|
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 August 26 2025 07:39 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2025 05:34 Acrofales wrote:On August 26 2025 04:25 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2025 01:49 KwarK wrote:On August 26 2025 00:27 Magic Powers wrote:
The US cannot just send people to random places in the world. No. That's a complete misrepresentation of these cases where it can happen. It's not as simple as "we'll send you there, we don't wanna hear anything, end of debate". No. The US is sovereign within its borders. It literally can. Alright, I finally figured out why this debate has been so frustrating. Firstly, I just learned that deportation law was changed only two months ago by the Supreme Court. I had no idea that this happened, and no one else here brought this up either. So I think I can safely assume that no one here knew that the law used to be different and was changed. That explains why I understood deportation law differently, because I was working with the previous framework. The Supreme Court on Monday granted President Donald Trump’s emergency request to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their homeland, including places like South Sudan, with minimal notice. https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/23/politics/supreme-court-migrants-south-sudan-turmoil-filled-countriesCNN cites from a document detailing the changes to deportation law and examples of the abuse of deportation law (already prior to the recent change). Federal law generally permits the Government to deport noncitizens found to be unlawfully in the United States only to countries with which they have a meaningful connection. 8 U. S. C. §1231(b). To that end, Congress specified two default options: noncitizens arrested while entering the country must be returned to the country from which they arrived, and nearly everyone else may designate a country of choice. §§1231(b)(1)(A), (b)(2)(A). If these options prove infeasible, Congress specified which possibilities the Executive should attempt next. These alternatives include the noncitizen’s country of citizenship or her former country of residence. §§1231(b)(1)(C), (2)(E). This case concerns the Government’s ability to conduct what is known as a “third country removal,” meaning a removal to any “country with a government that will accept the alien.” §1231(b)(1)(C)(iv); see §1231(b)(2)(E)(vii). Third-country removals are burdensome for the affected noncitizen, so Congress has sharply limited their use. They are permissible only after the Government tries each and every alternative noted in the statute, and determines they are all “impracticable, inadvisable, or impossible.” §§1231(b)(1)(C)(iv), (2)(E)(vii). Noncitizens facing removal of any sort are entitled under international and domestic law to raise a claim under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, S.Treaty Doc. No. 100–20, 1465 U. N. T. S. 113. Article 3 of the Convention prohibits returning any person “to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.” If you read further, you'll see how people have been mistreated already under the previous law and it's only gotten worse since the recent changes. JOKE COUNTRY. Nuff said. + Show Spoiler +Can you guess how I found this CNN article and the legal document it links to? That's right, ChatGPT. Glad you learned how to use ChatGPT correctly  As for the article: pretty sure Trump, and our resident conservatives, are arguing that §1231(b)(1)(C)(iv) is what applies to Kilmar Abrego Garcia, and they can therefore report him to Costa Rica or Uganda. That law isn't new. It has hardly ever been used, but that doesn't mean it isn't legal that Trump uses it. It's untrod ground and it'll take someone far more versed in US law to convince me either way. Maybe farv wants to take a stab at it, but he's probably wiser than that  As to whether it's ethical? Absolutely nothing about this travesty has been ethical. Sermokala voiced it very well. But Introvert is cleverly staying away from that question. His position appears to be that the US has and should have an absolute right to evict any non-citizens, regardless of what they contribute to the country, and that the law supports that. Inasfar as I have read anything of a moral judgement of the whole situation from him, it's that you have to break some eggs to make an omelette. Obviously, I disagree with him, but he definitely seems to know the law of his country better than you did (until this last post). I've said before he shouldn't have been deported to El Salvador. I don’t have a lot of sympathy for someone who tried to claim asylum and persecution only when he got caught. He played a game to avoid getting deported and now he might get sent somewhere that isn't home. That was his risk. Moreover, we know he was involved in shady stuff, he was caught in TN seemingly trafficking people around. Finally, there is a reason that the law allows the government to be se aggressive in deporting people. If you cross the border in an illegal manner that's on you. And it is the nation's interest to be able to exclude people. Show nested quote +On August 26 2025 07:04 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2025 06:42 Gorsameth wrote:On August 26 2025 06:33 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2025 04:42 Introvert wrote:
Do you read your own sources? That quote says right there that the law allows them to be deported to a third country. But you are finally getting closer. The surpeme court order was about procedural objections that might be raised. The law was always there. No, the quote doesn't say that. It says literally that this is not permissible unless specific conditions are met. Those conditions weren't met for Garcia. Third-country removals are burdensome for the affected noncitizen, so Congress has sharply limited their use. They are permissible only after the Government tries each and every alternative noted in the statute, and determines they are all “impracticable, inadvisable, or impossible.” And what are those alternatives noted in the statute? I don't know, I'm not a legal expert or anything. It was reported that there was no due process before his deportation. That alone makes it wrongful. He couldn't be deported under that circumstance, and they called it an "administrative error". Of course it wasn't an error, but they call it that to cover their asses. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-el-salvador-prison-father-maryland-deported-b2728899.htmlNow the story gets worse again. Garcia is back in US government custody. His lawyers describe the whole situation as "vindictive prosecution". https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/abrego-garcia-detained-again-uganda-1.7616850 We went over this before too. What was against the law was him being sent to El Salvador. He already had his due process before that. The "administrative error" was NOT the deportation, it was going to El Salvador. It's amusing that you think not being deportable to his home country couldn't plausibly be one of those conditions allowing him to be deported somewhere else. He found the magic bullet! He's not in the country legally, but he can't be removed. Truly remarkable.
Article literally says he didn't face due process. Just keep lying to yourself, I'm done with this.
|
On August 26 2025 07:50 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2025 07:36 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2025 07:32 Gorsameth wrote:On August 26 2025 07:04 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2025 06:42 Gorsameth wrote:On August 26 2025 06:33 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2025 04:42 Introvert wrote:
Do you read your own sources? That quote says right there that the law allows them to be deported to a third country. But you are finally getting closer. The surpeme court order was about procedural objections that might be raised. The law was always there. No, the quote doesn't say that. It says literally that this is not permissible unless specific conditions are met. Those conditions weren't met for Garcia. Third-country removals are burdensome for the affected noncitizen, so Congress has sharply limited their use. They are permissible only after the Government tries each and every alternative noted in the statute, and determines they are all “impracticable, inadvisable, or impossible.” And what are those alternatives noted in the statute? I don't know, I'm not a legal expert or anything. It was reported that there was no due process before his deportation. That alone makes it wrongful. He couldn't be deported under that circumstance, and they called it an "administrative error". Of course it wasn't an error, but they call it that to cover their asses. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-el-salvador-prison-father-maryland-deported-b2728899.htmlNow the story gets worse again. Garcia is back in US government custody. His lawyers describe the whole situation as "vindictive prosecution". https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/abrego-garcia-detained-again-uganda-1.7616850 His deportation was unlawful and deeply wrong. he is being vindictively prosecuted. None of those things are what people are questioning you about. You keep saying its illegal to now deport him, You link a statement saying he can't be deported now to a 3e country unless a series of listed alternatives are considered. So I ask the very natural follow up, what are those alternatives. If you don't know that list, and don't know if the government has reasonably considered them impractical or impossible, how can you say he cannot now be legally deported to a 3e country? Again we are not talking about the moral or ethical question of if he should be deported. But whether he legally can be. I didn't say anything about now. But if you're asking: I think deporting him now would be wrongful for the same reason it was wrongful before. What has changed? Nothing has changed. There must be due process. That's all. That being said, I think since the situation has changed, because Garcia has been treated like literal dirt for so long by the US, in my opinion the only ethical choice now would be to allow him to stay in the country permanently. How long exactly or under what conditions I don't know, but the offer should be made and all charges dropped. I'm done. you again ignore everything said to you. No one is asking you if its ethically wrong to deport him, is it legal to send him to a 3e country, assuming due process is followed? I can't wait for your next evasion.
What? I answered your question literally in the second sentence. What's your problem, are you being serious right now?
I said there must be due process. That answers your question.
|
On August 26 2025 08:10 micronesia wrote:
After how he was treated with his previous "deportation" he really does deserve to just be granted residency at this point. Any sane administration would do that. This administration's philosophy is "cruelty to anyone not my friend is good" so we won't get that.
Even in a purely monetary sense that would make sense, the amount of money this administration throws away because of incompetence is bat shit crazy. They are making all the money they wasted on the wall look like a drop in the bucket of stupidity.
It is pretty amazing how Trump's popularity around here has plummeted, only the hard cores remain everyone else is in the I never really liked him phase.
|
On August 26 2025 08:11 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2025 07:39 Introvert wrote:On August 26 2025 05:34 Acrofales wrote:On August 26 2025 04:25 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2025 01:49 KwarK wrote:On August 26 2025 00:27 Magic Powers wrote:
The US cannot just send people to random places in the world. No. That's a complete misrepresentation of these cases where it can happen. It's not as simple as "we'll send you there, we don't wanna hear anything, end of debate". No. The US is sovereign within its borders. It literally can. Alright, I finally figured out why this debate has been so frustrating. Firstly, I just learned that deportation law was changed only two months ago by the Supreme Court. I had no idea that this happened, and no one else here brought this up either. So I think I can safely assume that no one here knew that the law used to be different and was changed. That explains why I understood deportation law differently, because I was working with the previous framework. The Supreme Court on Monday granted President Donald Trump’s emergency request to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their homeland, including places like South Sudan, with minimal notice. https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/23/politics/supreme-court-migrants-south-sudan-turmoil-filled-countriesCNN cites from a document detailing the changes to deportation law and examples of the abuse of deportation law (already prior to the recent change). Federal law generally permits the Government to deport noncitizens found to be unlawfully in the United States only to countries with which they have a meaningful connection. 8 U. S. C. §1231(b). To that end, Congress specified two default options: noncitizens arrested while entering the country must be returned to the country from which they arrived, and nearly everyone else may designate a country of choice. §§1231(b)(1)(A), (b)(2)(A). If these options prove infeasible, Congress specified which possibilities the Executive should attempt next. These alternatives include the noncitizen’s country of citizenship or her former country of residence. §§1231(b)(1)(C), (2)(E). This case concerns the Government’s ability to conduct what is known as a “third country removal,” meaning a removal to any “country with a government that will accept the alien.” §1231(b)(1)(C)(iv); see §1231(b)(2)(E)(vii). Third-country removals are burdensome for the affected noncitizen, so Congress has sharply limited their use. They are permissible only after the Government tries each and every alternative noted in the statute, and determines they are all “impracticable, inadvisable, or impossible.” §§1231(b)(1)(C)(iv), (2)(E)(vii). Noncitizens facing removal of any sort are entitled under international and domestic law to raise a claim under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, S.Treaty Doc. No. 100–20, 1465 U. N. T. S. 113. Article 3 of the Convention prohibits returning any person “to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.” If you read further, you'll see how people have been mistreated already under the previous law and it's only gotten worse since the recent changes. JOKE COUNTRY. Nuff said. + Show Spoiler +Can you guess how I found this CNN article and the legal document it links to? That's right, ChatGPT. Glad you learned how to use ChatGPT correctly As for the article: pretty sure Trump, and our resident conservatives, are arguing that §1231(b)(1)(C)(iv) is what applies to Kilmar Abrego Garcia, and they can therefore report him to Costa Rica or Uganda. That law isn't new. It has hardly ever been used, but that doesn't mean it isn't legal that Trump uses it. It's untrod ground and it'll take someone far more versed in US law to convince me either way. Maybe farv wants to take a stab at it, but he's probably wiser than that As to whether it's ethical? Absolutely nothing about this travesty has been ethical. Sermokala voiced it very well. But Introvert is cleverly staying away from that question. His position appears to be that the US has and should have an absolute right to evict any non-citizens, regardless of what they contribute to the country, and that the law supports that. Inasfar as I have read anything of a moral judgement of the whole situation from him, it's that you have to break some eggs to make an omelette. Obviously, I disagree with him, but he definitely seems to know the law of his country better than you did (until this last post). I've said before he shouldn't have been deported to El Salvador. I don’t have a lot of sympathy for someone who tried to claim asylum and persecution only when he got caught. He played a game to avoid getting deported and now he might get sent somewhere that isn't home. That was his risk. Moreover, we know he was involved in shady stuff, he was caught in TN seemingly trafficking people around. Finally, there is a reason that the law allows the government to be se aggressive in deporting people. If you cross the border in an illegal manner that's on you. And it is the nation's interest to be able to exclude people. On August 26 2025 07:04 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2025 06:42 Gorsameth wrote:On August 26 2025 06:33 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2025 04:42 Introvert wrote:
Do you read your own sources? That quote says right there that the law allows them to be deported to a third country. But you are finally getting closer. The surpeme court order was about procedural objections that might be raised. The law was always there. No, the quote doesn't say that. It says literally that this is not permissible unless specific conditions are met. Those conditions weren't met for Garcia. Third-country removals are burdensome for the affected noncitizen, so Congress has sharply limited their use. They are permissible only after the Government tries each and every alternative noted in the statute, and determines they are all “impracticable, inadvisable, or impossible.” And what are those alternatives noted in the statute? I don't know, I'm not a legal expert or anything. It was reported that there was no due process before his deportation. That alone makes it wrongful. He couldn't be deported under that circumstance, and they called it an "administrative error". Of course it wasn't an error, but they call it that to cover their asses. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-el-salvador-prison-father-maryland-deported-b2728899.htmlNow the story gets worse again. Garcia is back in US government custody. His lawyers describe the whole situation as "vindictive prosecution". https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/abrego-garcia-detained-again-uganda-1.7616850 We went over this before too. What was against the law was him being sent to El Salvador. He already had his due process before that. The "administrative error" was NOT the deportation, it was going to El Salvador. It's amusing that you think not being deportable to his home country couldn't plausibly be one of those conditions allowing him to be deported somewhere else. He found the magic bullet! He's not in the country legally, but he can't be removed. Truly remarkable. Article literally says he didn't face due process. Just keep lying to yourself, I'm done with this.
You are confused in a similar way to before. The "lack of due process" was wrt to being sent to El Salvador without removing the withholding order. From the concurrence in the cited court case:
There is no question that the government screwed up here. Abrego Garcia was
subject to a withholding of removal order. An immigration judge granted this protection
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) on the basis that plaintiff’s family had been subject
to gang-based extortion when he lived in El Salvador, and that he would more likely than
not be persecuted further upon his return. See Compl. ¶ 41.
The withholding of removal order was country specific; it banned the government
from removing Abrego Garcia to El Salvador and El Salvador only. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(b)(3)(A) (“[T]he Attorney General may not remove an alien to a country if the
Attorney General decides that the alien's life or freedom would be threatened in that
country . . . .” (emphasis added)); Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. 523, 531-32 (2021). Thus the government here took the only action which was expressly prohibited. It
had no authority to remove plaintiff to El Salvador without first seeking to reopen and
successfully terminate the withholding of removal. This protection is a mandatory limit on
the Executive’s deportation power, not a discretionary one. See Dankam v. Gonzales, 495
F.3d 113, 115 (4th Cir. 2007) (citing INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415, 420 (1999)).
Sorry for bad formatting, in mobile and copying from pdfs always does this for me.
|
Northern Ireland25523 Posts
On August 26 2025 07:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2025 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2025 01:14 LightSpectra wrote:On August 26 2025 00:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2025 00:30 LightSpectra wrote:On August 26 2025 00:16 Sermokala wrote:
Theres a legitimate argument that the immigration system is fundamentally broken because of this situation as a great example.
Garica should be deported under the current laws, the laws also say he can't be deported to the one country that there is a reason to deport them to. The answer isn't to threaten him with deportation to a random African country if he won't take deportation to costa rica in exchange for pleading guilty to a crime. The administration playing with cartoon levels of cruelty to the situation, where they will arrest him again at the meeting he has to go to to avoid being arrested again.
Garica should have a reasonable path to citizenship or at least the ability to stay in the country legally. He should also be treated just like any other person under the law and not get constantly fucked with by an administration thats trying to distract from the most infamous pedophile in history.
Most of the people here illegally are here beacuse the system is broken. Staffing the assylum courts and streamlining the process would be the reasonable moral response to wanting to combat assylum seekers. Random gangs roving the streets looking for brown people are not. Having a shred of empathy or humanity is woke now, sorry. All we have is cruelty and MS Paint. One problem is that Democrats sound like the extreme, divisive, elitist, and obfuscatory, enforcers of wokeness. In an effort to please the few, they have alienated the many. This is especially true on culture issues, where their language sounds superior, haughty and arrogant. They need to stop using words/language like: privilege … violence (as in “environmental violence”) … dialoguing … triggering … othering … microaggression … holding space … body shaming … subverting norms … systems of oppression … cultural appropriation … Overton window … existential threat to [the climate, democracy, economy] … radical transparency … stakeholders … the unhoused … food insecurity … housing insecurity … person who immigrated … birthing person … cisgender … deadnaming … heteronormative … patriarchy … LGBTQIA+ … BIPOC … allyship … incarcerated people... genocide enablers* (thanks Wombat!)... etc...The Democratic Party brand is toxic across the country at this point with way too many people, enough that there’s no way for them to win a governing majority without changing that. That starts with getting rid of all this rhetoric that isn't helping. Much of the language above is a red flag for a sizable segment of the American public. It is not because they are bigots, but because they fear cancellation, doxing, or trouble with HR if they make a mistake. Or they simply don’t understand what these terms mean and become distrustful of those who use them. So instead, they keep quiet. They don’t join the conversation, they leave it. + Show Spoiler +It's not even elected Democrats using most of this terminology the most. It's lingo used in universities and social media that Republicans start using (usually in a willfully misunderstood way). At that point some elected Democrats start defending the terminology because facts are supposed to matter.
Like, the term "woke" was African-American vernacular lingo, Republicans started calling things "woke" as an insult. "DEI" was used in big businesses and universities a million years before Republicans adopted it as the new n-word. GH is basically saying Republicans should control all of the terminology we use because Democrats even discussing it on a meta level is "elitist". Maybe he's going to defend white people saying the n-word next to be more inclusive. Edit: I notice the phrase "alt-right" isn't on his list. Maybe it's because he doesn't want people looking up the origin of that phase. Hint: it wasn't Democrats who coined that one. Seems like a pretty harsh interpretation. We all sure that's fair? You didn't propose nicer-sounding synonyms or alternative terminology that is equally accurate, for us to use when talking to people who apparently need to be treated with kid gloves. If we're getting rid of relevant and useful words because they might offend Republicans, all that would remain is whatever words the Republicans use.
It does alienate a lot of people as well, to be fair to GH, and not just people who don’t want to consider their own behaviours.
Aside from the innately hostile, I think the other people it pisses off generally wouldn’t mind if they felt their problems were also being addressed.
There’s something innately ivory tower, and may I say ‘lame’, or ‘cringe’ about some of it. Ok great youse are having meetings to settle on using the ‘correct’ term of unhoused over homeless now, great you spent energy on that. What have you actually done for the unhoused, is the name change leading them to an improvement in material conditions.
Now this doesn’t mean I agree with scrubbing all these various terms from our vernacular either, many are simply the best, most commonly understood words with which to describe various phenomena.
|
Northern Ireland25523 Posts
On August 26 2025 07:36 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2025 07:32 Gorsameth wrote:On August 26 2025 07:04 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2025 06:42 Gorsameth wrote:On August 26 2025 06:33 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2025 04:42 Introvert wrote:
Do you read your own sources? That quote says right there that the law allows them to be deported to a third country. But you are finally getting closer. The surpeme court order was about procedural objections that might be raised. The law was always there. No, the quote doesn't say that. It says literally that this is not permissible unless specific conditions are met. Those conditions weren't met for Garcia. Third-country removals are burdensome for the affected noncitizen, so Congress has sharply limited their use. They are permissible only after the Government tries each and every alternative noted in the statute, and determines they are all “impracticable, inadvisable, or impossible.” And what are those alternatives noted in the statute? I don't know, I'm not a legal expert or anything. It was reported that there was no due process before his deportation. That alone makes it wrongful. He couldn't be deported under that circumstance, and they called it an "administrative error". Of course it wasn't an error, but they call it that to cover their asses. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-el-salvador-prison-father-maryland-deported-b2728899.htmlNow the story gets worse again. Garcia is back in US government custody. His lawyers describe the whole situation as "vindictive prosecution". https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/abrego-garcia-detained-again-uganda-1.7616850 His deportation was unlawful and deeply wrong. he is being vindictively prosecuted. None of those things are what people are questioning you about. You keep saying its illegal to now deport him, You link a statement saying he can't be deported now to a 3e country unless a series of listed alternatives are considered. So I ask the very natural follow up, what are those alternatives. If you don't know that list, and don't know if the government has reasonably considered them impractical or impossible, how can you say he cannot now be legally deported to a 3e country? Again we are not talking about the moral or ethical question of if he should be deported. But whether he legally can be. I didn't say anything about now. But if you're asking: I think deporting him now would be wrongful for the same reason it was wrongful before. What has changed? Nothing has changed. There must be due process. That's all. That being said, I think since the situation has changed, because Garcia has been treated like literal dirt for so long by the US, in my opinion the only ethical choice now would be to allow him to stay in the country permanently. How long exactly or under what conditions I don't know, but the offer should be made and all charges dropped.
That still doesn’t mean that legally he can’t be deported to a country other than El Salvador, legally though. Most of the thread don’t think that should be the case morally or ethically, but it’s totally legal no?
Let’s say conditions in a prison were not up to a base legal standard. That sucks, the state should compensate prisoners, but equally just because their conditions sucked for a bit, you wouldn’t necessarily just free them because well, past transgressions of the state.
The state has clearly fucked up in this case, but that doesn’t confer them some duty to redress it by giving the guy a pass on his immigration status.
I mean I think they should, and I don’t think many here disagree there.
|
On August 26 2025 08:40 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2025 07:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 26 2025 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2025 01:14 LightSpectra wrote:On August 26 2025 00:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2025 00:30 LightSpectra wrote:On August 26 2025 00:16 Sermokala wrote:
Theres a legitimate argument that the immigration system is fundamentally broken because of this situation as a great example.
Garica should be deported under the current laws, the laws also say he can't be deported to the one country that there is a reason to deport them to. The answer isn't to threaten him with deportation to a random African country if he won't take deportation to costa rica in exchange for pleading guilty to a crime. The administration playing with cartoon levels of cruelty to the situation, where they will arrest him again at the meeting he has to go to to avoid being arrested again.
Garica should have a reasonable path to citizenship or at least the ability to stay in the country legally. He should also be treated just like any other person under the law and not get constantly fucked with by an administration thats trying to distract from the most infamous pedophile in history.
Most of the people here illegally are here beacuse the system is broken. Staffing the assylum courts and streamlining the process would be the reasonable moral response to wanting to combat assylum seekers. Random gangs roving the streets looking for brown people are not. Having a shred of empathy or humanity is woke now, sorry. All we have is cruelty and MS Paint. One problem is that Democrats sound like the extreme, divisive, elitist, and obfuscatory, enforcers of wokeness. In an effort to please the few, they have alienated the many. This is especially true on culture issues, where their language sounds superior, haughty and arrogant. They need to stop using words/language like: privilege … violence (as in “environmental violence”) … dialoguing … triggering … othering … microaggression … holding space … body shaming … subverting norms … systems of oppression … cultural appropriation … Overton window … existential threat to [the climate, democracy, economy] … radical transparency … stakeholders … the unhoused … food insecurity … housing insecurity … person who immigrated … birthing person … cisgender … deadnaming … heteronormative … patriarchy … LGBTQIA+ … BIPOC … allyship … incarcerated people... genocide enablers* (thanks Wombat!)... etc...The Democratic Party brand is toxic across the country at this point with way too many people, enough that there’s no way for them to win a governing majority without changing that. That starts with getting rid of all this rhetoric that isn't helping. Much of the language above is a red flag for a sizable segment of the American public. It is not because they are bigots, but because they fear cancellation, doxing, or trouble with HR if they make a mistake. Or they simply don’t understand what these terms mean and become distrustful of those who use them. So instead, they keep quiet. They don’t join the conversation, they leave it. + Show Spoiler +It's not even elected Democrats using most of this terminology the most. It's lingo used in universities and social media that Republicans start using (usually in a willfully misunderstood way). At that point some elected Democrats start defending the terminology because facts are supposed to matter.
Like, the term "woke" was African-American vernacular lingo, Republicans started calling things "woke" as an insult. "DEI" was used in big businesses and universities a million years before Republicans adopted it as the new n-word. GH is basically saying Republicans should control all of the terminology we use because Democrats even discussing it on a meta level is "elitist". Maybe he's going to defend white people saying the n-word next to be more inclusive. Edit: I notice the phrase "alt-right" isn't on his list. Maybe it's because he doesn't want people looking up the origin of that phase. Hint: it wasn't Democrats who coined that one. Seems like a pretty harsh interpretation. We all sure that's fair? You didn't propose nicer-sounding synonyms or alternative terminology that is equally accurate, for us to use when talking to people who apparently need to be treated with kid gloves. If we're getting rid of relevant and useful words because they might offend Republicans, all that would remain is whatever words the Republicans use. It does alienate a lot of people as well, to be fair to GH, and not just people who don’t want to consider their own behaviours. Aside from the innately hostile, I think the other people it pisses off generally wouldn’t mind if they felt their problems were also being addressed. There’s something innately ivory tower, and may I say ‘lame’, or ‘cringe’ about some of it. Ok great youse are having meetings to settle on using the ‘correct’ term of unhoused over homeless now, great you spent energy on that. What have you actually done for the unhoused, is the name change leading them to an improvement in material conditions. Now this doesn’t mean I agree with scrubbing all these various terms from our vernacular either, many are simply the best, most commonly understood words with which to describe various phenomena.
Just to pick a few of the terms on GH's list... the patriarchy refers to an actual thing, whether or not people like it... LGBTQIA+ is a useful acronym to describe certain target demographics... cisgender is also a descriptor (I am cisgender)... I don't even know what's wrong with using the term incarcerated people... these words aren't "innately hostile", as you put it; there are certainly ways you can integrate these terms into a conversation without angrily pointing a finger at the listener.
It's lists like this one, without any additional context or examples of how those terms can be used properly or improperly, that makes people reject the accusation that Democrats / liberals / progressives / the left are all elitist ("ivory tower"). These are real concepts worth discussing, and it's annoying when they get dismissed because one side refuses to engage with words outside of their vocabulary. Not wanting to be ignorant is not the same thing as being a smug academic, and it's absolutely possible to effectively use words on this list.
If the listener gets triggered upset by a certain word (because GH doesn't want us to use triggered anymore, even as Republicans use terms like triggered and snowflakes and other terms that could be considered inflammatory when used in certain contexts), then maybe it's the speaker's fault... or maybe it's the listener's fault. Or maybe they're both at fault or maybe no one's at fault. I've had plenty of successful, innocuous conversations using these terms with people who aren't politically aligned with me. If GH wants to stop using the term Overton window, then he should stop using it (yet he's used it in the past, with no issues as far as I can tell), but that doesn't mean the rest of us should refrain from using it.
I'm also a bit surprised that GH is the one suggesting that the left backs down from doing what both the left and the right do (potentially using inflammatory or alienating language... or, I guess, big words pertaining to controversial issues), given that he's - often accurately - pointed out how the Democrats rarely fight fire with fire, consistently back down, lack a backbone, aren't willing to do what Republicans do, etc.
"I think the other people it pisses off generally wouldn’t mind if they felt their problems were also being addressed."
I see that as a non sequitur; I don't think using the terms in GH's list necessarily means we can't also address problems that other people are facing. If I write one sentence about women being body shamed, that doesn't mean I can't write another sentence about men being shamed for showing emotion. Similarly, I don't mind if someone prefers to use "unhoused over homeless", but GH might care. I agree with you that we should be solving the issues and not just talking about them, but that doesn't become more likely to happen if we ban relevant words.
|
It doesn't matter what lingo you use if Republicans cut taxes for billionaires, cut Medicaid, attack unions, attack voting rights, etc. and then call Democrats "elitists" and get away with it. Everything else is peripheral as long as they get away with that complete bullshit.
|
On August 26 2025 08:49 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2025 07:36 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2025 07:32 Gorsameth wrote:On August 26 2025 07:04 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2025 06:42 Gorsameth wrote:On August 26 2025 06:33 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2025 04:42 Introvert wrote:
Do you read your own sources? That quote says right there that the law allows them to be deported to a third country. But you are finally getting closer. The surpeme court order was about procedural objections that might be raised. The law was always there. No, the quote doesn't say that. It says literally that this is not permissible unless specific conditions are met. Those conditions weren't met for Garcia. Third-country removals are burdensome for the affected noncitizen, so Congress has sharply limited their use. They are permissible only after the Government tries each and every alternative noted in the statute, and determines they are all “impracticable, inadvisable, or impossible.” And what are those alternatives noted in the statute? I don't know, I'm not a legal expert or anything. It was reported that there was no due process before his deportation. That alone makes it wrongful. He couldn't be deported under that circumstance, and they called it an "administrative error". Of course it wasn't an error, but they call it that to cover their asses. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-el-salvador-prison-father-maryland-deported-b2728899.htmlNow the story gets worse again. Garcia is back in US government custody. His lawyers describe the whole situation as "vindictive prosecution". https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/abrego-garcia-detained-again-uganda-1.7616850 His deportation was unlawful and deeply wrong. he is being vindictively prosecuted. None of those things are what people are questioning you about. You keep saying its illegal to now deport him, You link a statement saying he can't be deported now to a 3e country unless a series of listed alternatives are considered. So I ask the very natural follow up, what are those alternatives. If you don't know that list, and don't know if the government has reasonably considered them impractical or impossible, how can you say he cannot now be legally deported to a 3e country? Again we are not talking about the moral or ethical question of if he should be deported. But whether he legally can be. I didn't say anything about now. But if you're asking: I think deporting him now would be wrongful for the same reason it was wrongful before. What has changed? Nothing has changed. There must be due process. That's all. That being said, I think since the situation has changed, because Garcia has been treated like literal dirt for so long by the US, in my opinion the only ethical choice now would be to allow him to stay in the country permanently. How long exactly or under what conditions I don't know, but the offer should be made and all charges dropped. That still doesn’t mean that legally he can’t be deported to a country other than El Salvador, legally though. Most of the thread don’t think that should be the case morally or ethically, but it’s totally legal no? Let’s say conditions in a prison were not up to a base legal standard. That sucks, the state should compensate prisoners, but equally just because their conditions sucked for a bit, you wouldn’t necessarily just free them because well, past transgressions of the state. The state has clearly fucked up in this case, but that doesn’t confer them some duty to redress it by giving the guy a pass on his immigration status. I mean I think they should, and I don’t think many here disagree there.
No, Garcia can't be legally deported to a third country until due process is followed. Due process still hasn't happened.
Currently they're just resorting to making him random offers and skipping the whole rest of the process (and that's ignoring the fact that now they shouldn't even have the right to continue with the deportation process because they fucked it up so bad that he has a case against them. But I digress).
And initially before his abduction they failed to gave him notice or an opportunity to object, making deportation entirely wrongful. Deportation can only come after the legal process, which they skipped entirely.
It was illegal before and it's again illegal now.
|
United States42861 Posts
No part of that is the process MP. That's just what you imagine the process ought to be.
|
On August 26 2025 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2025 01:14 LightSpectra wrote:On August 26 2025 00:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2025 00:30 LightSpectra wrote:On August 26 2025 00:16 Sermokala wrote:
Theres a legitimate argument that the immigration system is fundamentally broken because of this situation as a great example.
Garica should be deported under the current laws, the laws also say he can't be deported to the one country that there is a reason to deport them to. The answer isn't to threaten him with deportation to a random African country if he won't take deportation to costa rica in exchange for pleading guilty to a crime. The administration playing with cartoon levels of cruelty to the situation, where they will arrest him again at the meeting he has to go to to avoid being arrested again.
Garica should have a reasonable path to citizenship or at least the ability to stay in the country legally. He should also be treated just like any other person under the law and not get constantly fucked with by an administration thats trying to distract from the most infamous pedophile in history.
Most of the people here illegally are here beacuse the system is broken. Staffing the assylum courts and streamlining the process would be the reasonable moral response to wanting to combat assylum seekers. Random gangs roving the streets looking for brown people are not. Having a shred of empathy or humanity is woke now, sorry. All we have is cruelty and MS Paint. One problem is that Democrats sound like the extreme, divisive, elitist, and obfuscatory, enforcers of wokeness. In an effort to please the few, they have alienated the many. This is especially true on culture issues, where their language sounds superior, haughty and arrogant. They need to stop using words/language like: privilege … violence (as in “environmental violence”) … dialoguing … triggering … othering … microaggression … holding space … body shaming … subverting norms … systems of oppression … cultural appropriation … Overton window … existential threat to [the climate, democracy, economy] … radical transparency … stakeholders … the unhoused … food insecurity … housing insecurity … person who immigrated … birthing person … cisgender … deadnaming … heteronormative … patriarchy … LGBTQIA+ … BIPOC … allyship … incarcerated people... genocide enablers* (thanks Wombat!)... etc...The Democratic Party brand is toxic across the country at this point with way too many people, enough that there’s no way for them to win a governing majority without changing that. That starts with getting rid of all this rhetoric that isn't helping. Much of the language above is a red flag for a sizable segment of the American public. It is not because they are bigots, but because they fear cancellation, doxing, or trouble with HR if they make a mistake. Or they simply don’t understand what these terms mean and become distrustful of those who use them. So instead, they keep quiet. They don’t join the conversation, they leave it. + Show Spoiler +It's not even elected Democrats using most of this terminology the most. It's lingo used in universities and social media that Republicans start using (usually in a willfully misunderstood way). At that point some elected Democrats start defending the terminology because facts are supposed to matter.
Like, the term "woke" was African-American vernacular lingo, Republicans started calling things "woke" as an insult. "DEI" was used in big businesses and universities a million years before Republicans adopted it as the new n-word. GH is basically saying Republicans should control all of the terminology we use because Democrats even discussing it on a meta level is "elitist". Maybe he's going to defend white people saying the n-word next to be more inclusive. Edit: I notice the phrase "alt-right" isn't on his list. Maybe it's because he doesn't want people looking up the origin of that phase. Hint: it wasn't Democrats who coined that one. Seems like a pretty harsh interpretation. We all sure that's fair?
Returning to this: play stupid games, win stupid prizes. You cannot be serious with your list of arbitrary words the left should stop using for fear of triggering some snowflakes. But don't worry, I came up with a paragraph that has none of the words you apparently so fear. I'm sure you'll appreciate it!
In fact, what the left should do is just stop being leftist at all: the communists are a problem, because we all know they'll welcome more and more illegal immigrants into sanctuary cities. Socialism has never succeeded and states' rights are the only way to ensure maximum freedom from Washington bureaucrats! If you disagree, you must be on George Soros’ payroll, grooming our children for your pizza parties — or maybe you’re a welfare queen feasting on lobster at the taxpayer’s expense. Progressives protect criminals, attack cops, tear down statues, and smear patriots as terrorists. They scream “equity” while silencing dissent, canceling anyone who won’t bend the knee. So as I said, the left should stop being leftist at all, we'd all be freer for it!
|
On August 26 2025 15:50 KwarK wrote:
No part of that is the process MP. That's just what you imagine the process ought to be.
Ok KwarK's one-liner, I got it. Thank you for coming in, enjoy your stay. See you next time maybe.
|
Russian Federation164 Posts
On August 26 2025 16:00 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2025 15:50 KwarK wrote:
No part of that is the process MP. That's just what you imagine the process ought to be. Ok KwarK's one-liner, I got it. Thank you for coming in, enjoy your stay. See you next time maybe.
That was my line in a neighboring thread
|
On August 26 2025 15:59 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2025 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2025 01:14 LightSpectra wrote:On August 26 2025 00:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2025 00:30 LightSpectra wrote:On August 26 2025 00:16 Sermokala wrote:
Theres a legitimate argument that the immigration system is fundamentally broken because of this situation as a great example.
Garica should be deported under the current laws, the laws also say he can't be deported to the one country that there is a reason to deport them to. The answer isn't to threaten him with deportation to a random African country if he won't take deportation to costa rica in exchange for pleading guilty to a crime. The administration playing with cartoon levels of cruelty to the situation, where they will arrest him again at the meeting he has to go to to avoid being arrested again.
Garica should have a reasonable path to citizenship or at least the ability to stay in the country legally. He should also be treated just like any other person under the law and not get constantly fucked with by an administration thats trying to distract from the most infamous pedophile in history.
Most of the people here illegally are here beacuse the system is broken. Staffing the assylum courts and streamlining the process would be the reasonable moral response to wanting to combat assylum seekers. Random gangs roving the streets looking for brown people are not. Having a shred of empathy or humanity is woke now, sorry. All we have is cruelty and MS Paint. One problem is that Democrats sound like the extreme, divisive, elitist, and obfuscatory, enforcers of wokeness. In an effort to please the few, they have alienated the many. This is especially true on culture issues, where their language sounds superior, haughty and arrogant. They need to stop using words/language like: privilege … violence (as in “environmental violence”) … dialoguing … triggering … othering … microaggression … holding space … body shaming … subverting norms … systems of oppression … cultural appropriation … Overton window … existential threat to [the climate, democracy, economy] … radical transparency … stakeholders … the unhoused … food insecurity … housing insecurity … person who immigrated … birthing person … cisgender … deadnaming … heteronormative … patriarchy … LGBTQIA+ … BIPOC … allyship … incarcerated people... genocide enablers* (thanks Wombat!)... etc...The Democratic Party brand is toxic across the country at this point with way too many people, enough that there’s no way for them to win a governing majority without changing that. That starts with getting rid of all this rhetoric that isn't helping. Much of the language above is a red flag for a sizable segment of the American public. It is not because they are bigots, but because they fear cancellation, doxing, or trouble with HR if they make a mistake. Or they simply don’t understand what these terms mean and become distrustful of those who use them. So instead, they keep quiet. They don’t join the conversation, they leave it. + Show Spoiler +It's not even elected Democrats using most of this terminology the most. It's lingo used in universities and social media that Republicans start using (usually in a willfully misunderstood way). At that point some elected Democrats start defending the terminology because facts are supposed to matter.
Like, the term "woke" was African-American vernacular lingo, Republicans started calling things "woke" as an insult. "DEI" was used in big businesses and universities a million years before Republicans adopted it as the new n-word. GH is basically saying Republicans should control all of the terminology we use because Democrats even discussing it on a meta level is "elitist". Maybe he's going to defend white people saying the n-word next to be more inclusive. Edit: I notice the phrase "alt-right" isn't on his list. Maybe it's because he doesn't want people looking up the origin of that phase. Hint: it wasn't Democrats who coined that one. Seems like a pretty harsh interpretation. We all sure that's fair? Returning to this: play stupid games, win stupid prizes. You cannot be serious with your list of arbitrary words the left should stop using for fear of triggering some snowflakes. But don't worry, I came up with a paragraph that has none of the words you apparently so fear. I'm sure you'll appreciate it! In fact, what the left should do is just stop being leftist at all: the communists are a problem, because we all know they'll welcome more and more illegal immigrants into sanctuary cities. Socialism has never succeeded and states' rights are the only way to ensure maximum freedom from Washington bureaucrats! If you disagree, you must be on George Soros’ payroll, grooming our children for your pizza parties — or maybe you’re a welfare queen feasting on lobster at the taxpayer’s expense. Progressives protect criminals, attack cops, tear down statues, and smear patriots as terrorists. They scream “equity” while silencing dissent, canceling anyone who won’t bend the knee. So as I said, the left should stop being leftist at all, we'd all be freer for it!
What a brave and patriotic thing to write! Too bad it won't affect GH because he's just a coastal elite looking down at the "flyover country" states as he jet-sets across them, he spends most of his time virtue signaling and being a soy boy who's main objective in life is winning the war on Christmas.
|
Tbh I have no idea whether or not GH actually means any of that. It feels like a copy pasta. It seems like the type of comment someone would write immediately after getting up in the morning - and then they delete it before posting. But GH pressed send instead. That's how it feels.
|
As I mentioned in my post before the last, it's like a screed from a scorned lover, he didn't care what the substance of the argument was, he posted it because it was anti-Democrat, Jimmy Dore type shit.
Edit:
Found it:
It's from: "the center-left think tank Third Way is circulating a list of 45 words and phrases they want Democrats to avoid using
From wiki:
It is described as a centrist think tank for moderate Democrats,[5] while critics see it as neoliberal[6] and “the turning point in which… parties abandoned their traditional tenets and working-class constituencies in favor of… Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.”
There we go, GH is aligning himself with guys like Clinton and Tony Blair, critics would even say Regan and Tacher just so he can post something that "owns the Dems".
Whew buddy.
|
On August 26 2025 08:49 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2025 07:36 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2025 07:32 Gorsameth wrote:On August 26 2025 07:04 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2025 06:42 Gorsameth wrote:On August 26 2025 06:33 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2025 04:42 Introvert wrote:
Do you read your own sources? That quote says right there that the law allows them to be deported to a third country. But you are finally getting closer. The surpeme court order was about procedural objections that might be raised. The law was always there. No, the quote doesn't say that. It says literally that this is not permissible unless specific conditions are met. Those conditions weren't met for Garcia. Third-country removals are burdensome for the affected noncitizen, so Congress has sharply limited their use. They are permissible only after the Government tries each and every alternative noted in the statute, and determines they are all “impracticable, inadvisable, or impossible.” And what are those alternatives noted in the statute? I don't know, I'm not a legal expert or anything. It was reported that there was no due process before his deportation. That alone makes it wrongful. He couldn't be deported under that circumstance, and they called it an "administrative error". Of course it wasn't an error, but they call it that to cover their asses. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-el-salvador-prison-father-maryland-deported-b2728899.htmlNow the story gets worse again. Garcia is back in US government custody. His lawyers describe the whole situation as "vindictive prosecution". https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/abrego-garcia-detained-again-uganda-1.7616850 His deportation was unlawful and deeply wrong. he is being vindictively prosecuted. None of those things are what people are questioning you about. You keep saying its illegal to now deport him, You link a statement saying he can't be deported now to a 3e country unless a series of listed alternatives are considered. So I ask the very natural follow up, what are those alternatives. If you don't know that list, and don't know if the government has reasonably considered them impractical or impossible, how can you say he cannot now be legally deported to a 3e country? Again we are not talking about the moral or ethical question of if he should be deported. But whether he legally can be. I didn't say anything about now. But if you're asking: I think deporting him now would be wrongful for the same reason it was wrongful before. What has changed? Nothing has changed. There must be due process. That's all. That being said, I think since the situation has changed, because Garcia has been treated like literal dirt for so long by the US, in my opinion the only ethical choice now would be to allow him to stay in the country permanently. How long exactly or under what conditions I don't know, but the offer should be made and all charges dropped. That still doesn’t mean that legally he can’t be deported to a country other than El Salvador, legally though. Most of the thread don’t think that should be the case morally or ethically, but it’s totally legal no? Let’s say conditions in a prison were not up to a base legal standard. That sucks, the state should compensate prisoners, but equally just because their conditions sucked for a bit, you wouldn’t necessarily just free them because well, past transgressions of the state. The state has clearly fucked up in this case, but that doesn’t confer them some duty to redress it by giving the guy a pass on his immigration status. I mean I think they should, and I don’t think many here disagree there.
Yeah you could potentially make the argument but on principle it's not there, like if you had a double murderer in state prison and he got beaten up by a gang, you wouldn't set him free. You would maybe let him sue to say the state failed in its obligations with him in their custody.
On August 26 2025 09:48 LightSpectra wrote:
It doesn't matter what lingo you use if Republicans cut taxes for billionaires, cut Medicaid, attack unions, attack voting rights, etc. and then call Democrats "elitists" and get away with it. Everything else is peripheral as long as they get away with that complete bullshit.
Medicaid was maxxed out during the beginning of the covid epidemic. Which is fine but again people can't use a global pandemic as an excuse to shoehorn this and that into every aspect of society forever just because they want socialized medicine or whatever it may be. The "cuts" now are weaning people off that expansion which was never meant to be permanent, and also cutting millions that are double dipping, or have redundant plans, like people who have healthcare.gov plans from the ACA exchange and got on medicaid, or people who are on CHIP and medicaid, or also in blue states illegal immigrants losing coverage that we were assured they couldn't possibly have had.
|
On August 26 2025 16:46 Jankisa wrote:As I mentioned in my post before the last, it's like a screed from a scorned lover, he didn't care what the substance of the argument was, he posted it because it was anti-Democrat, Jimmy Dore type shit. Edit: Found it: It's from: "the center-left think tank Third Way is circulating a list of 45 words and phrases they want Democrats to avoid usingFrom wiki: Show nested quote +It is described as a centrist think tank for moderate Democrats,[5] while critics see it as neoliberal[6] and “the turning point in which… parties abandoned their traditional tenets and working-class constituencies in favor of… Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.” There we go, GH is aligning himself with guys like Clinton and Tony Blair, critics would even say Regan and Tacher just so he can post something that "owns the Dems". Whew buddy.
I'm waiting for the "oops, I got my personalities mixed up" excuse from GH.
|
On August 26 2025 05:34 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2025 04:25 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2025 01:49 KwarK wrote:On August 26 2025 00:27 Magic Powers wrote:
The US cannot just send people to random places in the world. No. That's a complete misrepresentation of these cases where it can happen. It's not as simple as "we'll send you there, we don't wanna hear anything, end of debate". No. The US is sovereign within its borders. It literally can. Alright, I finally figured out why this debate has been so frustrating. Firstly, I just learned that deportation law was changed only two months ago by the Supreme Court. I had no idea that this happened, and no one else here brought this up either. So I think I can safely assume that no one here knew that the law used to be different and was changed. That explains why I understood deportation law differently, because I was working with the previous framework. The Supreme Court on Monday granted President Donald Trump’s emergency request to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their homeland, including places like South Sudan, with minimal notice. https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/23/politics/supreme-court-migrants-south-sudan-turmoil-filled-countriesCNN cites from a document detailing the changes to deportation law and examples of the abuse of deportation law (already prior to the recent change). Federal law generally permits the Government to deport noncitizens found to be unlawfully in the United States only to countries with which they have a meaningful connection. 8 U. S. C. §1231(b). To that end, Congress specified two default options: noncitizens arrested while entering the country must be returned to the country from which they arrived, and nearly everyone else may designate a country of choice. §§1231(b)(1)(A), (b)(2)(A). If these options prove infeasible, Congress specified which possibilities the Executive should attempt next. These alternatives include the noncitizen’s country of citizenship or her former country of residence. §§1231(b)(1)(C), (2)(E). This case concerns the Government’s ability to conduct what is known as a “third country removal,” meaning a removal to any “country with a government that will accept the alien.” §1231(b)(1)(C)(iv); see §1231(b)(2)(E)(vii). Third-country removals are burdensome for the affected noncitizen, so Congress has sharply limited their use. They are permissible only after the Government tries each and every alternative noted in the statute, and determines they are all “impracticable, inadvisable, or impossible.” §§1231(b)(1)(C)(iv), (2)(E)(vii). Noncitizens facing removal of any sort are entitled under international and domestic law to raise a claim under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, S.Treaty Doc. No. 100–20, 1465 U. N. T. S. 113. Article 3 of the Convention prohibits returning any person “to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.” If you read further, you'll see how people have been mistreated already under the previous law and it's only gotten worse since the recent changes. JOKE COUNTRY. Nuff said. + Show Spoiler +Can you guess how I found this CNN article and the legal document it links to? That's right, ChatGPT. Glad you learned how to use ChatGPT correctly As for the article: pretty sure Trump, and our resident conservatives, are arguing that §1231(b)(1)(C)(iv) is what applies to Kilmar Abrego Garcia, and they can therefore report him to Costa Rica or Uganda. That law isn't new. It has hardly ever been used, but that doesn't mean it isn't legal that Trump uses it. It's untrod ground and it'll take someone far more versed in US law to convince me either way. Maybe farv wants to take a stab at it, but he's probably wiser than that As to whether it's ethical? Absolutely nothing about this travesty has been ethical. Sermokala voiced it very well. But Introvert is cleverly staying away from that question. His position appears to be that the US has and should have an absolute right to evict any non-citizens, regardless of what they contribute to the country, and that the law supports that. Inasfar as I have read anything of a moral judgement of the whole situation from him, it's that you have to break some eggs to make an omelette. Obviously, I disagree with him, but he definitely seems to know the law of his country better than you did (until this last post).
My wizened opinion as an attorney is that US immigration law is a terrible mess and I feel for anyone who must deal with it. More broadly speaking, this goes to the heart of why Trump’s strategy has been so effective this term. Apart from a few incredibly narrow limits set by stuff like the tort of malicious prosecution, huge swaths of US law have been de facto applied according to squishy norms that don’t truly restrain those who decide to enforce them. Immigration law is a great example, as are the rules governing tariffs, federal employment, and many other pressure points Trump’s admin is honing in on. That’s no coincidence.
|
On August 26 2025 20:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2025 16:46 Jankisa wrote:As I mentioned in my post before the last, it's like a screed from a scorned lover, he didn't care what the substance of the argument was, he posted it because it was anti-Democrat, Jimmy Dore type shit. Edit: Found it: It's from: "the center-left think tank Third Way is circulating a list of 45 words and phrases they want Democrats to avoid usingFrom wiki: It is described as a centrist think tank for moderate Democrats,[5] while critics see it as neoliberal[6] and “the turning point in which… parties abandoned their traditional tenets and working-class constituencies in favor of… Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.” There we go, GH is aligning himself with guys like Clinton and Tony Blair, critics would even say Regan and Tacher just so he can post something that "owns the Dems". Whew buddy. I'm waiting for the "oops, I got my personalities mixed up" excuse from GH.
Probably some mangled accusation of hypocrisy that we hate centrism but only when a progressive expresses it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
