The Atlantic's Fantasy of Redemption: How an MS-13 Gang Member Became a Suburban Dad

The nature of truth, Aristotle once wrote, consists in saying of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not. The Atlantic, in its recent treatment of a Salvadoran national identified by U.S. immigration authorities as a member of MS-13, has chosen to say of what is not that it is. The article in question—couched in plaintive tones, seasoned with the familiar spices of pathos and victimhood—presents its subject as a beleaguered “Maryland father.” But to anyone committed to the basic discipline of factual coherence, this is not a father in Maryland but an illegal migrant who, in 2019, was deemed sufficiently entangled with one of the world’s most violent criminal organizations that a judge denied him bond and ordered him removed from the United States. The Atlantic, through sleight-of-hand so deft it would make a conjuror blush, omits this critical context—or rather, buries it under layers of euphemism and emotional appeal.

To be clear, the man’s identity is not contested by some rogue agent scribbling speculative accusations in the margins of a file. The finding that he was a member of MS-13 came through formal proceedings, with the full procedural safeguards and evidentiary thresholds of the U.S. immigration system. An immigration judge reviewed the evidence presented by ICE and found it credible enough to deny bond and issue a removal order. One need not be a legal positivist to understand that this constitutes a significant judgment. It is, quite literally, the opposite of the narrative The Atlantic constructs: a tale not of innocence besieged by bureaucracy, but of bureaucratic leniency in the face of substantiated criminal association.

But the journalistic bait-and-switch does not end there. Instead of emphasizing this foundational fact—that the subject was ordered removed from the United States due to credible gang affiliation—the article pivots to focus on his subsequent invocation of the Convention Against Torture (CAT). This maneuver may sound compelling, especially to readers unfamiliar with immigration law, but it is less a reversal of the gang finding than a bureaucratic footnote that temporarily halts deportation to avoid potential harm. It does not exonerate; it does not erase. It is an administrative hold, not a moral vindication.

This distinction matters. It is the difference between saying, “the court found him innocent” and “the court decided not to send him back just yet.” The Atlantic, in its zeal to cultivate sympathy, collapses these categories, treating a legal technicality as if it were a transformation of essence. It is as if Kafka’s Josef K had not only been presumed innocent but recast as a misunderstood civil servant. The truth is that a withholding of removal under CAT does not negate prior findings. It simply acknowledges that El Salvador’s handling of MS-13 defectors may be less than genteel. That, while tragic, does not render the man a lawful presence in the U.S.—much less a wholesome “father” in the normative sense The Atlantic implies.

One must also question the deliberate invocation of domestic imagery: “Maryland father.” This is not merely a descriptor; it is a calculated act of rhetorical laundering. The phrase conjures backyard cookouts, little league games, a man driving his kids to school in a Honda Odyssey with a faded “Coexist” bumper sticker. It is a sociocultural costume meant to obscure the reality of an individual adjudicated as a gang affiliate. The transformation is not subtle. It is akin to calling Al Capone a “Chicago entrepreneur.” The result is not humanization but distortion—an aesthetic whitewashing of a violent history.

Consider further that the article makes extensive use of quotes from the subject’s attorney, a figure whose job it is to advocate for his client in the most favorable terms possible. There is nothing inherently nefarious about that. Lawyers are advocates, not arbiters of fact. But presenting their claims without counterbalance, and without noting their professional incentives, is at best irresponsible and at worst complicit in narrative manipulation. A journalistic outlet committed to truth would at minimum juxtapose such commentary with official court findings or statements from ICE. The Atlantic, instead, offers the attorney’s words as if they carry the weight of unchallenged truth, like Moses descending from Sinai with a press release.

But why would a prestigious publication indulge in this type of selective storytelling? The answer, I suggest, lies in a broader epistemic commitment—a preference for narrative cohesion over factual friction. To The Atlantic’s editorial worldview, the immigrant must always be the underdog, the state invariably the oppressor, and any intermediary facts that challenge this schema are inconvenient static best tuned out. It is not that they are lying, precisely; it is that they are curating. And in curation, omission is the deadliest tool.

The consequences are not merely semantic. When media outlets reframe lawfully adjudicated gang members as misunderstood patriarchs, they do not just warp public understanding—they erode the very possibility of serious discourse on immigration and criminal justice. If MS-13 affiliation can be subsumed under the rubric of “family man,” then any category can be collapsed into any other. Language becomes fluid, unmoored from fact, and journalism becomes myth-making with footnotes.

Let us not pretend this is trivial. MS-13 is not a folkloric bogeyman. It is a criminal syndicate known for machete killings, drug trafficking, child prostitution, and systemic extortion. To minimize that, or to sidestep it entirely, is to practice a kind of epistemic fraud—one that confuses charity with delusion. It is one thing to believe in second chances; it is another to pretend there was no first offense.

None of this is to say that human beings are irredeemable or that societies ought to be pitiless. But redemption begins with acknowledgment, not amnesia. The Atlantic’s portrayal does not invite us to confront complexity. It asks us to look away from it entirely. It is easier, certainly, to imagine the man as a suburban father than as an affiliate of a violent gang. But easier does not mean truer. And journalism that opts for ease over truth becomes, in effect, a form of fiction.

One final point. The case at hand illustrates a broader moral hazard. If public sympathy can be marshaled not through truth-telling but through emotive rebranding, then the incentives for dishonesty multiply. Every felon becomes a father; every fraud, a freedom fighter. Over time, the public—already jaded and suspicious—will lose the ability to distinguish between genuine injustices and curated tales of woe. The consequence is not more compassion but less credibility for those who most deserve it.

In the end, the question is not merely what kind of journalism we want. It is what kind of reality we are willing to inhabit. One grounded in fact, however uncomfortable? Or one sedated by narratives that make us feel good at the expense of truth? If we choose the latter, then we ought not be surprised when the bill for our delusions comes due—not in editorial corrections, but in broken policies, shattered communities, and the erosion of civic trust. That, not a gang member’s asylum status, is the real story here.

If you don't already please follow @amuse on 𝕏.