implies that. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Statement about the officer in the lead

The IP user above makes the following observation regarding content in the lead:

"Notably, the officer and lead detective who attested to his gang membership was suspended during the investigation due to serious misconduct allegations." [current wording is slightly different]

This implies the misconduct was related to Kilmar's case. It wasn't, as the source makes clear. This is misleading.

I agree that the statement is misleading and should be removed. The source [4] is The New Republic. Wikipedia consensus is that The New Republic (TNR) is reliable but opinionated. All opinions TNR should be attributed. Based on that, the statement should certainly be removed from the lead. It could be argued that it belongs in the background as an opinion of TNR with attribution, but we then run into a wp:blp problem regarding the officer in question. The New Republic names the officer and casts aspersions on the officer's character for an incident unrelated to Garcia (i.e., giving confidential case information to a prostitute). So the bottom line is that I agree with the IP user that the statement is misleading and should be removed. If I can get a second, I will remove it, or, if there is an alternative view, let's discuss. Nowa (talk) 21:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I think there are lots of other sources which talk about this officer's "disgrace" like this USA Today Article.

I agree this has no place in the lead, but I think it should remain in the article. And, we cannot be the ones who make a connection that the cop who labeled Garcia as a gang member was later fired for bad behavior. But reliable secondary sources are making this connection so we can too, I think we should.

USA Today: "Just days after the March 2019 encounter at a Home Depot in Hyattsville where Abrego Garcia was flagged as a potential MS-13 gang member, Mendez was suspended from the force.

"-- Bob drobbs (talk) Bob drobbs (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Much better reference that lays out the situation. I concur that a statement in the background section based on the USA today article is appropriate. Nowa (talk) 23:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Although the cause of the suspension and guilty plea are unrelated to Abrego Garcia's arrest, it's relevant to the bond ruling, in that that the officer who completed the GFIS was unavailable to answer questions:

Abrego Garcia’s lawyer later tried to obtain more information about the allegations ICE had made at the bail hearing, according to the complaint. He discovered that the Prince George’s Police Department had no incident report for the arrest, and the Hyattsville City Police Department’s report mentioned only the other three men arrested—not Abrego Garcia.

Then the complaint adds yet another disturbing detail: "His attorney also contacted the [Prince George’s Police Department] Inspector General requesting to speak to the detective who authored the GFIS sheet, but was informed that the detective had been suspended. A request to speak to other officers in the Gang Unit was declined."

(source) Agreed that it doesn't belong in the lead. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Very thorough reference. Thanks. Nowa (talk) 11:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

It looks like we have consensus that the statement about the disgraced officer doesn't belong in the lead. I will go ahead and remove it. The issue of the disgraced officer is already covered in the background. Nowa (talk) 11:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Van Hollen confirmation of payments to house deportees in CECOT

The IP user above makes the following observation regarding Senator Van Hollen confirming payments being made to El Salvador to house deportees in CECOT:

His lawyers argue that his imprisonment is part of an agreement to detain U.S. deportees there in exchange for payment, a claim that was confirmed by U.S. senator Chris Van Hollen, who had spoken with Félix Ulloa, El Salvador's vice president.

The source does not say that Senator Van Hollen "confirmed" anything, just that he said something. This is misleading.

The article now reads:

In response to Van Hollen's question about why Abrego Garcia was being held at CECOT despite not being convicted of any crimes in either the U.S. or El Salvador, Ulloa allegedly said, according to Van Hollen, that "the Trump administration is paying El Salvador, the government of El Salvador to keep him at CECOT."

The Van Hollen quote is confirmed in the Axios reference. It's also found in this NPR reference. Having said that, the quote might be a little misleading since the it implies there is a specific payment related to Garcia. What Ulloa may have meant is that there are overall payments being made to house deported detainees in CECOT. Nonetheless, I'm in favor of leaving the quote as is until if/when additional RS clarifies.Nowa (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I'd describe the quote as "imprecise" instead of "misleading", and I agree it should be left in. Bob drobbs (talk) 15:03, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I highly doubt that any of the payments are made in the form "here's the payment for person A, here's the payment for person B, ..." But there was a question earlier about whether the payment from the Trump admin. to El Salvador covered both the Salvadorans and the Venezuelans deported by the US and held at CECOT, or if it only covered the Venezuelans. I added the quote because it made it clear that at least in A.G.'s case, the US payment includes him, and that's the only reason he's being held there, according to Van Hollen's description of what Ulloa said. We may get further clarification down the road, since Sen. Shaheen has asked Rubio for a copy of the agreement, and A.G.'s lawyers have asked the government for copies of all documents relevant to any agreements, as part of the expedited discovery that Xinis approved. (I don't think any of the discovery docs and depositions are generally made public, unless something is attached as an exhibit to a motion. But I assume that A.G.'s attorneys will reference any agreement in later filings.) FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Asylum application deadline

The IP user above makes the following observation regarding:

A few months after his marriage, Abrego Garcia applied for asylum and withholding of removal. His request for asylum was denied, as one must submit an asylum application within a year of arriving in the U.S.

The article says "He applied for asylum, but that option is only available to those who have been in the U.S. around a year." The source says "around a year". It's not an editor's job to change that to "less than a year". "Around a year" certainly inspires less confidence than "less than a year", which is more definitive. Editing away ambiguity in a source makes it sound more authoritative and is therefore misleading.

I've added a reference to a Lawfare article that states "aliens are required to bring such claims within a year of entering the country".Nowa (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

§ Meaning of withholding of removal

The IP user above makes the following assertion:

§ Meaning of withholding of removal

This entire section with the exception of the sentence: Reuters and NPR describe Abrego Garcia, having received the status, as living in the U.S. legally. is original research and requires a secondary source describing the primary sources.

The section has been substantially simplified and the separate header removed. I've just written a stub article for withholding of removal and provided a link in this article.

Judge's ruling on deportation

The IP user above has stated:

On April 4, 2025, Judge Paula Xinis ruled that his detention, without any kind of judicial documentation warranting it, was illegal

In the cited source, the judge says that his deportation was illegal. The cited source does not include any statement from the judge about the legality of El Salvador imprisoning him, which makes sense, given that El Salvador is a foreign country with its own laws.

Good catch. I changed "detention" to "deportation to El Salvador" per the RS.

Thanks for bringing all of these to our attention. The article is better for it.

"Impractical" vs "impracticable"

The article from The Hill states that the administration's response to the judge's timeline was "impracticable" but this article uses the word "impractical." It's my understanding that "impracticable" is a legal term that means that something cannot be done vs "impractical" which just means that something is not reasonable. It might seem like a minor correction but I think it's worth making. 98.149.220.178 (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Which article from The Hill? Currently the only mention of "Impractical" that I see in the article comes from a PBS article and seems to be quoted from the article correctly. -- Bob drobbs (talk) Bob drobbs (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Dedicated section for CECOT

I copied over a bunch of stuff about conditions at the prison from March 2025 American deportations of Venezuelans and stuck it into a new section near the bottom of the article. I left the overview at the "Arrest and deportation in 2025" section in place. We don't want to ruin the article's flow by dropping an infodumping brick in the middle of telling the reader what happened, but we also don't want to swish away important information to the bottom.

Drawbacks? Problems? Was this a mistake? Is this beside the subject? Is the article getting too long? The article on the deportations of Venezuelans has a lot of details on proposals to detain Americans as well, and those could be brought over. --Kizor 04:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Domestic violence

An interesting info that should be added: His wife filed a protective order against him back in 2021 over allegations of domestic violence, according to court records.

After all, one "activity" of MS-13, as listed by Wikipedia, is rape.

Source:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wife-man-mistakenly-deported-el-salvador-filed-2021-protective-order-against-him-kilmar-abrego-garcia/ 80.98.149.110 (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

The protective order is already in the article at Deportation_of_Kilmar_Abrego_Garcia#Trump_administration Nowa (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Tennessee Human Trafficking Incident

Why is there no mention of his arrest in Tennessee? A clear account of this Tennessee incident must be included.

"Biden’s FBI ordered Tennessee cops to release Kilmar Garcia after he was detained on suspicion of human trafficking, found to be driving without valid license in 2022 The officer immediately discovered Abrego Garcia was transporting seven passengers from Texas to Maryland." https://thepostmillennial.com/bidens-fbi-ordered-tennessee-cops-to-release-kilmar-garcia-after-he-was-detained-on-suspicion-of-human-trafficking-found-to-be-driving-without-valid-license-in-2022 24.57.55.50 (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source for this? The Post Millennial is not (WP:POSTMIL). Mason7512 (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Garcia was detained by a Tennessee highway patrol officer on suspicion of human trafficking in December 2022 while driving a vehicle carrying seven passengers.

The report, which cited unnamed sources, said officers contacted the FBI and later released him and the passengers.

In a statement, the Tennessee Highway Patrol confirmed that Mr Abrego Garcia was stopped for allegedly speeding in 2022, but was released after officers contacted the FBI.

https://www.aol.com/news/know-kilmar-abrego-garcia-ms-202537346.html

Biden's FBI Ordered TN Highway Patrol to Release 'Maryland Man' Recently Deported to El Salvador After He Was Detained in 2022 Traffic Stop on Suspicion of Human Trafficking

https://tennesseestar.com/justice/bidens-fbi-ordered-tn-highway-patrol-to-release-maryland-man-recently-deported-to-el-salvador-after-he-was-detained-in-2022-traffic-stop-on-suspicion-of-human-trafficking/tpappert/2025/04/16/

It should also be noted in the inclusion of this Tennessee Human Trafficking incident that he was driving without a license -- which is a crime.

24.57.55.50 (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

If we use the Tennessee Star, it should be attributed (if they choose to identify the FBI as "Biden's FBI", it suggests bias). It doesn't say that he was arrested, only detained. He wasn't charged, and there is no actual evidence in the article that he was engaged in human trafficking. In a different Tennessee Star article, it says "THP did not state whether Abrego Garcia was suspected by THP officers of being engaged in human trafficking, as sources told The Star on Wednesday," only that the THP spokesperson said “Per standard protocol, the THP contacted federal law enforcement authorities with the Biden-era FBI—the agency of jurisdiction—who made the decision not to detain him.” Can you name the person or agency that is alleging that he engaged in human trafficking? FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

The Tennessee Star, while not the subject of much RS discussion, is a website set up by members of a Political Action Committee (according to snopes, politico) and has reposted content from deprecated sources like Breitbart and the Daily Caller. I would caution against citing them at all, maybe we can find different source reporting on the statement? But, now that I think about it: is this relevant to his deportation? It hasn't been cited by any agency like ICE as a reason or justification for his deportation. Mason7512 (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

AFAIK, it's not relevant to the deportation. But it is relevant to the Trump administration's portrayals of him as a dangerous person who shouldn't be returned to the US for due process, and their portrayals of those who support his return as supporting terrorists. For example, Secretary Noem has said that he has "trafficking in his background," DHS claims "Intelligence reports found that he was involved in human trafficking." DHS Assistant Aecretary Tricia McLaughlin said “We have intelligence reports that he is involved in human trafficking," and the same article says "White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt labeled Abrego Garcia 'a foreign terrorist' and an 'MS-13 gang member' who 'engaged in human trafficking.'" We can probably use that Independent article as a source, but need to be careful to say that this is what the administration alleges in public statements, but hasn't provided evidence for it and is not alleging it in their court documents. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Just to add the context for that AOL quote:

On 15 April, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt also accused Mr Abrego Garcia of involvement in human trafficking. She appeared to be referencing a report in The Tennessee Star, a conservative news website, which said Mr Abrego Garcia was detained ...

And beside the point, but his last name is Abrego Garcia, not just Garcia; see Spanish naming customs (as well as Hispanic American naming customs).

— W.andrea (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Newsweek now has an article about this along with a response from Abrego Garcia’s wife. I would think this would be a reliable source to add relevant info. [5]. Remember (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I think that works as a source. That document was created yesterday at DHS. I wonder what the original Tennessee document says. I think we should also include some of the quotes from Trump admin. officials; I included a couple of sources above. They're now softening their claim from "he is involved in human trafficking" / "engaged in human trafficking" to "suspected" human trafficker (presumably because they don't have any evidence of actual trafficking). A BBC article that's already a source in the article also says "In a statement, the Tennessee Highway Patrol confirmed that Mr Abrego Garcia was stopped for allegedly speeding in 2022, but was released after officers contacted the FBI," and it strikes me as notable that there's no mention of the FBI in the portion of the DHS doc that's been made public (they only released 2 of 6 pages). FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

FWIW: UPI....

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2025/04/19/dha-garcia-human-trafficking/6631745110125/

69.181.17.113 (talk) 10:52, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Lead Photo

The CECOT photo isn't particularly representative of this case.

Thoughts on moving up the Van Hollen meeting photo to the top? This is the most recent photo we have of Garcia. Bob drobbs (talk) 23:56, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Remember (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Doubly so as initial reports are saying that he's no longer at CECOT. Waiting for more RS to cover it before making updates. Bob drobbs (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Makes sense to me too. I'm guessing that all of the reports about that right now are coming from statements from Van Hollen, who said that that's what A.G. told him, and that the new prison is not as bad as CECOT. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

It is claimed that those photos were purposefully staged by the Salvadorian government to paint the appearance that he isn't being treated that badly Tritoneditor24 (talk) 07:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Speaking of images, would this White House NY Times tweet make for a good pic for the section about his return or possibly for the reactions section? --Kizor 02:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Does the fact that these are government issued photos mean that there's no copyright on them? FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Rename to "Deportation and Imprisonment/Detention of ..."

Just saying deportation does not do it justice nor accurately describe what happened. When I first heard about this case referred to as a "deportation," I though well a sympathetic official (likely state) can just pay to fly him back, and was not thinking about this case as a CECOT one. As there have been so many deportations in a short period of time lately, I feel like many people are not able to keep track of which case is which, where they are going, and whether or not its a case involving imprisonment. As such, just saying deportation may be misleading, particularly to those who don't remember each case with a lot of detail, and does not do it justice since the actual case is a lot more serious than it sounds if we just say "deportation." Tritoneditor24 (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I would be supportive of that move. But I don’t know the naming guidelines that well and we probably need a vote. Remember (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I second this 174.243.244.141 (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

how do we initiate a vote? Tritoneditor24 (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I think it's probably sufficient to just create a new topic on this talk page with a subject along the lines of "Proposal to move the page to _____," filling in the blank with the entire title you propose (perhaps putting quotation marks around the title, and making sure that it's consistent with WP:TITLE). Then add a brief comment along the lines of "Please say whether or not you support this move." In a separate comment, add your own response: "Support", accompanied by your argument for why (which can just be what you said above: the current title "does not do [the situation] justice since the actual case is a lot more serious than it sounds if we just say 'deportation,'" and you think the proposed title better represents the situation). If someone else has a different suggestion, they can say what they propose instead. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Transfer from CECOT to a different prison

Van Hollen met with Abrego Garcia on 4/17. Van Hollen said on 4/18 that A.G. had told him (V.H.) that he (A.G.) had been transferred from CECOT to a lower security prison 9 days before their 4/17 meeting (so ~4/8). That prison is in Santa Ana, El Salvador. The thing that's puzzling me: the government was ordered by Xinis to start providing status updates, and in the first update (on 4/12), a State Dept. official (Michael G. Kozak) wrote "It is my understanding based on official reporting from our Embassy in San Salvador that Abrego Garcia is currently being held in the Terrorism Confinement Center in El Salvador. He is alive and secure in that facility," and other officials signing subsequent status updates have said things like "there are no further updates." But 4/12 is a few days after the date that A.G. says he was transferred from CECOT. Some possibilities: (1) the US embassy wasn't informed of the transfer by the government of El Salvador, (2) the embassy knew and told someone at the DOJ DOJ or State Dept., but that info wasn't accurately relayed to Kozak, (3) Kozak knew but didn't truthfully report what the government knew. (Am I missing any possibilities? Technically, it's possible that A.G. lied about his transfer, but I can't imagine why he would.) I'm guessing that it's #1. Regardless, it does raise questions about the accuracy of the government's statements in the status updates, not that they've provided much other info. I'll be curious to see whether this afternoon's status update will note a change in where he's imprisoned. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

If he was indeed transferred, than the state department lied under oath saying he was “alive and secure” at CECOT, and I feel that fact should be pointed out in the article as well 104.63.252.216 (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

We don't know that Kozak lied; that would be possibility 3. Possibilities 1 and 2 don't involve Kozak lying. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

True. Should we mention (all of) these possibilities in the article or would it be too much to mention all of them/it’s still just pure speculation at this point? 104.63.252.216 (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

We can't mention any of them unless an RS says it. I was mostly wondering whether anyone could think of other possibilities, and noting this in case anyone wants to be on the lookout for RSs. I'll check the status update when it's filed this afternoon. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, they filed the status update several hours late, and it only said "I am aware of public reporting suggesting that Mr. Abrego Garcia may no longer be at the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT)." No effort to confirm it. Xinis' order stated that the status updates should include "any information regarding: (1) the current physical location and custodial status of Abrego Garcia..." Have they even asked the embassy to find out his current location? FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Mediate and tattoo

I don't know if Mediaite is a reliable source but it contends it has evidence that the tattoo picture is doctored. See [6]. Bringing to talk page to see how to handle. Remember (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I think this article from TheWrap is probably a better source, given the two discussions and the WP:RSP summaries for Mediaite and TheWrap. I see this as part of the Trump administration's effort to influence public opinion about the case. (And Bukele's, for that matter, given his admin's staging of "margaritas" in front of A.G. and Van Hollen, and Van Hollen said that they'd even tried to seat the two of them next to a pool as if it were a relaxing holiday.) That might merit its own section, with this as one element, and the release of documents on the DHS website as another. This NYT article has a decent discussion of that. I'll see if I can find some other sources discussing their public opinion campaign. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Perfect! Thank you! Remember (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome.

Here are some other possibilities for a Public opinion campaign section (or Efforts to sway public opinion, or something else in this vein):

• Time Magazine: "the Trump administration has worked overtime to convict Abrego Garcia in the court of public opinion"
• National Review: "everybody understands why the Trump administration feels free to defy the law [in A.G.'s case]: It believes it has the people on its side. He’s an illegal, anyway! We’re here to deport illegals. Who cares exactly how they’re expelled from the country, that’s not America’s problem. ... Trump cares only about public opinion; Miller trusts that the people will not care, so the law can be defied to serve Trump’s populist goals [about deportation]. I am terrified that he is correct." (italics in the original; opinion piece, only usable with attribution)
• USA Today: "[Van Hollen's] trip has been fodder for regular White House attacks. In addition to slamming him on social media, the White House staged a press conference to criticize Van Hollen. It featured the mother of the slain Maryland woman. The fact that White House is digging in on this issue shows 'they believe it is a public opinion battle they can win,' Ayers said. Democrats are fighting for fundamental rights such as legal due process, Ayers said, but that can be a hard sell when the people involved don’t have the public’s sympathy."
• Politico: "this case is becoming the sharpest of political dividing lines. The White House believes it has public opinion on its side here, and that every time the Democrats — or the judiciary or the media — complain about the treatment of the deportees, they're walking deeper into a carefully set trap."
• Washington Post: "The government’s gang allegations, Xinis said in one ruling, are unsubstantiated. The Trump administration has turned to the court of public opinion," going on to identify some of the documents released by the Trump admin. as part of that effort.
• Just Security: "The White House, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Justice (DOJ) have waged an aggressive information campaign to highlight the [MS-13] allegations. The administration’s strategy is clear: Portray those who criticize the manner in which Abrego Garcia was deported as being soft on gang violence and terrorism."

I tried to find some articles talking about a public opinion campaign from A.G.'s wife and lawyers, but so far haven't found any that characterize their statements that way, and there's so much reporting about the case that I'm not sure what other search term (besides "public opinion") to use in order to whittle down the results. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Sen. Van Hollen

Van Hollen violated the Logan Act. Can you add info about this case?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/chris-van-hollen-logan-act-el-salvador-b2734990.html 80.98.149.110 (talk) 11:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Added. Remember (talk) 11:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Entry to the US in 2011 vs. 2012

The lead says "Abrego Garcia grew up in El Salvador and then immigrated illegally to the United States in 2011 at the age of 16 to escape gang threats." The Background section says "According to the U.S. Department of Justice, Abrego Garcia illegally crossed the Mexico–U.S. border near McAllen, Texas, in March 2012." I've seen both, though I think the majority say 2011. Should we say "2011 or 2012," being sure to cite sources with each? Or should we try to assess whether most RSs are saying one versus the other? FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I would say he entered the US “around 2011” and then add a footnote that clarifies the issue by noting the conflicting sources.Remember (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

That makes sense. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Incorrect/Misleading information

“Bloomberg estimated that 90% of them had no US criminal record”

This is not correct, iirc crossing the border illegally can be a felony, and since they all crossed illegally, it would mean all of them had at least some criminal record. Juju376 (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

What you said does not change the fact that Bloomberg did estimate that 90% of them had no US criminal record (their investigation still happened and that was still their estimation). Claiming an investigation is wrong based off you believing it contradicts other facts would fall under Original Research, you would have to find a RS disputing the investigation on those grounds to include this doubt in the article.

But on what you said: First of all, you are operating on the assumption that they all entered the US illegally, which is not an established fact (and you should keep in mind that these people were deported without trial, meaning they never had the chance to present evidence to the contrary, and Venezuelans specifically had TPS for years). Second of all, crossing the border illegally does not automatically result in a criminal record; criminal records require a conviction in a criminal court. Mason7512 (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Bloomberg's 90% estimate was for serious crimes: "For the rest of the men, there was no available information showing they committed any crime other than traffic or immigration violations in the U.S." I've updated the text. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok that’s what I figured was meant, thanks for clarifying FactOrOpinion. Juju376 (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Mason you are correct in that what I said doesn’t change the fact that they did estimate that, however if that’s the case then what they said not just misleading, it’s false.

Thank you for letting me know about the RS stuff, but I’m fairly new to Wikipedia so I don’t know how to do that.

I am operating on the fact that they entered illegally and you are correct that they didn’t stand trial, but iirc in cases of illigal immigration isn’t the burden of proof on the defendant? Juju376 (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Illegally vs Erroneously

As this has been the subject of talk page discussions before, I thought I'd open a conversation after this change was performed undiscussed. Though this has been opposed, the use of the word "illegally" to describe the deportation in the lead remained after discussions. The edit changed the word "illegally" to "erroneously". Generally, if something has been discussed on the talk page, it should not be changed without finishing or reopening said discussion. I will @ users that were involved in previous discussions and the user who made the change: @FactOrOpinion @Pqmb @Fivey @SydCarlisle @Swatjester @Remember @Mkstokes. Mason7512 (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for highlighting this. I changed it back but erroneously doesn’t make sense but illegally does since that is what sources say and that is what the Supreme Court said. SCOTUS said it was illegal. As is frequently stated “SCOTUS is not final because it is infallible, but it is infallible only because it is final." Remember (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

The word "illegally" has a citation right there with a Supreme Court quote to substantiate that the deportation was illegal. The SCOTUS quote is "The United States acknowledges that Abrego Garcia was subject to a withholding order forbidding his removal to El Salvador, and that the removal to El Salvador was therefore illegal." Every lower court also ruled that the removal was illegal. The intent of putting that citation right after the word "illegally" (rather than at the end of the sentence) was to make it less likely that editors would contest the use of that word. The second half of that sentence already says that the government called it "an administrative error," and it makes no sense to say "erroneously ... in what the Trump administration called 'an administrative error.'"

That said, here's an attempt to reword it a bit to preclude further back-and-forth: "Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia is a citizen of El Salvador who was erroneously and illegally[citation] deported from the United States on March 15, 2025. The Trump administration called it 'an administrative error.'" But I prefer the current wording to this. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I prefer the current wording as well. I’m not sure Trump has been consistent that this deportation was erroneous and I feel like they are taking the position that it was their stated objective. Remember (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

If you lump all of the Trump admin. together, then it's inconsistent (or has shifted), but I think it's really two different parts of the Trump admin. The lawyers have said that it was an error, and the people in political positions (Trump, Bondi, Leavitt, Miller, ...) started making a case that it was the right thing to do — not legally, but couched in terms of their policy goals and Trump's "mandate" to deport people, and because he's a ____ (fill in the blank with their negative claims about him), he deserves to be deported and will not be allowed to live here. Perhaps we should even add a sentence about this stance in the lead. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Here's the tragic coincidence of this discussion. From a Wikipedia standpoint, it doesn't matter that the Supreme Court and "[e]very lower court also ruled that the removal was illegal." All of that means absolutely nothing unless a "reliable secondary source" reports that the courts said it. Yet, every response here talks about the courts calling it "illegal." Yes, it was illegal and "erroneous" only has to do with when Abrego Garcia was deported, not if he was going to be illegally deported. They meant to put him on a different plane. I don't think the word erroneously applies at all because their intent was to deport him, period. Yes, he deserves to be deported, by law, because he's a illegal alien. He should have been deported in 2019. But for some reason he wasn't deported until now. The illegal part had to do with the country to which he was deported and if he's returned he likely can be legally deported to almost any other country in the world other than El Salvador. I don't think "erroneously" applies in this context. Mkstokes (talk) 13:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable secondary sources pointing out the SCOTUS and lower courts called it illegal. We've cited several in the article. And as I already pointed out to you: if you believe that WP:BLPPRIMARY's proscription against using court documents is a bad policy, nothing prevents you from raising that in the appropriate place, which is at WT:BLP, not here.

As for Yes, it was illegal and "erroneous" only has to do with when Abrego Garcia was deported, not if he was going to be illegally deported, that's quite a Freudian slip there. He's not supposed to be "illegally deported", no matter when. I don't think the word erroneously applies at all. And you're free to have that personal opinion, but it cannot influence how we describe it in the article. The government stated that it was an "administrative error." Lots of RSs reported this, and it's our job to accurately summarize what RSs have said, abiding by all policies. he deserves to be deported, by law, because he's a illegal alien. He should have been deported in 2019. More personal opinion. US law does not require that all people in the country illegally must be deported (so there is no "deserves" and "should"), and RSs have stated that he had legal status as of 2019; DHS gave him legal permission to work here since then, which was renewed annually. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

You're missing my point but there's no surprise there because you're not trying to understand. 🤦 I'll greatly simplify it. We are lucky there are "plenty" of reporting on this issue, because I've seen several instances where there was almost no reporting on a court issue. So, despite having court documents explicitly providing the outcome, the truth could be posted on any cite in the world EXCEPT Wikipedia, where opinion matters more than truth. There was no Freudian slip. The Trump administration intends to deporting some individuals illegally in order to test existing immigration laws. It's like when Biden purposely ignored the Supreme Court with regard to student loan forgiveness (https://youtube.com/shorts/7u5hCy7KCQo). Executive administration do this all the time in order to push an agenda. So there was no Freudian slip due to an "unconscious subdued wish" as I don't wish for any administration to illegally deport anyone. If you're going to use psychological terms, please make sure you understand what they mean. Finally, there was no real error on the part of the government, even though someone said so. According to Robert L. Cerna, the Acting Field Office Director, the following are true: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.11.3_2.pdf

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.

11. On March 12, 2025, ICE Homeland Security Investigations arrested Abrego Garcia due to his prominent role in MS-13. Over the next two days, Abrego-Garcia was transferred to the staging area for the removal flights discussed in Paragraph 6.

12. The operation that led to Abrego-Garcia’s removal to El Salvador was designed to only include individuals with no impediments to removal. Generally, individuals were not placed on the manifest until they were cleared for removal.

13. ICE was aware of this grant of withholding of removal at the time Abrego Garcia’s removal from the United States. Reference was made to this status on internal forms.

14. Abrego-Garcia was not on the initial manifest of the Title 8 flight to be removed to El Salvador. Rather, he was an alternate. As others were removed from the flight for various reasons, he moved up the list and was assigned to the flight. The manifest did not indicate that Abrego-Garcia should not be removed.

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.

But since court documents can NEVER be used on a WP:BLP and no news organization has written about ALL these details AFAIK, we will never know on Wikipedia that despite ICE knowing he was not to be deported, they did it anyway. Not only did they know his status, it was on internal forms. Despite the paperwork, he was put on a listed as a "alternate" on the flight! You're welcome to believe it was an accident, but I'd certainly love to have these details on Wikipedia. But we can't add them because no "reliable secondary source" has reported all of them. Mkstokes (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

You're missing my point ... I'm not. you're not trying to understand That's false too. I'm telling you, again, that you keep complaining about WP:BLPPRIMARY as a policy, and that the place to voice that is not here, where it does nothing to improve the article, but at WT:BLP, where you can try to convince people to change the policy. since... no news organization has written about ALL these details AFAIK, we will never know on Wikipedia that despite ICE knowing he was not to be deported, they did it anyway. SMH. You could have just asked for help finding RS news reports about it, for example, this CNN report, which quotes relevant text from Cerna's declaration.

I don't wish for any administration to illegally deport anyone Great, I didn't say that you did. If you're going to use psychological terms, please make sure you understand what they mean. I do understand the meaning of "Freudian slip," thanks, and it's not limited to an unconscious subdued wish (look it up if you don't know that it also refers to some other kinds of unconscious slips). I assumed that "illegally" was a slip, which turned out to have been a mistaken assumption on my end; thanks for correcting me. The Trump administration intends to deporting some individuals illegally in order to test existing immigration laws. That's quite a claim. Maybe it's true, but we have no evidence that they intended to deport Abrego Garcia illegally. there was no real error on the part of the government. The courts disagree. And Cerna stated under penalty of perjury that "This removal was an error. ... Through administrative error, Abrego-Garcia was removed from the United States to El Salvador." Do you think he committed perjury? FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

You appear to have just said that there was 'no real error' and then included a quote from Cerna's statement that includes at least one lie and the claim that the victim here was removed 'through administrative error'.

Your own source is disagreeing with you. You might want to take a breath and edit some articles that you don't have such strong political motivations about. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Organization of the Trump administration content that's case-related

Right now, there's Trump admin. content about the case spread across several sections:

1. "Trump administration inaction and efforts to influence public perception," a subsection of "Facilitating" Abrego Garcia's return
2. "False and misleading information spread by the Trump administration" (it's own section)
3. "Trump administration," a subsection of Reactions

(There's also "Trump administration deportation policy," a subsection of Background, but the content of that subsection is not specific to this case, so it's not relevant to my question. I don't think it needs to move.)

I think that the numbered content above should probably be reorganized, but I'm uncertain about what organization would be best and figured I'd ask here before launching in moving things around. My current thinking:

• Have a "Trump administration inaction" section within "Facilitating" Abrego Garcia's return, focused only on the administration's legal responses, and move the "efforts to influence public perception" content
• Create an "Efforts to influence public perception" section (Heading level) with a couple of subsections, one for the Trump Administration and one for Abrego Garcia's wife and lawyers. Within the Trump Admin. section: (1) place the remainder of the content that's currently in "Trump administration inaction and efforts to influence public perception" and (2) add a subsection (at a lower heading level) for "False and misleading information spread by the Trump administration." Move the content from the third bullet into one of these as appropriate.

This works in theory, though right now, we don't have much content about the efforts of Abrego Garcia's wife and lawyers to influence public perception of the case. An alternative: just create a "Trump administration efforts to influence public perception" section, with a "False and misleading information" subsection, and move content as proposed in the second bullet. That's easier to do, but I have NPOV concerns (for that matter, we should probably look for some media commentary from conservatives). Does anyone have suggestions or other responses? FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:42, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I think your suggestions make sense to me. Either one works. I think I have less concerns without having a counter to how Trump has run a big PR campaign on this because I think that reflects reality. Trump has deported this person and then run a big pr campaign to justify it and others are scrambling to react. Remember (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I think either works as long as it is organized 128.54.26.97 (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Media bias regarding this deportation

The media didn’t care when Obama deported people without going through the courts.

It’s not the deportations that the media hates.

The only thing the media hates is Trump.

Sources:

https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/speed-over-fairness-deportation-under-obama

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/deportation-dilemma-reconciling-tough-humane-enforcement

R5Y93mdf (talk) 02:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

If you have a source discussing media bias in this case, we can add something. Neither of those links do that. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Discussing media bias is a hotly and generally opinionated topic.

It would be far easier and more fact-based to more directly explain the nature of nonjudicial removals and use the sources provided as information regarding how long they have been done, the statistics involved regarding numbers of persons removed through nonjudicial removal procedures, its significance during previous and current administrations, etc. Armeym (talk) 03:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

That isn't the topic of this article. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

The difference is that those deported by Obama were deported to their home countries as free persons, not renditioned in chains to a gulag for their rest of their lives. Carlstak (talk) 04:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@R5Y93mdf, welcome to Wikipedia. Those look like good references for Presidency_of_Barack_Obama#Immigration. I left a note on your talk page if you want to draft something there. Nowa (talk) 11:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

You are welcome to add that claim to the page about Obama's presidency, but you should include what RS say about the very large amount of criticism he got from the left about his immigration policies.

The claim has nothing at all to do with this page. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

OK. So basically you people are saying that the sources that I posted are pretty good, but that it would be better to put them in a different article. I understand. Thanks for explaining that, as well as for the welcome. I appreciate everything that all of you said. R5Y93mdf (talk) 23:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:Scope/OOS - RE: 'Proposals to jail American citizens'

Does the section 'Proposals to jail American citizens' belong in this article or would it be better to serve a summary with a {main} pointing to: Immigration policy of the second Donald Trump administration or Deportation in the second presidency of Donald Trump or even Activist deportations in the second Trump presidency

Of course I understand the information is categorically relevant -- at least regarding the broader story of questionable or contentious immigration policy and court battles -- but it does seem a bit OOS for a page specifically about the removal of an individual who is not a US citizen and I would also note that Kilmar Abrego Garcia's name does not appear a single time in that entire section. Armeym (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

The entire section should be removed from this article as it has absolutely nothing to do with the "Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia." Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia is not and has never been a U.S. citizen. He has never been incarcerated in the U.S. or any other country for criminal behavior. He's not accused of being a "Tesla attacker" or any other form of vandalism. As @Armeym said, Garcia's name is not mentioned in the section and the three articles used a reliable sources for the claim (AP, USA Today, and Politico) don't mention Garcia either. How this section got added here is beyond me but it looks like some IP address added it and then everyone else started adding to it. It should be removed immediately. The biggest editor was @Kizor who seems to have cut and pasted the info from the March 2025 American deportations of Venezuelans article. I'd removed it because it doesn't belong here. Mkstokes (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I concur it doesn't belong in this article. Feel free to remove it. Nowa (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

In general I agree that a long discussion of the issue shouldn’t be on this page but I could see that being an article on its own with a link on this page. It possible for added to this page because Sotamayor specifically noted that the current legal position of the Trump administration could be used verbatim to justify it imprisoning American citizens in foreign prisons with no recourse. Remember (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Agree with Remember, there definitely needs to be a link, because Trump has said he wants to do the exact same thing to US citizens, this is clearly relevant given his hostility to due process. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

There's a discussion at Talk:March 2025 American deportations of Venezuelans § PROPOSED SPLIT - PLEASE VOTE HERE about whether the scope of that article should instead be all deportations to CECOT (in which case the article would be moved to an appropriate title), or if it should instead be split, with some of it being transferred to a new article about all deportations to CECOT. You might want to weigh in there. Discussion about Trump's proposal to send Americans there would be appropriate in the general discussion (either in the current article, if enlarged, or in a new article, if split). I agree that this doesn't warrant a section here, but I think a brief mention here could be warranted, linked to Sotomayor's statement, and I'll see if I can find an RS bringing together Abrego Garcia/Sotomayor's statement/Trump's plan. If I can find that, perhaps we can mention it in the Reactions / Media commentators section. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Maybe lets just add all of these relevant articles as links in {see also} and just delete the copy-pasted section altogether. If it's from a more relevant article, it belongs there. Realistically its MOST relevant to Deportation in the second presidency of Donald Trump OR Immigration policy of the second Donald Trump administration and should be there. Armeym (talk) 21:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Here's a reference that links Abrego Garcia and Sotomayor's statement. [7] Nowa (talk) 21:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. We already have a link between those two, since Sotomayor's statement is part of the court's response in Noem v. Abrego Garcia. What I need to find is a discussion linking Sotomayor's statement and Trump's statement about deporting Americans to CECOT. I haven't gotten to it yet, but I will. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

So this opens yet another option to redo/refine the scope of this section.

A title such as "Legal implications" could summarize that quote from Sotomayor "Similar concerns were echoed by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote in the court’s ruling in Abrego Garcia’s case: “The government’s argument, moreover, implies that it could deport and incarcerate any person, including U. S. citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene.”"

Then link to {main} for the primary articles that actually discuss the issue in detail. Armeym (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Placement for info on Dem Reps also in El Salvador

Today I've seen reporting about four Democrat members of the House of Reps visiting El Salvador to also demand his release. Before I attempt to add to the page, I was wondering if I could get some consensus on where to put this new information. Should it go in the Congressional Reactions subsection or in its own subsection following the Chris Van Hollen section? Trilomonk (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I lean towards Deportation_of_Kilmar_Abrego_Garcia#Members_of_Congress since it already covers trips by Republican Congresspeople who have visited CECOT. Nowa (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Bias in article

There is a section dedicated to misinformation spread by the Trump administration... I think that alone shows bias. There's no need to adress that here. And if we're going that route, there should also be a collection of misinformation by the other side. But the best solution still is to get rid of the section. 77.172.146.248 (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources that show the other side is spreading misinformation related to this case, then please present them and we can include them in the article. We included the misinformation because various news sources have specifically noted that issue with regards to this case. We don’t make up history, we just document what reliable sources are saying about history and currently they are saying across the political spectrum that in this case the Trump administration has been spreading lies and misinformation. Not my words, the words of reliable sources. Remember (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

if you have any RSs for misinformation on the "other side", we can add it (keeping in mind WP:UNDUE) Mason7512 (talk) 20:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

The government disinformation is absolutely needed because it is one of the central issues around this situation. We need to be neutral, but we aren't required to pretend that we believe lies. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Instead of removing an entire section that is relevant, it should probably be retitled since it now contains more than only "false information from trump admin."

The title can be more broad since the scope being set by the title is that everything in that section should be objectively false statements made by the administration. SCOPE of section; WP:WTW; WP:MOS.

Or...The section's content needs to be better vetted and the content directly not from the trump admin should be moved to another "information" section. Armeym (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand why "government disinformation" is "absolutely needed" for this article, so I don't see the need for a section dedicated to it. Throughout the article, instances of conflict between what the government says and what "reliable sources" say are provided. I'm looking at the COVID-19 misinformation article and there is no "False and misleading information spread by the Biden administration" section. In fact, in that massive article, "Biden administration" is only mentioned ONCE! In that light, the admonition that "We need to be neutral, but we aren't required to pretend that we believe lies" falls on deaf ears. If an event that killed millions worldwide doesn't need a "Biden" or "Trump" administration disinformation section. I don't see why this one does. This article doesn't even come close to ignoring conflicts in information.

Off the top of my head I can think of other disinformation. How about the defense or even Abrego Garcia's wife not disclosing the two restraining orders? His lawyer saying there's "no evidence" that he's a MS-13 when there are tattos, a confidential informat, clothing, and the mere fact that he's hanging out with known gang members? Bukele called Abrego Garcia a "terrorist" during a White House meeting. Bukele stated it was “preposterous” to suggest he could return Abrego Garcia to the U.S. Overstating Garcia’s innocence as a "model citizen." Exaggerating prison conditions for political impact. Claiming definitive innocence without addressing evidence. If we keep this section in here, it will get longer than the meat of the article. Mkstokes (talk) 21:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

You are welcome to address your partisan feelings about Covid on the appropriate pages. They are irrelevant here.

The restraining orders are obviously irrelevant and none of that is actual evidence of being a gang member. If you have a reliable source showing that he has any kind of non-moving violation/non-immigration criminal record, you are free to post it.

If you want to add Bukele calling Abrego Garcia a terrorist to the misinformation section, you are free to do so.

Your belief that due process does not apply to anyone who isn't a 'model citizen' is best addressed on the pages for the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

If you have reliable sources showing that people are exaggerating conditions at the torture prison, you are free to post those on the page for the prison. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@MilesVorkosigan, we are told "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy." As a biography, every aspect of his life is relevant and of course the restraining orders aren't evidence he's a gang member. However, in regards to this deportation event, "reliable sources" have mentioned the restraining orders, so since they have, they are relevant, period. That is why they are mentioned in this article. I didn't say "due process does not apply to anyone who isn't a 'model citizen'," so I don't know why you are addressing this. I said "[o]verstating Garcia’s innocence as a 'model citizen'" is misinformation with no mention of due process whatsoever. As is refering to him as just a "Maryland man" and not an illegal alien, which by law he is and even admitted to the police that he was. But your point seems move all other misinformation somewhere especially if is hurts Abrego Garcia's case, but keep the other stuff here. Mkstokes (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

If you have RSs saying that Vasquez Sura or her/Abrego Garcia's lawyers have said something false or misleading, add it to the article. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

It must adhere to the policy, that doesn't mean the article itself is a biography. Read the title of the article again.

And no, 'reliable sources' saying something doesn't automatically make it relevant. You, yourself have argued a number of times that things in the article from reliable sources should be removed. Please stop trying to apply policies differently based on partisanship

Obviously, I'm addressing the way you keep wanting to put in irrelevant information to defame the victim here and make it look like he deserves illegal treatment.

No, obviously that wasn't my point. Again, as people keep telling you, if you disagree with BLP, you should go to the BLP page and try to have it changed. Complaining about it here doesn't do anything but clog up the talk page. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what specifically we are talking about, the title of the section or the tones/opinions expressed in it's writing? The title could be a bit better, or at least shorter..."False and misleading information" = Misinformation. But the section could be broadened to hold more information.

For example the part about the tattoos seems to still be up in the air about whether or not it is factually related to the gang in question.

The content is relevant to the story of the deportation and should remain but I question some word-choices as a few bits of the content feels more like we are including opinions of journalists instead of being plainly encyclopedic while using their articles as sources of truth.

For example:

"The Daily Newspaper found the claim 'Government official saying something wrong' to be false (because....)"

Instead this section includes parts like this:

" The Daily Newspaper found the claim Government official saying something wrong' to be false and the magazine called it a "disgraceful performance." "'

" The Daily Newspaper found the claim Government official saying something wrong' to be false and a commentator stated that this was "deeply misleading" "' Armeym (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2025

He wasn’t illegally deported. That is false information and should be corrected to keep the integrity of Wiki. 2600:100C:A123:56A3:9870:D15B:5C2E:FABE (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Please read the instructions for the edit request template and follow them.

You would also need to provide a reliable source that shows how and why the existing sources are incorrect. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

He was illegally deported. The Supreme Court said that it was illegal, as did the lower courts. If you choose not to believe all of these court rulings, OK, but this article is not about any of our personal beliefs. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia has integrity?! Topcat777 (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Dishonest lede

"Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia[a][b] is a citizen of El Salvador who was illegally[8][9] deported from the United States on March 15, 2025, in what the Trump administration called 'an administrative error.'"

Garcia was not illegally deported. He was an illegal alien, and is still a member of the criminal gang, MS-13. Whether someone in the Trump administration said his deportation was an "error," or the media invented that claim, the Trump administration is not saying that now.2603:7000:B23D:C116:19F1:400A:B013:2F02 (talk) 09:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

True, but the issue is not what is the Trump administration saying now, but rather what do reliable secondary sources say. In this case, two sources quote the Supreme Court of the United States' determination that the removal was illegal. Hence that's what the lead says. Nowa (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Further, the article covers that Stephen Miller said there was no error and that the person who said there was is "a DOJ lawyer who has since been relieved of duty, a saboteur, a Democrat". The article also covers Solicitor General of the United States Dean John Sauer and press secretary Leavitt calling it one. --Kizor 13:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

You are free to find a reliable source that shows the Supreme Court of the United States was mistaken when they said it was illegal, or any *reliable* source that shows he's in a gang. Until then, posting the unsourced claim isn't going to help. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Erez Reuveni

NBC News reports that Justice Connection, "a network of former Justice Department employees", defended Reuveni, saying "Justice Department attorneys are being put in an impossible position: Obey the president, or uphold their ethical duty to the court and the Constitution". Is this something we should mention in Reuveni's subsection, or are we not in the business of covering how everything that's done regarding Abrego Garcia's case is also endlessly blathered about in the media? --Kizor 13:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Unless Justice Connection is a notable organization, I suggest we let it pass. Nowa (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

It's a new group, only created at the end of January, but I'd say that it's notable. Examples of significant coverage of the group include NYT, NPR, ABA Journal, Bloomberg Law. Re: the original question, I'm uncertain, and I'll think some more. In some ways, I'd rather that the scope of Targeting of law firms and lawyers under the second Trump administration be revised so that it would be appropriate to include this content there, but that's a bigger discussion to have on that article's talk page. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I think overall the Erez Reuveni section is too long and maybe some of the quotes should be cut down.

But I do think this group's statement is worthy of a mention (literally a sentence) in the article. 2 cents Bob drobbs (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Same. Remember (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Good finds on the RS. Should the group have its own wiki article? Nowa (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

It could, but I (personally) don't place a high priority on that. I may retitle Second presidency of Donald Trump § Justice Department investigations (a subsection of Actions against political opponents and the media), so that it also includes actions taken against career employees of the DOJ (lawyers, FBI), and then add a few sentences there. I've actually been wanting to create an article about political firings and protest resignations in the second Trump admin., but haven't gotten around to it. Mention of this group would be relevant there, as some of the people who created the group were fired or resigned in this way, and the group's goal is to help DOJ lawyers who've left the dept. in one of these two ways. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

That's it @FactOrOpinion. Keep fighting the good fight online!! Based on your contribution history, you've spent the vast majority of your edits setting the record straight in regards to Donald Trump. So there's no surprise you've "been wanting to create an article about political firings and protest resignations in the second Trump admin." What will you do when he's gone in a few years? I look forward to reading more of your unbiased, neutral point of view analysis of the Trump administration! 🫡🇺🇸 Mkstokes (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:CIVIL before commenting further. This page is for discussion of the article Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, not attacking fellow editors. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

"This policy does not require editors to continue to assume good faith when there is evidence that they have bad faith." (See Wikipedia:Assume good faith) As evidence, I provide the entire edit history of the user @FactOrOpinion. Thus civility isn't necessarily required in this instance, but if you review their contribution history and you think it doesn't show bias I'd be glad to change my opinion based on new evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/FactOrOpinion&target=FactOrOpinion&offset=20250111230317&limit=4000 Mkstokes (talk) 23:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I did not refer to WP:AGF. There is no exclusion in WP:CIVIL for "But I don't think the other editor is neutral enough".

If you believe that something they have posted is *that* far from good faith, you should discuss it here on the talk page, or report it to the admin page, not make personal attacks with no diffs or references to an edit. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 00:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Your OPINION is noted, @MilesVorkosigan, but I don't honestly care about your opinion in this regard. Under other circumstances, of course your opinion would be countenanced. But thank you for telling me what I should or should not do in this instance. I have discussed it here in detail but I don't expect any action upon it because Wikipedia, has an obvious political bias and the narratives associated with it are acceptable here. That will not stop me from pointing it out and providing evidence of it. Wikipedia is not a way of life, it's a platform for leftist propaganda, so no, going to the admin page is NEVER an option, leftist editors know this, and thus they operate with impunity. Or, as at least two leftist editors have told me, without ever being handled properly by admins, "Facts have a liberal bias." But thank you for the useless suggestions. Good day, sir. Mkstokes (talk) 00:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Do you have some information you would like to add or remove from this page? Or do you not have a content complaint and just have issues with another editor? Remember (talk) 01:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

As far as I can tell he is mad that WP:BLP applies to an article like this, but does not want to discuss changing the policy at the policy page. Plus there were some complaints about how the article didn't insult the victim enough, because apparently people are being too sympathetic towards the lack of due process/rendition to the torture prison. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

That wasn't an opinion, it was a reference to the rules of the site you are on.

You did not point anything out or provide any evidence, which is... kind of the point. You're just complaining and making personal attacks at this point. Take a breather and if you think that there is something biased in the article, come back and address the *facts*, not emotions or feelings. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 02:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

How about using common sense. For English Wikipedia "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Instead, these rules and policies are used in an effort to do Wikilawyering. The WP:BLP clearly says court documents can be used in certain circumstances. But it's been corruppted to mean those documents can't be used in ANY circumstance, which makes no common sense. The end result is even if a "reliable secondary source" does provide their opinion about it, then, for instance, the Department of Homeland Security's release of supporting documentation for their position towards the subject of this article gets removed from this article. We can talk about the Supreme Court's ruling that the Trump administration acted illegally, but we can't provide the official U.S. government document says so!!! That makes no sense. Instead of focusing on making this article the best possible article, it's just yet another massive attack on the Trump administration with even a specific section of the article designated for attacks.

Why does the "Media commentators" section only have anti-Trump information in it?

Why does the "Members of Congress" section only have anti-Trump information in it?

There's no need to go through all the items in the "Responses" section, because they are all negative. How is that writing an article from a neutral point of view. Plus the entire "Proposals to jail American citizens" has absolutely nothing to do with the Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia but it's still here and being added to. All of these points keep being brought up, with all of them being rejected. So addressing "the *facts*" has provided no changes whatsoever and we all know why.

HERE'S A REMINDER

• You are not required to learn the rules before contributing. Yes, we already said that, but it is worth repeating.
• Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit (see also Use common sense, below).
• Rules derive their power to compel not from being written down on a page labeled "guideline" or "policy", but from being a reflection of the shared opinions and practices of many editors (see also Wikipedia:Consensus).
• Most rules are ultimately descriptive, not prescriptive; they describe existing current practice. They sometimes lag behind the practices they describe (see also Wikipedia:Product, process, policy).
• Wikilawyering doesn't work. Loopholes and technicalities do not exist on the Wiki. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; nor moot court, nor nomic, nor Mao.
• The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should be ignored (see also Wikipedia:The rules are principles).
• Following the rules is less important than using good judgment and being thoughtful and considerate, always bearing in mind that good judgment is not displayed only by those who agree with you (see also Wikipedia:Civility).

I disagree with point #5, because Wikilawyering ALWAYS works here. Mkstokes (talk) 02:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

If you have information from reliable source that is pertinent that you want to add, please add it. If you have reliable sources regarding "Media commentators" section that is pro-Trump from reliable sources, please add it. If you have reliable sources regarding “members of Congress” that is pro-Trump, please add it. If you want to fight about the nature of citing primary sources, please bring that up on the talk page for that policy to discuss the relevant policy. If you think we aren’t following the policy here, please report that to admins and so we can find consensus. Remember (talk) 10:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

even if a "reliable secondary source" does provide their opinion about it, then, for instance, the Department of Homeland Security's release of supporting documentation for their position towards the subject of this article gets removed from this article. How about you provide a diff where someone has removed secondary source reporting about the DHS docs? For example, right now, the article includes the following about the documents that DHS released:

The Trump administration also presented documents and press releases from the Department of Homeland Security that intended to show Abrego Garcia as "as a [MS-13] gang member with a violent history". The documents include information related to the 2019 arrest and immigration hearings, information related to a 2021 protective order, and information related to a 2022 traffic stop. This was part of "aggressively building a case against the native Salvadoran [...] designed to combat an onslaught of criticism from Democrats and intensifying scrutiny from the courts."

What else do you think it should say, and what's the secondary RS you want to use to support that addition?

As for your concerns about the article, like Remember, I encourage you to improve it. If you think there's something missing and you need help finding an RS for it, you can ask for help.

You falsely alleged above that I am engaged in bad faith editing. As WP:NPA notes, personal attacks include "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links." You haven't provided a diff showing even one bad faith edit by me. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

But the government's lies about MS-13 membership *are* included in the article. You should really read it instead of wasting all your time ranting on the talk page.

If you want to add a section about why the government should be able to ignore the Constitution and court rulings, you are free to bring that up here on the talk page, nobody is stopping you.

If you don't understand why non-partisan viewers have a negative reaction to the government ignoring the Constitution, I'm not sure how we can help you, but it calls into question your ability to contribute to an encyclopedia. Have you considered going to Facebook or something and yelling at people there? It's more designed for that kind of thing.

And none of the rules you quoted have anything to do with your personal attacks against other editors. There is no exception for "saying things about the leader of my political party" to WP:NPA. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

With all due respect, @MilesVorkosigan, you either don't understand what I'm saying or are being purposely obtuse. I fully understand why non-partisan viewers have a negative reaction because I have a negative reaction. There is no indication the government is "ignoring the Constitution," which is a very biased assessment on your part. Rather, there is an ongoing legal process without a final decision on constitutional grounds. Thus here is no argument to make "on this page" as to the government ignoring the Constitution and your help is unnecessary. However, the fact that you don't know the Supreme Court has not officially weighted in on the Constitutionality of the Trump administration's actions (The Supreme Court is the intimate arbiter of what is and isn't Constitutional) "calls into question your ability to contribute to an encyclopedia." The recent opinion provided by the Supreme Court doesn't reach a constitutional question and there is no mention of the constitution in it whatsoever. Rather, it is an "Opinions Relating to Orders," which remands aspects of the case back to the lower court. Furthermore, merely because something is "illegal" does not make it unconstitutional. Breaking the speed limit is illegal, it is not unconstitutional. As it pertains to jurisprudence, you are obviously out of your depth. But you have given me a chuckle.

As it pertains to MS-13 membership, thank you for expressing your bias. At least we now know where you stand and aren't even remotely objective. From a legal standpoint, his MS-13 membership is still at issue, thus neither lies nor truths. I've already started to add my edits. More to come. I'll note that the statement regarding "due process" by Justice Sotomayor was only signed by two other justices. Thus it is not controlling. Mkstokes (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

No, I understand your position completely. And of course, since the Supreme Court has already ruled, we do know what their opinion is.

Again, if you don't even know what SCOTUS says about this, you should stop trying to correct people who do know, and go read the linked sources.

I did not say that something being illegal makes it unconstitutional, you made that up so you could feel as if you understand the topic.

You are allowed to pretend that you believe the victim is a member of MS-13 because of your partisanship, but the encyclopedia is based on facts, not political propaganda. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

There is no indication the government is "ignoring the Constitution," which is a very biased assessment on your part. You're the one who (earlier) said "The Trump administration intends to deporting some individuals illegally." A president purposefully breaking the law, especially ignoring due process (part of the Bill of Rights) ignores his constitutional requirement to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

there is an ongoing legal process without a final decision on constitutional grounds. Which constitutional issue are you referring to? SCOTUS stated that A.G.'s "removal to El Salvador was ... illegal," that "[Xinis's] 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 that "the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps," which the admin. has so far refused to do.

it is an "Opinions Relating to Orders" It was released on that page because the order from the court was accompanied by Sotomayor's opinion.

From a legal standpoint, his MS-13 membership is still at issue The only way that it can be a legal issue is if the government brings him back to the US, which, again, it has so far refused to do.

I'll note that the statement regarding "due process" by Justice Sotomayor was only signed by two other justices. Thus it is not controlling. SMH. The Fifth Amendment states "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." Everyone is the US is constitutionally entitled to due process. No one needs a "controlling" opinion from SCOTUS to be guaranteed due process. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Informed Citizenship

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 January 2025 and 23 May 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Evelynbennett (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Evelynbennett (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

@evelynbennett welcome to Wikipedia! If you have any questions or need any assistance with editing, please let us know. Nowa (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 17:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Kilmer Armado Abrego Garcia was deported to El Salvador in March 2025 due to an "administrative error" by the U.S. government?

• Source: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ice-admits-administrative-error-after-maryland-man-el/story?id=120359991

• Reviewed:

Created by Hobit (talk) and Remember (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Hobit (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ:
Overall: Article new and long enough. Passes earwig, no close paraphrasing was found, and the hook is interesting, cited inline, and verified. QPQ not done. Get QPQ done before I can give final approval. And also, insert the citation which you used for the article's nomination within the article as that is also missing. Toadboy123 (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

@Toadboy123: @Hobit: appears to have fewer than five nominations.--Launchballer 15:29, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

@Toadboy123: The link is in the article--it is currently the first link (found in the lede). And, as noted, this is my first nom (as far as I can recall) so I don't think the QPQ is required. Once I get through this process I will probably do some DYK reviews (though not until the semester is done, life is crazy right now). Hobit (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I did a recheck again and citation is in the lede. Apologies from my side regarding the QPQ request. Article is good to go. Toadboy123 (talk) 12:05, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

"Maryland Man" section

I didn't make this section, but I think such a section could be valuable if executed well. As of now it seems a tad WP:SYNTHy. Thoughts? Bremps... 18:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I reverted it. It absolutely could be valuable if based on more reliable sources, but obviously it should include discussion that MAGA is again trying to push the idea that the victim "is no angel" in order to get people to think that it's okay to deny him due process and equal protection under the law.

For example, we could mention that the government is lying and claiming that the victim is a human trafficker and a high-level member of MS-13 without any proof, while people are angry that he is (truthfully) described as a 'Maryland resident'. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging creator of section User:Mkstokes Bremps... 18:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

This section is specifically about the global framing of Abrego Garcia as a "Maryland man" by the majority of news sources, not about his character, him being "no angel" or anything else. None of those issues are related to this framing and your reference to MAGA, lying, and other items is prima facie evidence of your bias. I provided argument from both sides as to the reference and invite you to do so as well. But this is not an opportunity to add more anti-Trump screed to the article. Mkstokes (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Of course the reason why MAGA people have been programmed to yell about this is relevant to the subject, what are you talking about?

And please stop claiming that people discussing the truth and disagreeing with your propaganda are biased. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@MilesVorkosigan, MAGA people is a pejorative and you know it. It was used by the Biden administration and Kamala throughout the 2024 election campaign. The fact that you're using it here was well as the derogatory reference to them being "programmed" is evidence of your bias. That's not truth or fact, it's opinion and you should know the difference. If you want to give other references in that section about others decaying the use of the term "Maryland man" go ahead, but provide reliable secondary sources saying it's MAGA propaganda or that they have been programmed and who programmed them. I provided both sides of the argument and intend to add more. You are essentially saying there's only one side. 🤦🏾‍♂️ Mkstokes (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Discussing the issues on the talk page does not require 'reliable secondary sources' for things that we all know are true. That's for the dictionary pages.

And it's rich that you're complaining about reliable sources after linking to "The Hungarian Conservative".

The rules aren't here for you to use to win arguments, you are also supposed to follow them. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Saying MAGA people "have been programmed to yell about this" when another editor's obviously going to take it personally crosses into a dick move. --Kizor 20:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

It's important to discuss *why* they feel it's so important to push the 'no angel' line in support of denying due process. We shouldn't ignore that part of the story. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, @Kizor. I am not a MAGA person, so it doesn't impact me, but it's clearly meant to demean. As to the usage of the Hungarian Conservative, Wikipedia has clear guidelines on the usage of sources which no opinion as to reliability has been made and I've followed policy. Mkstokes (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I think it comes across as SYNTHy because the sentence "It cites articles from Politico, Axios, Reuters, NPR, PBS, ABC News, The Guardian, and CNN, which actually refers to him as a 'Maryland resident'" includes a lot of citations and makes it look like OR. Here's the basis in the Hungarian Conservative opinion piece that's referenced in the first sentence: "Mr García became ‘Maryland man’ in all the headlines of news articles, such as ones by POLITICO, Axios, Reuters, NPR, PBS (the latter two are currently fighting defunding by a Republican Congress), ABC News, and The Guardian. Or, alternatively, he is the ‘Maryland dad’, for example, in the headline for a piece by CNN." As an opinion piece, WP:NEWSOPED is in play (e.g., it should be attributed to the author, Márton Losonczi, as well as the magazine). I don't think that the quote about the census and illegal immigration is DUE.

NEWSOPED also applies to the opinion piece printed in The Hill, which should only be attributed to the author, since The Hill states "The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill." We can certainly note false statements that are being presented in conservative media, like Becket Adams false claim that Abrego Garcia "has been living in the U.S. illegally since 2011" (his residence here became legal in 2019 when he was granted withholding of removal). "Most recently residing in the state of Maryland" is a bit misleading; AFAIK, he's been living in MD since 2011. I'm also uncertain that "Maryland man" merits a section on its own, given that it's a fact that he has Maryland residency. It's unsurprising that Sen. Van Hollen talks about the family as constituents: they are, since constituents are not limited to citizens. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion the statement that is patently false. He has been living here illegally since 2019. All the order said was that he could not be removed to El Salvador, not that he was all of a sudden a legal resident of the U.S. Quote: "Withholding of removal, in contrast to asylum, confers only the right not to be deported to a particular country rather than the right to remain in the U.S." (Garcia removal proceedings) In fact, Abrego Garcia's lawyer admitted this in court filings and Garcia also admitted he was here illegally. He was denied both asylum and parole. @Bremps This can't possibly be WP:SYNTH because I've quoted what the article said. Synth says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." How is providing what was said by each source synth? Mkstokes (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Pay attention to details. I did not claim or imply that he had "the right to remain in the U.S." I said that he was here legally since 2019. Do you understand the difference? (For example, someone here on a tourist visa is here legally but does not have a right to remain.) "Withholding is like asylum in that it keeps you from being sent back to your country, and it means you may live and work legally in the U.S." (source) Don't like that source? How about the 4th Circuit's statement of facts that "Abrego Garcia is an El Salvadoran national who has been lawfully present in the United States since 2019, when he was granted withholding of removal to El Salvador" (source). A grant of WOR means that the person is legally in the US until the US moves to remove them, either by deporting them to a third country, or by going back to the immigration court and convincing a judge to end the WOR. "Abrego Garcia's lawyer admitted this in court filings" Quote it; I suspect that you're again confusing whether he was living here legally with whether he had a right to remain. "Garcia also admitted he was here illegally." He did that in March of 2019, before he was granted withholding of removal in October, which changed whether he was here legally. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

He was in Maryland legally as undocumented immigrants (illegal aliens) are allowed to establish residency in liberal states like Maryland. However, he was in the U.S. illegally which is why he could be deported to any country other that El Salvador at any time. Yes, details matter. Mkstokes (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this warrants an entire section, I suggest renaming it more broadly as "Media coverage", which will be helpful if we want to include anything similar. Mason7512 (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Is this whole section based on a theory by an opinion person for the “Hungarian Conservative”? Is the Hungarian Conservative considered a notable or reliable source? If not, I would suggest we delete this section unless we can get a more notable reliable source to make this point. Remember (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no opinion regarding the Hungarian Conservative. Thus, as policy dictates, I've made a specific reference to it being their opinion. The section also has a reference to the "Maryland man" framing from The Hill, which Wikipedia says "The Hill is considered generally reliable for American politics. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline." There are multiple references to those listed media sources referencing "Maryland man" and I'm in the process of fixing additional links. Finally, a counter framing is provided by Senator Van Hollen, to give the other side of the story as well as a detailed interview. Why one would suggest removing the entire section is beyond me, but I think I know why. Mkstokes (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Actually I think a better reference for this section than the Hungarian Conservative would be the question by Tim Pool in the White House briefing room today. see at youtu.be/9nJpjcC5myU So I would suggest the section lead with that and not the Hungarian conservative since Tim seems more notable and the interaction at the white house seems more notable than the opinion piece in the Hungarian Conservative and it still brings up this point. Remember (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I would totally agree with leading with the comments provided by Tim Pool in the White House briefing room today. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. Mkstokes (talk) 20:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Best source I can find right now is [8] but I would think there would be something better for his comments. Remember (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

There are several sites including the below. So what if she looks bad. Why would that even factor into the consideration of weather or not to cover it in relation to the deportation of Abrego Garcia? Is there some Wikipedia policy stating that we must only use content that makes individuals referenced by the source "look good?" If so, please provide that rule/policy, @MilesVorkosigan

Raw Story (https://www.rawstory.com/karoline-leavitt-maryland-man-hoax/)

Newsweek (https://www.newsweek.com/tim-pool-critics-white-house-clothing-2063066)

Newsbusters (https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/curtis-houck/2025/04/22/leavitt-opens-briefing-tim-pool-blasts-liberal-media-over-maryland)

Mediaite (https://www.mediaite.com/news/beanie-clad-tim-pool-tees-up-karoline-leavitt-to-bash-media-in-softball-appearance-at-white-house-briefing/)

Daily Kos (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/4/22/2318083/-Trump-White-House-welcomes-bigoted-podcaster-to-push-immigration-lies)

The Daily Beast (https://www.thedailybeast.com/maga-podcaster-tim-pool-goes-full-suck-up-in-first-white-house-briefing/)

The Western Journal (https://www.westernjournal.com/video-reporters-forced-watch-silence-tim-pool-exposes-frauds-first-ever-wh-presser-question/

New York Post (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqFdBjCz_MQ) Mkstokes (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Should we use a briefing where Leavitt doesn't get caught lying about the victim having "always" been a "designated foreign terrorist"?

We should be able to find a briefing that doesn't make her look bad, surely? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

If she makes herself look bad, so be it. But we need a RS to state that if it needs to be said. Remember (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not going to mention it in article space, I don't think it's a particularly weighty lie out of all the others. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@MilesVorkosigan, color me shocked that you're going to add only negative content regarding the Trump administration and MAGA people to any article that you can and not provide WP:BALANCE. You've made your intentions clear. Keep fighting that good fight. Meanwhile, the rest of us will continue to improve the article and not use it as a platform or conduit for our political views. Time to stop feeding the trolls 🧌. My apologies to everyone in regards to my personal comments. I'll walk away. Mkstokes (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Proposals to jail American citizens section?

This seems like it belongs in the Second Trump administration article and less so on the page of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. This seems tangential. Bremps... 18:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I think this belongs on the Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia because it is specifically about the deportation of Abrego Garcia and not the Trump administration. In fact, the Trump administration isn't barely mentioned in the section, so I don't know why it would be moved there. I do think it should be changed to "Framing" rather than "Media Narrative," so please make that change again. Sorry, but as we were editing at the same time that change got lost. Mkstokes (talk) 19:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

The proposal to send Americans to CECOT is only tangentially connected to Abrego Garcia (both involve CECOT, both involve the US-Salvadoran agreement). It can certainly be moved to Second Trump administration: Trump is the one proposing it. There is also discussion among editors about creating a page about all deportations to CECOT, and it could go there. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't need a large section or explanation here, but I think that the government saying that they can send people to the torture prison without due process and without any way to get them back is the connection. A link seems relevant. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I think the most obvious link is Sotamayor’s linking the two things and then Trump pontificating on the idea during a related time. Not sure it needs a whole section this big though. I’d move to its own article. Remember (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I responded to something other than the section referenced. Yes, I agree that this doesn't belong here as it has absolutely nothing to do with the Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. As I have said before, he is not and has never been a U.S. citizen so this doesn't apply to him. Why we would have information on this page that doesn't apply at all to the subject of this page is beyond me and I seen zero justification for providing it here. Even the reference to Sotomayor's comments in her statement doesn't justify having an entire section devoted to this. If it's kept, you might as well as every immigration proposal from the Trump administration to this page. Mkstokes (talk) 20:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Please don't say that you haven't seen any justification when you have seen it, but just disagree. Those are not the same thing. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Wife in hiding

TNR is reporting that Abragio Garcia’a wife has had to go into hiding. I don’t have time to add this now is someone else wants to get to it. [9] Remember (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I've added it. I'm not sure that I put it in the best place (it's just below her response to the DHS releasing her temporary protective order request, since that's the document with her home address). I said at the time that the DHS should have redacted the addresses and their son's full name.

Should we create a brief section re: the impact on Vasquez Sura and her kids? This Washington Post article has relevant content. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)