|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 15 2025 20:50 Gahlo wrote:
It's a civil violation, not a criminal. This whole discussion is stupid.
On April 15 2025 21:46 KT_Elwood wrote:oBlade is cosplaying a "Maga's wittness nazi" with a loser mentality. There is no "gotcha" for exposing his bullshit. He likes to waste your time. He needs you to argue, because that validates his bullshit by being held up against sane arguments, lifted up by sanity. But it's not about winning or losing the argument, once you are discussing his bullshit, his job is done.+ Show Spoiler +He, like nazis, wants people of color gone from the US. Nazis will de-humanize people to get you on board - but it's only hate and racism underneath.
ICE victims can't be people, they need to be called "criminals" - because nazis don't want to be hated for going against normal people, they want to be idolized for saving the world from "criminals".
They know that they would be hated for saying out loud what they think, so they make up stuff.
He has infinite time to waste for you, he will find reasons why it's okay to deport somebody without due process, and be criminal by not caring for what the court orders telling you to do.
Remember:
"Rules for thee but not for me!"
Nazis like the one oBlade is cosplaying don't agree to logic and reality. Their own mythological reality is ranking above the objective reality.
Their brains are illogical. Even if you have them admitting objective truths, they won't shift their stance, because the objective truth is wronger than their mythological truth.
The convicted criminal president that is in direct violation of court orders is Good. The Guy who came to the US the legal way, and now is probably dead in an El Salvador Concentration camp .. is "not even human".
Of course it is, that's the point of having it also they can't help themselves. Simberto put it well in reference to trans people, but it's basically the same song and dance with immigrants, "terrorists", and several other groups/issues: On October 25 2024 02:37 Simberto wrote:
I hate this.
We can no longer talk about anything.
No matter what the topic is, rightwing guys know that if they don't like it or don't want to talk about it, they can just say some bigoted thing about trans people, and then that is what we talk about. Usually for quite a while.
And that is a topic rightwing people feel comfortable with. Leftwing people too. Rightwing people think trans people are gross and shouldn't/don't exist. Usually combined with a view of trans people that is mostly based on 90s "comedy" movies with men in dresses acting as women.
Leftwing people think that trans people are people and have a right to exist.
Then everyone talks in circles for a while, vomits out the same talking points as the last time, nothing is achieved, no one has changed their opinion, learned anything new, or even heard what the other side said, and the previous topic is completely forgotten.
This tactic is disgustingly effective, because everyone feels good about talking about trans people. Leftwing people feel good about defending them, rightwing people don't really care, but feel good acting smart and saying that there are only two sexes, and that trans people are just men in dresses.
Then it turns into this pseudointellectual debate about definitions of what a woman is or whatever,
We should not let ourselves be baited into this.
Makes libs/Dems/ilk feel good to ego boost by going round and round with this asinine bickering instead of confronting what they are going to do (or not do) about Trump and his sycophants running amok.
|
United States42216 Posts
On April 15 2025 17:23 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I don't mind deporting people whose right to stay has expired. I mean some degree of humanity is always called for, like you don't deport the single mom of a 12 year old who has never lived outside the US, and you don't send anyone to concentration camps, and if you 'accidentally' deport someone who had the right to stay then you bring them the fuck back asap.
But it seems entirely reasonable to me that the punishment for overstaying you visa is being sent out of the country, as you were supposed to leave before your visa expired in the first place.
Yep.
I’m also fine with calling them illegal immigrants. It is illegal to breach the terms of a visa. If I allowed someone to use my car for a day and after that day they keep it then the fact that I gave them the keys doesn’t make it any less stolen. They were given under a specific agreement which was breached.
But the gleeful cruelty of the deportation policy is sickening and there’s no purpose to it other than cruelty. Detaining people is expensive. Shackling them, guarding them, herding them around etc. is expensive.
Make agreements with other nations for their governments to accept their citizens back and then simply return them as quickly and cheaply as possible by putting them on the next plane. Fingerprint them and put them on a visa ban list so they can’t enter under false pretenses again. Simple as that. Right wingers will insist that the free market provides the most economically efficient solution and yet Delta isn’t seen as the cheapest way of getting them home.
The reason we, as a society, spend so much money on the criminal justice system is because lawbreaking citizens are still our problem. We need to pay to rehabilitate them because we need to find a way to get them back into our society without reoccurrence of the crime. Or we need to incarcerate them to remove them from our society indefinitely if they’re too dangerous.
Foreign criminals are basically the ideal because you don’t need to do any of that. There’s a giant prison that already exists for them called “the rest of the world” and it’s free.
Family issues complicate things a little but not so much. I don’t have a whole lot of sympathy for an American who marries someone on a temporary visa and is surprised when their stay is temporary. Make the long distance thing work or move to their home country. Though the arbitrariness of the system isn’t ideal, basically any border agent can put you on a “do not let in for any reason and auto deny any visa requests” list. If someone overstayed their visa, got married, got deported, then applied for a green card on the basis of that marriage then I don’t see the previous overstaying as grounds for automatic rejection. I have more sympathy for kids but assuming the state of their parents’ citizenship is safe I’m fine with them staying with their family as their family goes back home. It’s not their fault they’re moving with their parents but nothing that parents choose to do is the fault of the kids, that’s just the nature of being a child. If I have a temporary contract working somewhere and have a child then I have that child in the knowledge that at some point I’m going to be relocating the family. Military kids deal with this all the time when their parents get assigned places. I suppose there’s an edge case where a citizen child might choose family separation and emancipation over remaining with their family and that is their right. They should be allowed to do that.
Key to making any of this work though is cooperation with the governments of the countries these people have citizenship of. Citizen children of illegal immigrants will likely need documentation in the country of their parents for example. And part of getting that cooperation is not mistreating their citizens and turning it into a fucking circus.
Managing asylum claims is also a completely unrelated issue that shouldn’t be tangled up with illegal immigration at all.
|
On April 15 2025 21:33 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2025 21:09 oBlade wrote:On April 15 2025 20:50 Gahlo wrote:
It's a civil violation, not a criminal. This whole discussion is stupid. Everything against the law is illegal. Whether a criminal offense or not depends what "it" is. Sneaking across the border is explicitly a criminal offense. What‘s the procedure then, assuming they have no papers? Detention center, questioning, identification, tracking the country of origin and deportation back to that. I assume. Alternatively you could give them an identity, a place to sleep and a job if the country is spacious enough and in good economic shape. Provided they aren‘t smugglers or cartel members and the like. It‘s true not everything is nice and fluffy out there. Or one develops the country they came from enough that they needn‘t run away from it. In the case of Venezuela, I fathom most of its state of deterioration comes from US sanctions and Russian protection. In Germany/Austria the greatest difficulty an immigrant would find is undoubtedly the language. It‘s also the main barrier for someone who gets to stay.
Are you asking me what the procedure is or what I think it should be?
The answer of what it factually is depends on the discretion of the people executing and enforcing the laws. Like when an officer gives you a speeding ticket vs. a warning. Or the DA charges you with disturbing the peace vs. assault and battery.
So it can range anywhere from an appointment with an immigration court date in 3 years and a free ride or bus ticket to the interior and a jurisdiction that's going to not enforce and in fact protect/shield you from federal law, OR a 99% chance of summary removal when someone with any brain at all goes "hmm, single male, 20s, tattoos, tore up your passport, maybe your claim to be here lacks credibility."
Summary removal/return/deportation to your home or the country you got caught walking across from (which has sectors of territory controlled by paramilitary terrorists who specifically control and tax everyone who passes through it, everyone they are constantly trafficking) takes at most 2 weeks if I recall.
On April 15 2025 21:37 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2025 21:09 oBlade wrote:On April 15 2025 20:50 Gahlo wrote:
It's a civil violation, not a criminal. This whole discussion is stupid. Everything against the law is illegal. Whether a criminal offense or not depends what "it" is. Sneaking across the border is explicitly a criminal offense. What percentage of illegals snuck across the boarder? Why with control of the house, senate and presidency is Trump not building the wall? Is it not a effective way of securing the boarder?
We don't know what percentage of people here came from where. It's not a census question.
It's a little bit easier to count/estimate where people are instantaneously coming from at a certain point. Estimates put visa overstays anywhere from under a majority to around a 2/3rds majority of reasons people newly became illegal in any given year.
https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2006/05/22/modes-of-entry-for-the-unauthorized-migrant-population/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://www.npr.org/2019/01/10/683662691/where-does-illegal-immigration-mostly-occur-heres-what-the-data-tell-us
My personal intuition is leftists stopped funding research on it when the answer wasn't a convenient and overwhelming 95% visa overstays. At any rate, you could decrease the proportion of illegal residents who snuck across the border vs. overstayed a visa both by letting fewer people across the border AND by having a billion people overstay their visas so border crossings are only 0.01%. But that comes with its own issues. Fortunately neither is an effective gotcha for people who are interested in public safety, like "Hey! They walk across the border illegally, specifically ignoring land ports of entry, because the legal way is too messed up!" and then "Hey the border isn't an issue! Most illegal immigrants overstayed the legal way!" doesn't need to be explained why it's preposterous.
It's more difficult to extrapolate to where long term illegal residents came from as trends. Basically, you might expect that one of the groups would have more turnover - more chance of leaving, less staying power - basically one of the groups might be more biased to going back. Or some other differences in the distribution. For example: Either the fact of having gone through the process to get a visa makes that group more abiding in general, OR it means the people who got a visa specifically to get entry and stayed anyway could also include some of the most nefarious. But I won't speculate further except to say it's interesting.
![[image loading]](https://graphics.axios.com/hermesv2/2025-03-04-1044-border-patrol-apprehensions/fallbacks/2025-03-04-1044-border-patrol-apprehensions-fallback.png)
![[image loading]](https://www.wola.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/wola_migration_charts_2nd_string.002.png)
Firstly, Trump isn't in control of the House and Senate because of how our cherished democracy works. But nevertheless, if I had to speculate, this is the reason they probably aren't building a wall just yet, but you can always lobby them if you're super set on it.
|
Trump is working on kidnapping and trafficking US citizens to horrific foreign prisons/labor camps.
If an immigrant who the government claims is a gang member can be deported to El Salvador without any due process rights, then why not a U.S. citizen?
That was the nightmarish scenario immigration advocates and constitutional law experts were considering on Monday after President Donald Trump again pushed a provocative plan to deport U.S. citizens who have been convicted of unspecified crimes.
Trump discussed the issue in the White House with El Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele, who has agreed to deposit people deported from the U.S. into a notorious prison.
www.nbcnews.com
Hope they have wifi there, I'm sure the mocking and gawking will be reaching a fever pitch at that point.
|
On April 15 2025 23:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2025 20:50 Gahlo wrote:
It's a civil violation, not a criminal. This whole discussion is stupid. Show nested quote +On April 15 2025 21:46 KT_Elwood wrote:oBlade is cosplaying a "Maga's wittness nazi" with a loser mentality. There is no "gotcha" for exposing his bullshit. He likes to waste your time. He needs you to argue, because that validates his bullshit by being held up against sane arguments, lifted up by sanity. But it's not about winning or losing the argument, once you are discussing his bullshit, his job is done.+ Show Spoiler +He, like nazis, wants people of color gone from the US. Nazis will de-humanize people to get you on board - but it's only hate and racism underneath.
ICE victims can't be people, they need to be called "criminals" - because nazis don't want to be hated for going against normal people, they want to be idolized for saving the world from "criminals".
They know that they would be hated for saying out loud what they think, so they make up stuff.
He has infinite time to waste for you, he will find reasons why it's okay to deport somebody without due process, and be criminal by not caring for what the court orders telling you to do.
Remember:
"Rules for thee but not for me!"
Nazis like the one oBlade is cosplaying don't agree to logic and reality. Their own mythological reality is ranking above the objective reality.
Their brains are illogical. Even if you have them admitting objective truths, they won't shift their stance, because the objective truth is wronger than their mythological truth.
The convicted criminal president that is in direct violation of court orders is Good. The Guy who came to the US the legal way, and now is probably dead in an El Salvador Concentration camp .. is "not even human". Of course it is, that's the point of having it
I'm literally not even part of that conversation, yet you cited me. My last three posts were about Trump's potential third term, the price of groceries, and how DEI endorses merit (as opposed to conflicting with merit).
I'm also not trying to live rent-free in your head. You don't have to mention me in everything you write, but I appreciate the love.
|
On April 15 2025 23:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2025 23:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 15 2025 20:50 Gahlo wrote:
It's a civil violation, not a criminal. This whole discussion is stupid. On April 15 2025 21:46 KT_Elwood wrote:oBlade is cosplaying a "Maga's wittness nazi" with a loser mentality. There is no "gotcha" for exposing his bullshit. He likes to waste your time. He needs you to argue, because that validates his bullshit by being held up against sane arguments, lifted up by sanity. But it's not about winning or losing the argument, once you are discussing his bullshit, his job is done.+ Show Spoiler +He, like nazis, wants people of color gone from the US. Nazis will de-humanize people to get you on board - but it's only hate and racism underneath.
ICE victims can't be people, they need to be called "criminals" - because nazis don't want to be hated for going against normal people, they want to be idolized for saving the world from "criminals".
They know that they would be hated for saying out loud what they think, so they make up stuff.
He has infinite time to waste for you, he will find reasons why it's okay to deport somebody without due process, and be criminal by not caring for what the court orders telling you to do.
Remember:
"Rules for thee but not for me!"
Nazis like the one oBlade is cosplaying don't agree to logic and reality. Their own mythological reality is ranking above the objective reality.
Their brains are illogical. Even if you have them admitting objective truths, they won't shift their stance, because the objective truth is wronger than their mythological truth.
The convicted criminal president that is in direct violation of court orders is Good. The Guy who came to the US the legal way, and now is probably dead in an El Salvador Concentration camp .. is "not even human". Of course it is, that's the point of having it I'm literally not even part of that conversation, yet you cited me. My last three posts were about Trump's potential third term, the price of groceries, and how DEI endorses merit (as opposed to conflicting with merit). I'm also not trying to live rent-free in your head. You don't have to mention me in everything you write, but I appreciate the love.
The post I cited responded to points you raised and answered apparently rhetorical questions you asked about why I was mentioning you and what I'd like to see.
The points I was making aren't really just specific to you or these issues though. They apply pretty generally, as I indicated in the post, and as is made clear in one of the other citations in that post.
“This is an account of a fracture,” he writes, “a breaking away from the notion that the polite, western liberal ever stood for anything at all.” It is a deft, broken-hearted, rhetorical savaging of comfortable people who say nothing (or pay lip service) but care only about preserving normality, convincing themselves that these things only happen “to certain places, to certain people”.
|
On April 15 2025 08:09 Introvert wrote:
And Trump's current dgaf attitude is at least partially the result of electorally defeating a system, including the political, legal, and bureaucratic aspects, that has been after him since he was president the first time. I used this analogy a few weeks ago I think, but what happens when a coup fails? The returning monarch removes eveyone involved, including those close to but not directly responsible for, what happened. He probably also reforms the system and picks people in such a way to make sure it can't happen again. Without endorsing all Trump does, if these institutions weren't prepared to be in the cross hairs they should have upheld their part of the social contract. Universities should seek knowledge, not activism, the courts should be firm but fair and circumspect, and the bureaucracy should seek to carry out the policies of the President within the boundaries of the law. All three of these things have been neglected by their respective institutions in the age of Trump, often in direct opposition to him. Did they think Donald Trump was going to act like previous Republicans and roll over?
Except the "returning monarch" was the one inciting the coup. And then he removed everyone from his circle that didn't support it. And firing thousands of other gov. workers.
You see the problem and arrive at the opposite conclusion. Fascinating
|
On April 15 2025 10:58 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2025 09:08 Mohdoo wrote:On April 15 2025 08:09 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2025 04:41 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm always very interested in reading how conservatives are reacting to certain situations because it helps me contextualize differences in how we think and helps me understand their worldview more. The recent situation with the guy being sent to El Salvador was something I expected conservatives to agree with me on. But I was of course wrong.
After reading through lots of discussions, I think I've made a key discovery in how conservatives view immigration as a whole. Its not just that they get a huge boner from the whole "law and order" shpeal. Its that they view the act of illegally immigrating as non-zero violence. Its not just someone trying to get something they aren't owed. Its that they view the whole idea of crossing into their country as similar to breaking into a house. Many of the discussions seem to have the same general conclusion of: "It sucks that he is in a death camp, and I feel bad for his family, but he chose to illegally immigrate and was never supposed to be here to begin with and everything that comes after that is on him". Its all very similar to someone getting shot while breaking into someone else's house. In their eyes, this guy essentially consented to might makes right when he tried to infiltrate the US.
I think its way too binary and doesn't account for the fact that we simply shouldn't be shipping anyone to this death camp. We ought to have a better way to address this and our current method isn't much different from just killing the guy. If some guy with a gun broke into my house and I was worried for my family's safety, I would 100% just unload a clip on the guy and give zero shits what happened to him. I'd feel bad for his family and whatnot but I would view the situation as him choosing to withdraw from the social contract of human decency. I'd view whatever happened to him as an unfortunate but unavoidable situation since I would never risk my family's safety for this guy.
It feels like conservatives largely view these 2 situations as comparable. If someone genuinely believes the person being deported to a death camp is a danger to society, I can understand that. I would want anyone who is a danger to my community to get yoinked out of my community ASAP. The issue I see with this situation is conservatives don't seem to view this guy as a threat, just an illegal immigrant. Illegally crossing the border should not immediately terminate all forms of human sympathy. Its simply not enough of crime to justify that kind of disconnection. Are you just reading MAGA grifter types? The conservative supreme court hasn't endorsed evey aspect of what Trump is doing, and I don't think you are going to find universal support for deporting someone with a right to stay (which it should be noted, he did not have). As usual Trump is often directionally right but procedurally wrong. But the problem is if people are going to have to pick between mass "asylum" claims at the border and deporting some guy, who is from El Salvador, back to El Salvador accidentally then the latter will be chosen evey time. The "sympathy" play is rapidly losing power because it's clearly pretextual and selective. The border is willingly left open in defiance of the law, and that's just something we have to live with, but deport someone back to their home country and you're a bad person. And Trump's current dgaf attitude is at least partially the result of electorally defeating a system, including the political, legal, and bureaucratic aspects, that has been after him since he was president the first time. I used this analogy a few weeks ago I think, but what happens when a coup fails? The returning monarch removes eveyone involved, including those close to but not directly responsible for, what happened. He probably also reforms the system and picks people in such a way to make sure it can't happen again. Without endorsing all Trump does, if these institutions weren't prepared to be in the cross hairs they should have upheld their part of the social contract. Universities should seek knowledge, not activism, the courts should be firm but fair and circumspect, and the bureaucracy should seek to carry out the policies of the President within the boundaries of the law. All three of these things have been neglected by their respective institutions in the age of Trump, often in direct opposition to him. Did they think Donald Trump was going to act like previous Republicans and roll over? And finally I can't help but point out once again that if Dems were really so worried, and forsaw all of this, they would have opened the doors of the tent instead of adopting their own maximalist positions and daring the electorate to risk Donald Trump as president again. I peer into a few conservative communities because its just good to understand people whether I like what they think or not. My obsession with drilling into details with people often feels dehumanizing but in reality its because I am totally hopelessly obsessed with understanding all human perspectives. Also, I want to be clear, I am 100% on board with just tossing people back to whatever country they came here from, generally speaking, so long as they hopped over here illegally. And I totally understand the whole asylum system is totally bogus at this point and abused to the point people are right to roll their eyes and be cynical. With that being said, I want to just directly ask you: Are you familiar with the details of these prisons in El Salvador? And if so, are you ok with sending people, whether from El Salvador or not, to rot there?The asylum process is commonly abused but I feel like I need to shake you into remembering asylum is a valid thing and it should be a point of pride for our country to offer asylum to genuine cases where asylum is appropriate. Teenage girl on her way to being sold into marriage from some bumfuck country? Asylum is great Political dissident who is definitely going straight to a death camp as soon as they land on native soil? Asylum is great People who are poor and wish to be less poor so they seek asylum in the US? As much as I mourn for their situation, no. But this guy sent to the El Salvador prison is either already dead or will die while performing slave labor. That's straight up holocaust stuff. That's why I am wanting to make sure we agree on the details as to what exactly this El Salvador prison *is*. If you think its just kinda a prison, I can understand not minding him going back. If you share my impression of what this prison is, I would be surprised if you were comfortable deporting him. I've heard some bad things but I'm not as sympathetic to gang members. I am, however, against sending people who aren't violent criminals to prisons for violent criminals. Now, this guy disputes that he is in MS-13, and I find his statement for the need of asylum to be equally shaky, considering that's what everyone crossing the border was instructed to say. Asylum is valid, and part of the tragedy of letting it be abused for four years is that now most asylum claims, at least from our southern neighbors, are suspect. As you say, poverty is not a valid status for an asylum claim. Part of what I'm saying though, is this is all very selective. The porous border we had enabled the worst kind of human traffickers and abusers make money and enable their abuse by transporting people to be dumped along the border for an overwhelmed border patrol to pick up and care for the best we can. Meanwhile, the criminal activity and criminals let in also had a terrible effect on American citizens. Where was the outrage over the greater human suffering the debacle at the border enabled? Call it whataboutism if you want, but I'm telling you why sympathy over ONE person is not going to help, at best it seems opportunistic. So no, they should bring him back and probably deport him somewhere else (in El Salvador, if possible) when possible. And most of the people who support sending him to the prison probably do believe he was part of MS-13 (again, I am agnostic on that question).
Thank you for the good reply. If you don't mind me continuing to pester you, I see value in us continuing to drill deeper and find the root of our disagreement.
1: You mentioned you've heard bad things about the prison. What bad things? As a token of good faith, I'll just describe my understanding and you can either indicate you accept my assessment or offer your own. But if you disagree, please be clear about your impression: It is a work camp where people will serve life sentences, performing labor or just being killed.
2: Whether or not this guy was in MS-13 appears to be a point of contention. Can you specify which information you are using to conclude he is from MS-13? My understanding is his immigration case from 2019 is currently in the process of being FISA'd. I am taking a "wait and see" until those court documents are available. But I do think its worth noting we need to have a reason to assume he is MS-13. It isn't enough for Trump to say he was MS-13. We need to have more than zero evidence. If there is something you are aware of, please help me understand.
I think these 2 topics ultimately lead to any disagreements we have.
|
After careful consideration I decided to tame my inner troll.
Wake me up when Djt announces something insane again ig.
Makes me feel less insane.
To reply to
+ Show Spoiler + On April 15 2025 23:22 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2025 21:33 Vivax wrote:On April 15 2025 21:09 oBlade wrote:On April 15 2025 20:50 Gahlo wrote:
It's a civil violation, not a criminal. This whole discussion is stupid. Everything against the law is illegal. Whether a criminal offense or not depends what "it" is. Sneaking across the border is explicitly a criminal offense. What‘s the procedure then, assuming they have no papers? Detention center, questioning, identification, tracking the country of origin and deportation back to that. I assume. Alternatively you could give them an identity, a place to sleep and a job if the country is spacious enough and in good economic shape. Provided they aren‘t smugglers or cartel members and the like. It‘s true not everything is nice and fluffy out there. Or one develops the country they came from enough that they needn‘t run away from it. In the case of Venezuela, I fathom most of its state of deterioration comes from US sanctions and Russian protection. In Germany/Austria the greatest difficulty an immigrant would find is undoubtedly the language. It‘s also the main barrier for someone who gets to stay. Are you asking me what the procedure is or what I think it should be? The answer of what it factually is depends on the discretion of the people executing and enforcing the laws. Like when an officer gives you a speeding ticket vs. a warning. Or the DA charges you with disturbing the peace vs. assault and battery. So it can range anywhere from an appointment with an immigration court date in 3 years and a free ride or bus ticket to the interior and a jurisdiction that's going to not enforce and in fact protect/shield you from federal law, OR a 99% chance of summary removal when someone with any brain at all goes "hmm, single male, 20s, tattoos, tore up your passport, maybe your claim to be here lacks credibility." Summary removal/return/deportation to your home or the country you got caught walking across from (which has sectors of territory controlled by paramilitary terrorists who specifically control and tax everyone who passes through it, everyone they are constantly trafficking) takes at most 2 weeks if I recall. Show nested quote +On April 15 2025 21:37 Billyboy wrote:On April 15 2025 21:09 oBlade wrote:On April 15 2025 20:50 Gahlo wrote:
It's a civil violation, not a criminal. This whole discussion is stupid. Everything against the law is illegal. Whether a criminal offense or not depends what "it" is. Sneaking across the border is explicitly a criminal offense. What percentage of illegals snuck across the boarder? Why with control of the house, senate and presidency is Trump not building the wall? Is it not a effective way of securing the boarder? We don't know what percentage of people here came from where. It's not a census question. It's a little bit easier to count/estimate where people are instantaneously coming from at a certain point. Estimates put visa overstays anywhere from under a majority to around a 2/3rds majority of reasons people newly became illegal in any given year. https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2006/05/22/modes-of-entry-for-the-unauthorized-migrant-population/?utm_source=chatgpt.comhttps://www.npr.org/2019/01/10/683662691/where-does-illegal-immigration-mostly-occur-heres-what-the-data-tell-usMy personal intuition is leftists stopped funding research on it when the answer wasn't a convenient and overwhelming 95% visa overstays. At any rate, you could decrease the proportion of illegal residents who snuck across the border vs. overstayed a visa both by letting fewer people across the border AND by having a billion people overstay their visas so border crossings are only 0.01%. But that comes with its own issues. Fortunately neither is an effective gotcha for people who are interested in public safety, like "Hey! They walk across the border illegally, specifically ignoring land ports of entry, because the legal way is too messed up!" and then "Hey the border isn't an issue! Most illegal immigrants overstayed the legal way!" doesn't need to be explained why it's preposterous. It's more difficult to extrapolate to where long term illegal residents came from as trends. Basically, you might expect that one of the groups would have more turnover - more chance of leaving, less staying power - basically one of the groups might be more biased to going back. Or some other differences in the distribution. For example: Either the fact of having gone through the process to get a visa makes that group more abiding in general, OR it means the people who got a visa specifically to get entry and stayed anyway could also include some of the most nefarious. But I won't speculate further except to say it's interesting. Firstly, Trump isn't in control of the House and Senate because of how our cherished democracy works. But nevertheless, if I had to speculate, this is the reason they probably aren't building a wall just yet, but you can always lobby them if you're super set on it.
Thank you for the very extensive answer.
Many states in South America rely on narcotics trade for their sustenance afaik. War on drugs doesn‘t really work because their main export is mostly demanded in very high places even in your own country, even in European ones. It‘s a rich people‘s drug.
What you get in the US is people escaping said situation from a place controlled by a narcomafia. I reckon even their officials are very wary of not messing with their business.
I‘ll probably sound silly for saying it should be regulated and legalized, taxed and sold in pharmacies under conditions where the suppliers are ‚ethical‘, so to say.
In my experience so far, a drug being illegal doesn‘t stop anyone from using it when they really want to get their hands on it.
Rewarding people for staying clean would be more effective too.
|
On April 15 2025 23:22 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2025 21:33 Vivax wrote:On April 15 2025 21:09 oBlade wrote:On April 15 2025 20:50 Gahlo wrote:
It's a civil violation, not a criminal. This whole discussion is stupid. Everything against the law is illegal. Whether a criminal offense or not depends what "it" is. Sneaking across the border is explicitly a criminal offense. What‘s the procedure then, assuming they have no papers? Detention center, questioning, identification, tracking the country of origin and deportation back to that. I assume. Alternatively you could give them an identity, a place to sleep and a job if the country is spacious enough and in good economic shape. Provided they aren‘t smugglers or cartel members and the like. It‘s true not everything is nice and fluffy out there. Or one develops the country they came from enough that they needn‘t run away from it. In the case of Venezuela, I fathom most of its state of deterioration comes from US sanctions and Russian protection. In Germany/Austria the greatest difficulty an immigrant would find is undoubtedly the language. It‘s also the main barrier for someone who gets to stay. Are you asking me what the procedure is or what I think it should be? The answer of what it factually is depends on the discretion of the people executing and enforcing the laws. Like when an officer gives you a speeding ticket vs. a warning. Or the DA charges you with disturbing the peace vs. assault and battery. So it can range anywhere from an appointment with an immigration court date in 3 years and a free ride or bus ticket to the interior and a jurisdiction that's going to not enforce and in fact protect/shield you from federal law, OR a 99% chance of summary removal when someone with any brain at all goes "hmm, single male, 20s, tattoos, tore up your passport, maybe your claim to be here lacks credibility." Summary removal/return/deportation to your home or the country you got caught walking across from (which has sectors of territory controlled by paramilitary terrorists who specifically control and tax everyone who passes through it, everyone they are constantly trafficking) takes at most 2 weeks if I recall. Show nested quote +On April 15 2025 21:37 Billyboy wrote:On April 15 2025 21:09 oBlade wrote:On April 15 2025 20:50 Gahlo wrote:
It's a civil violation, not a criminal. This whole discussion is stupid. Everything against the law is illegal. Whether a criminal offense or not depends what "it" is. Sneaking across the border is explicitly a criminal offense. What percentage of illegals snuck across the boarder? Why with control of the house, senate and presidency is Trump not building the wall? Is it not a effective way of securing the boarder? We don't know what percentage of people here came from where. It's not a census question. It's a little bit easier to count/estimate where people are instantaneously coming from at a certain point. Estimates put visa overstays anywhere from under a majority to around a 2/3rds majority of reasons people newly became illegal in any given year. https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2006/05/22/modes-of-entry-for-the-unauthorized-migrant-population/?utm_source=chatgpt.comhttps://www.npr.org/2019/01/10/683662691/where-does-illegal-immigration-mostly-occur-heres-what-the-data-tell-usMy personal intuition is leftists stopped funding research on it when the answer wasn't a convenient and overwhelming 95% visa overstays. At any rate, you could decrease the proportion of illegal residents who snuck across the border vs. overstayed a visa both by letting fewer people across the border AND by having a billion people overstay their visas so border crossings are only 0.01%. But that comes with its own issues. Fortunately neither is an effective gotcha for people who are interested in public safety, like "Hey! They walk across the border illegally, specifically ignoring land ports of entry, because the legal way is too messed up!" and then "Hey the border isn't an issue! Most illegal immigrants overstayed the legal way!" doesn't need to be explained why it's preposterous. It's more difficult to extrapolate to where long term illegal residents came from as trends. Basically, you might expect that one of the groups would have more turnover - more chance of leaving, less staying power - basically one of the groups might be more biased to going back. Or some other differences in the distribution. For example: Either the fact of having gone through the process to get a visa makes that group more abiding in general, OR it means the people who got a visa specifically to get entry and stayed anyway could also include some of the most nefarious. But I won't speculate further except to say it's interesting. Firstly, Trump isn't in control of the House and Senate because of how our cherished democracy works. But nevertheless, if I had to speculate, this is the reason they probably aren't building a wall just yet, but you can always lobby them if you're super set on it.
I think it is that once the momentum stopped everyone realized, holy shit a wall is a terrible idea, it is expensive to build and maintain, an easy barrier to cross when not defended and its too long to be defended, no way is Mexico going to pay for it. So they have moved on to various other terrible or non existent policy or a mix. Like tariffs which are objectively bad how Trump is doing it. But it keeps him in the news and gives no time for people to think about what a terriblle job he is actually doing.
The two main concerns of Americans at election time and why trump got picked was he was going to deal with inflation and be great for the economy he has been terrible at both. Doge has accomplished no where close to the 2 trillion in cost savings, and more likely it will end up more expensive with all the rehiring, lawsuits and so on. With the added bonus of less services! Trump was also going to lower the deficit, but oh no "shocking"! that is going up.
You are getting nothing you were promised, basically the opposite in most cases and you are more entrenched than ever. It is crazy to watch from the outside.
|
I dunno, I heard there was an invasion going on. Chart reads to me like Trump is dropping the ball at the border if the immigrant scare is to be believed. Some would say that's the most open the border has been in 60 years.
|
On April 16 2025 01:10 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2025 10:58 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2025 09:08 Mohdoo wrote:On April 15 2025 08:09 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2025 04:41 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm always very interested in reading how conservatives are reacting to certain situations because it helps me contextualize differences in how we think and helps me understand their worldview more. The recent situation with the guy being sent to El Salvador was something I expected conservatives to agree with me on. But I was of course wrong.
After reading through lots of discussions, I think I've made a key discovery in how conservatives view immigration as a whole. Its not just that they get a huge boner from the whole "law and order" shpeal. Its that they view the act of illegally immigrating as non-zero violence. Its not just someone trying to get something they aren't owed. Its that they view the whole idea of crossing into their country as similar to breaking into a house. Many of the discussions seem to have the same general conclusion of: "It sucks that he is in a death camp, and I feel bad for his family, but he chose to illegally immigrate and was never supposed to be here to begin with and everything that comes after that is on him". Its all very similar to someone getting shot while breaking into someone else's house. In their eyes, this guy essentially consented to might makes right when he tried to infiltrate the US.
I think its way too binary and doesn't account for the fact that we simply shouldn't be shipping anyone to this death camp. We ought to have a better way to address this and our current method isn't much different from just killing the guy. If some guy with a gun broke into my house and I was worried for my family's safety, I would 100% just unload a clip on the guy and give zero shits what happened to him. I'd feel bad for his family and whatnot but I would view the situation as him choosing to withdraw from the social contract of human decency. I'd view whatever happened to him as an unfortunate but unavoidable situation since I would never risk my family's safety for this guy.
It feels like conservatives largely view these 2 situations as comparable. If someone genuinely believes the person being deported to a death camp is a danger to society, I can understand that. I would want anyone who is a danger to my community to get yoinked out of my community ASAP. The issue I see with this situation is conservatives don't seem to view this guy as a threat, just an illegal immigrant. Illegally crossing the border should not immediately terminate all forms of human sympathy. Its simply not enough of crime to justify that kind of disconnection. Are you just reading MAGA grifter types? The conservative supreme court hasn't endorsed evey aspect of what Trump is doing, and I don't think you are going to find universal support for deporting someone with a right to stay (which it should be noted, he did not have). As usual Trump is often directionally right but procedurally wrong. But the problem is if people are going to have to pick between mass "asylum" claims at the border and deporting some guy, who is from El Salvador, back to El Salvador accidentally then the latter will be chosen evey time. The "sympathy" play is rapidly losing power because it's clearly pretextual and selective. The border is willingly left open in defiance of the law, and that's just something we have to live with, but deport someone back to their home country and you're a bad person. And Trump's current dgaf attitude is at least partially the result of electorally defeating a system, including the political, legal, and bureaucratic aspects, that has been after him since he was president the first time. I used this analogy a few weeks ago I think, but what happens when a coup fails? The returning monarch removes eveyone involved, including those close to but not directly responsible for, what happened. He probably also reforms the system and picks people in such a way to make sure it can't happen again. Without endorsing all Trump does, if these institutions weren't prepared to be in the cross hairs they should have upheld their part of the social contract. Universities should seek knowledge, not activism, the courts should be firm but fair and circumspect, and the bureaucracy should seek to carry out the policies of the President within the boundaries of the law. All three of these things have been neglected by their respective institutions in the age of Trump, often in direct opposition to him. Did they think Donald Trump was going to act like previous Republicans and roll over? And finally I can't help but point out once again that if Dems were really so worried, and forsaw all of this, they would have opened the doors of the tent instead of adopting their own maximalist positions and daring the electorate to risk Donald Trump as president again. I peer into a few conservative communities because its just good to understand people whether I like what they think or not. My obsession with drilling into details with people often feels dehumanizing but in reality its because I am totally hopelessly obsessed with understanding all human perspectives. Also, I want to be clear, I am 100% on board with just tossing people back to whatever country they came here from, generally speaking, so long as they hopped over here illegally. And I totally understand the whole asylum system is totally bogus at this point and abused to the point people are right to roll their eyes and be cynical. With that being said, I want to just directly ask you: Are you familiar with the details of these prisons in El Salvador? And if so, are you ok with sending people, whether from El Salvador or not, to rot there?The asylum process is commonly abused but I feel like I need to shake you into remembering asylum is a valid thing and it should be a point of pride for our country to offer asylum to genuine cases where asylum is appropriate. Teenage girl on her way to being sold into marriage from some bumfuck country? Asylum is great Political dissident who is definitely going straight to a death camp as soon as they land on native soil? Asylum is great People who are poor and wish to be less poor so they seek asylum in the US? As much as I mourn for their situation, no. But this guy sent to the El Salvador prison is either already dead or will die while performing slave labor. That's straight up holocaust stuff. That's why I am wanting to make sure we agree on the details as to what exactly this El Salvador prison *is*. If you think its just kinda a prison, I can understand not minding him going back. If you share my impression of what this prison is, I would be surprised if you were comfortable deporting him. I've heard some bad things but I'm not as sympathetic to gang members. I am, however, against sending people who aren't violent criminals to prisons for violent criminals. Now, this guy disputes that he is in MS-13, and I find his statement for the need of asylum to be equally shaky, considering that's what everyone crossing the border was instructed to say. Asylum is valid, and part of the tragedy of letting it be abused for four years is that now most asylum claims, at least from our southern neighbors, are suspect. As you say, poverty is not a valid status for an asylum claim. Part of what I'm saying though, is this is all very selective. The porous border we had enabled the worst kind of human traffickers and abusers make money and enable their abuse by transporting people to be dumped along the border for an overwhelmed border patrol to pick up and care for the best we can. Meanwhile, the criminal activity and criminals let in also had a terrible effect on American citizens. Where was the outrage over the greater human suffering the debacle at the border enabled? Call it whataboutism if you want, but I'm telling you why sympathy over ONE person is not going to help, at best it seems opportunistic. So no, they should bring him back and probably deport him somewhere else (in El Salvador, if possible) when possible. And most of the people who support sending him to the prison probably do believe he was part of MS-13 (again, I am agnostic on that question). Thank you for the good reply. If you don't mind me continuing to pester you, I see value in us continuing to drill deeper and find the root of our disagreement. 1: You mentioned you've heard bad things about the prison. What bad things? As a token of good faith, I'll just describe my understanding and you can either indicate you accept my assessment or offer your own. But if you disagree, please be clear about your impression: It is a work camp where people will serve life sentences, performing labor or just being killed. 2: Whether or not this guy was in MS-13 appears to be a point of contention. Can you specify which information you are using to conclude he is from MS-13? My understanding is his immigration case from 2019 is currently in the process of being FISA'd. I am taking a "wait and see" until those court documents are available. But I do think its worth noting we need to have a reason to assume he is MS-13. It isn't enough for Trump to say he was MS-13. We need to have more than zero evidence. If there is something you are aware of, please help me understand. I think these 2 topics ultimately lead to any disagreements we have.
You may describe if you wish but my understanding is that very few people actually *know* what goes on there. I could accept that it is unpleasant and probably would be illegal if run in the US. Again, I am against sending non-violent people there. I am always suspicious that what I'm reading is hyperbole, espeically since we have people who describe our own prisons as slave camps (most of the incarcerated people who fight fires in CA like doing it, just fyi). Now, I doubt it meets our standards, and so I would send only the worst of the worst there. I don't know if you need more than that. If they are MS-13 gang members (actually) I will do less weeping. If they aren't, then they should not be sent. I don't know what will happen to him there and I don't know why you think he isn't long for this world. Is that based on his supposed fear of retribution? This paragraph ties into my last paragraph as well.
The MS-13 determination was made at some point in his process. Garcia came to the US illegally in 2012 and never tried to claim asylum until he was caught in 2019. That claim was denied and he was detained for a time based on information potentially tying him to gang activity (I don't recall if that was 2019 or earlier). When he was picked up more recently, he had an order regarding his potential deportation. Crucially, this order did not say he could not be deported, it said that he couldn't be deported to El Salvador. And this determination could of course he changed if his claim is found lacking. We have as much reason to believe he is in danger in El Salvador as we do that he is in MS-13. Supposedly the claim of his membership was made by a reliable but confidential source. That doesn't mean it's correct. So the short version is, Garcia is an El Salvadorian illegal immigrant with no right to be in the US, who tried to claim asylum but was denied, and may legally be deported, just not, apparently, to El Salvador. So the controversy to me really is just the last point, that they sent him somewhere where technically the immigration system said he could not be sent (yet). The framing about a "Maryland dad" is just the latest example of way the media frames things to purposefully miss the point.
All that I said, I think the actual dispute here is what I mentioned before. People on the left are very concerned for this one guy and trying to make him into a hero and martyr. He isn't. And moreover this concern for humanity was strangely lacking when the border crisis was causing much more human suffering elsewhere. Instead, people were denying it was even happening until they had no choice (the same thing they did wrt Biden's mental state). For the upteenth time, it seems to be that he shouldn't have been sent to CECOT as a *legal* matter.
Both sides are very good at altering their picture of reality, but I'm going to have to go with the side that is against an uncontrolled border and the side that thinks murdering healthcare CEOs in cold blood is wrong.
|
Canada11316 Posts
The 'Maryland dad' isn't a matter of hagiography so much as disputing the othering rhetoric of the Great Don, the Modern Moses' the One-who-is-a-great-service-to-the-world's administration. There is no reason to believe Kilmar was a part of MS-13 or any other gang. The government did not attempt to prove it and what little there is was based on hearsay that the 4th Circuit did not deem credible.
It's not just concern for this one guy. Kilmar is representative of all the whole. 90% of those imprisoned in El Salvador had no US criminal record according to Bloomberg, and yet these are supposed to be the worst of the worst? Were all these psycho-killers just on their very best behavior all this time?
But it need not even be concern for Kilmar that has created this outcry. Base selfish, self-preservation should generate as much interest. It cannot be that the government can escape judicial review by sneaking people out on planes and they 'Whoops. They are out of country. They are beyond your jurisdiction. No way to get them back." Hell, if that's the way things operate, the government could just whisk the judge him/herself onto a plane and once they are out on open waters, nothing can be done about it. Once the judge is in an El Salvador prison, apparently there's just nothing US can do about it.
They are not testing the legality of their actions. They actively dodging legal testing.
If a non-citizen can be seized, kidnapped, and incarcerated in a foreign prison without due process, than so can any US citizen. Because without due process, you are gone before the court's determine that you were, in fact, a citizen. And if the government claims you are not, how can you prove otherwise without due process? Oopsies. My bad. Already on a plane. Oh well. But if you weren't MS-13 I might feel a little sad. I might concede that it would be a little unpleasant, locked away for life and all that.
This is basic human rights, rule of law, and the limitation of the power of the state. Not some leftist special interest.
|
On April 16 2025 11:31 Falling wrote:
The 'Maryland dad' isn't a matter of hagiography so much as disputing the othering rhetoric of the Great Don, the Modern Moses' the One-who-is-a-great-service-to-the-world's administration. There is no reason to believe Kilmar was a part of MS-13 or any other gang. The government did not attempt to prove it and what little there is was based on hearsay that the 4th Circuit did not deem credible.
It's not just concern for this one guy. Kilmar is representative of all the whole. 90% of those imprisoned in El Salvador had no US criminal record according to Bloomberg, and yet these are supposed to be the worst of the worst? Were all these psycho-killers just on their very best behavior all this time?
But it need not even be concern for Kilmar that has created this outcry. Base selfish, self-preservation should generate as much interest. It cannot be that the government can escape judicial review by sneaking people out on planes and they 'Whoops. They are out of country. They are beyond your jurisdiction. No way to get them back." Hell, if that's the way things operate, the government could just whisk the judge him/herself onto a plane and once they are out on open waters, nothing can be done about it. Once the judge is in an El Salvador prison, apparently there's just nothing US can do about it.
They are not testing the legality of their actions. They actively dodging legal testing.
If a non-citizen can be seized, kidnapped, and incarcerated in a foreign prison without due process, than so can any US citizen. Because without due process, you are gone before the court's determine that you were, in fact, a citizen. And if the government claims you are not, how can you prove otherwise without due process? Oopsies. My bad. Already on a plane. Oh well. But if you weren't MS-13 I might feel a little sad. I might concede that it would be a little unpleasant, locked away for life and all that.
This is basic human rights, rule of law, and the limitation of the power of the state. Not some leftist special interest.
Nailed it.
|
On April 16 2025 11:31 Falling wrote:
The 'Maryland dad' isn't a matter of hagiography so much as disputing the othering rhetoric of the Great Don, the Modern Moses' the One-who-is-a-great-service-to-the-world's administration. There is no reason to believe Kilmar was a part of MS-13 or any other gang. The government did not attempt to prove it and what little there is was based on hearsay that the 4th Circuit did not deem credible.
It's not just concern for this one guy. Kilmar is representative of all the whole. 90% of those imprisoned in El Salvador had no US criminal record according to Bloomberg, and yet these are supposed to be the worst of the worst? Were all these psycho-killers just on their very best behavior all this time?
But it need not even be concern for Kilmar that has created this outcry. Base selfish, self-preservation should generate as much interest. It cannot be that the government can escape judicial review by sneaking people out on planes and they 'Whoops. They are out of country. They are beyond your jurisdiction. No way to get them back." Hell, if that's the way things operate, the government could just whisk the judge him/herself onto a plane and once they are out on open waters, nothing can be done about it. Once the judge is in an El Salvador prison, apparently there's just nothing US can do about it.
They are not testing the legality of their actions. They actively dodging legal testing.
If a non-citizen can be seized, kidnapped, and incarcerated in a foreign prison without due process, than so can any US citizen. Because without due process, you are gone before the court's determine that you were, in fact, a citizen. And if the government claims you are not, how can you prove otherwise without due process? Oopsies. My bad. Already on a plane. Oh well. But if you weren't MS-13 I might feel a little sad. I might concede that it would be a little unpleasant, locked away for life and all that.
This is basic human rights, rule of law, and the limitation of the power of the state. Not some leftist special interest.
Sorry, but no. He had due process. He's the one that crossed the border illegally, he's the one that had an asylum claim rejected. He had no legal right to be here. He shouldn't have been sent to ES, but the gulf between him and a citizen is so wide you probably couldn't see it due to the curvature of the earth.
|
Canada11316 Posts
And what due process was that?
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
For citizens only or non-citizens as well?
Also, are we forgetting he had a withholding order granted during Trump's previous administration? Were they in error? The government has not challenged that order.
|
If due process is where you have no chance to defend yourself before getting tossed into an El Salvadoran prison “by error” and then no effort is made to undo the error despite court orders, then I would hate to see what no due process looks like
|
You guys are conflating a bunch of things. The withholding order *only applied to deportation to El Salvador.* That's one of the big misunderstandings no one is correcting. Legally, he could be deported at any time, as his asylum claim was denied years ago. That's almost game set and match for due process right there. As a bonus, he's an El Salvadorian citizen as well. The Supreme Court has also been much more cautious in what it has instructed the administration to do than people are letting on. They know full well they have no power over foreign policy or foreign governments. To be sure, they haven't endorsed the governments position in the case, but they havent gone as far the judges under them are going. The lower court judge is not taking the hint. And I think, this may be wrong, but the withholding order was issued by an immigration judge, not an article III judge. So the only due process dispute, if that really is the right term, is where he was sent. It should be obvious why this is not applicable whatsoever to American citizens.
|
On April 16 2025 11:31 Falling wrote:
But it need not even be concern for Kilmar that has created this outcry. Base selfish, self-preservation should generate as much interest. It cannot be that the government can escape judicial review by sneaking people out on planes and they 'Whoops. They are out of country. They are beyond your jurisdiction. No way to get them back." Hell, if that's the way things operate, the government could just whisk the judge him/herself onto a plane and once they are out on open waters, nothing can be done about it. Once the judge is in an El Salvador prison, apparently there's just nothing US can do about it.
Yeah but then we'll find out the judge hadn't returned his shopping cart once so it's okay. But then the stupid media will keep referring to him as "judge" instead of "cart terrorist" to stir the pot.
|
Canada11316 Posts
Of course the Court is being cautious in their language. The Court can determine that laws are unconstitutional or that the executive branch is acting unconstitutionally, but the Court cannot dictate foreign policy. They cannot require the government to send in a SEAL team or declare war on El Salvador or whatever to get Kilmar back.
So the only due process dispute, if that really is the right term, is where he was sent. It should be obvious why this is not applicable whatsoever to American citizens.
The reason you are struggling to call him ending up in El Salvador 'a process' is because it isn't a process. If you are fined or imprisoned or executed that's not the process. That's the result of the process... after you have gone through the process. After you have your day in court, then the sentence is rendered. You are dealing with sentencing.
What was the due process that determined his guilt that landed him in a foreign prison? You keep claiming the only problem was location but what was the due process that got him there?
Is the writ of habeus corpus for citizens only?
Is the fourth and sixth amendment for citizens only?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
