Mark Davis

How many of us have ever had a restraining order pursued on us for punching a woman? It's getting harder to believe we are dealing with Father of the Year material here.

You're misinterpreting your own article in my opinion. As with any poll, a lot of results come in how you ask the questions. You're trying to square net positive views on immigration but saying now the public strongly disagrees with his policies. I suggest to you there is going to be a difference in those results if you say "Do you support Trump defying court orders to remove a father who has been here 10 years and committed no crimes?" and the question of "Do you support the Trump administration doing all it can to deport suspected gang members who illegally crossed our border back to their country of origin?" Both questions have a slant to them and both would likely get some people to give contradictory answers. I just think Democrats showing up in a sovereign country to demand one of their citizens who crossed our border illegally and is suspected, even if unproven, of having ties to MS-13 is a loser politically. Believe otherwise if you wish, but I think they're diving off the high board into an empty pool on that one. And even if there is water in that pool, it gets shallow quickly if any negative personal info starts to leak out on this guy. I don't think the administration is sitting on anything, but if they are they'd love to trickle it out as soon as they get that delegation on camera down in El Salvador.

I don't really support everything that anyone does. I always tell people if you can't find a difference ideologically with someone you aren't thinking for yourself but rather following. Honestly I'm not a Republican, never have been. I don't think of myself as necessarily even a conservative, although I guess I am because times have shifted as to who falls into that category. I always have been a fiscal conservative but in general I believe in smaller government staying out of our personal lives. There are a lot of things about Trump's policies that I like. But when we look at immigration as a whole, I think the majority of voters, specifically those voters who either swing or need motivation to show up to the polls agree with Trump's overall get tough stances on the border. You see this as a looming constitutional crisis but I don't think we are there. If we get specific to this one case I think one can argue over the term "facilitate". But let's put that disagreement aside. Strictly in political terms, imagine what the optics will be if that delegation goes to El Salvador. There are things I may feel I want for the country that really don't play well politically specifically when it comes to government programs. I think this is one of those issues for Democrats. They can go, their base may want them to, it may be good for those wanting to win primaries, but I think it helps Trump tremendously because the simple view is that he's getting tough on immigration. I'm actually with Trump we should do something about China, and I'm fine with doing what we need to do to get there, but even if I approve I have to admit politically it isn't playing well right now because of the market turbulence. We will see if it subsides, which he is certainly betting on. But the reality I believe is this whole dust up is going to shift from something that is losing in the polls to something he would love to talk about that he has net positives on.

We don’t agree on much but you’re right in that the tariffs and shaky financial situation resulting in the markets presently are his weak spot. Anything that shifts that narrative to immigration is a winner for him. His numbers on his handling of immigration poll the best.

You kind of framed things in ideological terms there. But if you believe sending delegations to bring back an illegal immigrant suspected of gang activity to this country is winning messaging then I can’t help you. Maybe he is innocent of that assertion, maybe he isn’t. But the optics on it politically should be apparent.

And Trump gets bailed out in the news cycle again. This is a winning issue for him, the tariffs at least as it stands now is terrible for him. They have to be salivating profusely imagining the footage they are going to get if this congressional delegation truly goes to El Salvador to try to bring an illegal immigrant back.

Thom McKee was a bad ass champion

I believe this is correct and am starting to believe it's more likely than I'd have thought a day ago that ends up being the result.

No doubt. The old style pension plan was a selling point when they were recruiting me.

Believe me, they want you gone. I took my buyout just to take control over it since I had already left there when they offered.

Thanks, that's a legit stance. From the beginning I freely admit that the Trump administration could easily get him back if they wanted him. It's both convenient for them and also factual that he's a Salvadoran national in Salvadoran custody. There's no agreement I know of that requires them to send him to us, so Trump would have to ask and we all should realize he isn't going to do that. I'm sure we disagree over whether they should do so, but at this stage barring another unexpected twist in the road to this story, Trump isn't going to ask.

Pension plans are a nightmare from the corporate accounting side. I worked for a Fortune 500 company who was phasing theirs out while I was there. They started offering buy outs to those who were left. Pension plans are like the toxic waste of accounting, the liabilities last forever.

No I'm genuinely asking, does the amount change whether he is there or not? Your answer says no. I don't know if you're right or not, but I'll take you at your word that you know. We can have the debate, but let's be truthful from an economic cost to it. Again, if we assume you are correct, yes he is in the lump sum, but adding or reducing him to the total doesn't change the amount. So there's not an economic argument to his specific case in either direction.

So is he individually adding to the cost? If your answer is correct, his incremental cost is $0. So we aren't paying for him specifically, but the lot as a whole.

I have no idea. I don't know if there is a line item invoice that shows by prisoner what they are charging or if it's an overarching amount.

I'm sure of one and have suspicions of another.

OK.

If El Salvador decides he needs to be released and we don't have anything to prosecute him for as was stated numerous times in this thread, they can cut him loose by all means.

So he did commit a crime. In my view I don’t want a criminal back. But more than the crime itself, the suspected ties to MS-13 should be enough. He deserves to be repatriated to El Salvador. I’m all for him receiving a trial there or to plead his case and have it heard. If he’s innocent of gang activity I don’t want him incarcerated, but he is a Salvadoran national. He is in the country he should be in.

But how was he here at all if he didn't illegally cross? He can't be here in the first place without the crime occurring.

So he applied for a visa and received one before crossing? Because if not, by definition he committed a crime. If he did, then I'll stand corrected but I don't believe that to be the case. On the last part, Tim and I had this discussion a couple days ago. I have no problem with what happened. I don't see a reason that the government and Solicitor General singled this guy out over everyone else. Why is there a massive conspiracy to railroad this one man? I feel it's likely he is affiliated with MS-13 and if he were a citizen I'd be more concerned about his due process. He's not. I get the argument to the other side, but we disagree.

You keep saying he committed no crime when illegally crossing our border in the very beginning was a crime. He's a Salvadoran national. He is in their custody. He may not belong in that prison, I don't know. But your argument should be with them. On the second part, you can stop trying to convince me on the holier than thou stuff. It's repetitive and tiring. We get it, you think you're superior morally to those of us who disagree with you. It's already been noted.

I don't want him back and I have no clue why anyone would want him back other than they want to make this about Trump. But the fact is that he's their citizen and he's in their custody. You may not like it, but you need to accept that we have no authority to get him back from them at this point any more so than we would have authority over a German or Chinese national. You want the man you despise, Trump, to basically ask them or work out a deal to bring him back. I don't think that is going to happen.

He illegally crossed our border to begin with, so he did commit a crime. A judge did issue an order barring his removal due to the threat of gang violence against him. Maybe being MS-13 would have something to do with that, then again maybe he isn't and it doesn't. The Trump administration and the Solictor General feel that he is affiliated with MS-13. Either way, an error leads to him getting deported to his country of origin where he is a citizen, El Salvador. At this point he is in the custody of his home country and their leader is saying he isn't being sent back. We have no treaty or right to demand him and I can't imagine a reason why the Trump administration would do anything to pressure them to do anything different.

If the first part is true, the second cannot be true.