Bluntly, my tone in addressing you is warranted. Every post you've made has been riddled with errors, misstatements of fact, and outright distortions that make it clear you neither know nor understand what you're talking about. I’ve tried to be patient in past conversations, hoping to guide you toward being more receptive to new information. But time and again, you’ve chosen to double down instead of learning from corrections. So since you've consistently shown that the carrot doesn't work, you get the stick instead. And if you haven't noticed from the recurring sentiment that this same propensity for trying to bullshit your way through conversations means that you're best kept on ignore? I'm still being kinder than most.
That you don't appreciate it is immaterial to the fact that the attitude you're objecting to is very well earned. I did not start out treating you with condescension. That was a direct response to your own conduct. To the countless times that you've shown that you couldn't be bothered to do more than skim the sources you cited, only to end up arguing against them when their content was quoted back to you and revealed that they didn't align with your conclusion. To the myriad times that you've demanded a specific source to evidence one claim only to turn around and claim that it didn't count because it didn't evidence an entirely different one that you had not asked for. To the ample occasions in which you - an IT professional - have tried to condescend to professionals explaining their own fields to you (in biology, law, business, marketing, and medicine, to name a few examples) that you knew more about the subject than they did, despite your arguments typically revealing that you didn't even have a high school level understanding of the topic. To the many times that you've turned your nose up at the many studies that have been presented to you as necessarily "bad sources" because they disagreed with you.
If you want me to stop treating you like you don’t know anything, then stop bullshiting your way through these conversations. Actually try learning instead of digging your heels in when you get called out.
And let’s not pretend you haven’t seen that link before. I’m the one who presented it to you just two pages ago, so don’t try to play me with that. Let me quote the damn thing again:
"Withholding of removal provides a form of protection that is less certain than asylum, leaving its recipients in a sort of limbo. A person who is granted withholding of removal may never leave the United States without executing that removal order, cannot petition to bring family members to the United States, and does not gain a path to citizenship. And unlike asylum, when a family seeks withholding of removal together a judge may grant protection to the parent while denying it to the children, leading to family separation.
Withholding of removal also does not offer permanent protection or a path to permanent residence. If conditions improve in a person’s home country, the government can revoke withholding of removal and again seek the person’s deportation. This can occur even years after a person is granted protection."
This is precisely why Garcia legally could not be deported —his protection from deportation under Withholding of Removal is not only real, but also still in force and legally binding. It doesn’t mean he's immune to deportation forever (which I can only presume is what you're grasping at now), but it absolutely does prevent the government from deporting him unless the conditions change in his home country or the order is legally overturned. Neither of which happened.
You insist that I stop talking to you like you don't know anything, but consistently throughout previous spats, this entire conversation, and yet again just now you have made made it clear that you aren't actually engaging with the evidence, but instead trying to force it to match your preconceptions.
So for the upteenth time: Either stop grasping at straws and start engaging with what the law actually says, or stop trying to pretend that you have something to contribute to a topic you clearly don't care about enough to do your required reading on. That you feel entitled to being right does not change the fact that you are objectively wrong, and calling you out on that is the appropriate response, no matter how much it hurts your pride.
I will treat you as knowledgeable on a subject when you actually demonstrate it — by engaging with facts instead of confidently spewing misinformation and insisting that we take your arguments at their word because you claim that someone else said them. You are not entitled to me pretending that your position is worthy of respect. When you say something that is defensible, I will treat it as such. I will not do so before.
If you feel I am being unfair, there is a report button that you are free to use, and I will happily explain why I "talk to you like you don't know anything" to any moderator who asks.
