Notably, they haven't been "disappearing" people in the manner that would have to be happening here. Even the most egregious cases, which are very bad, have left a paper trail for lawyers and journalists to follow. This case is notable because no one seems to know where this man has gone.
But yes, point taken: the extrajudicial actions of ICE recently are absolutely not helping people stay calm in the face of something like this.
How can you be confident in this? Is it possible that you are saying this because the only cases we know about are when they have happened to leave "a paper trail for lawyers and journalists to follow"?
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/lawyers-advocates-say-48...
Again: still bad, still inexcusable, but not the same thing as what would have to be happening here.
Illegal immigrants aren’t “undocumented.” They are present in America without the consent of the American people, as expressed in immigration law.
FWIW that pattern of behavior has little to do with "being a progressive" and instead reflects the cultural norm. I'd even go so far as to posit that "progressives" are more likely to point out that, no, there's really not "a racist" but a person can hold a lot of extremely racist beliefs - the same way btw as there's really not "a progressive" but a person can hold a lot of progressive beliefs. A system can be "racist" in that it can be built on and to uphold racist attitudes or beliefs but a person can't be "racist" because racism isn't an intrinsic and immutable characteristic (neither is "progressive", "Catholic", "criminal" or "Republican", to name a few examples explicitly).
But precisely because you can't actually be "a progressive" but merely hold some progressive beliefs and opinions a lot of "progressives" uphold the same harmfully essentialist views as "non-progressives" who balk at being called out for racist opinions, views or actions by insisting "I'm not racist" regardless of whether the accusation is "you're a racist" or "you said/did something racist".
"Felon" is an obviously silly example as it's just a more specific form of "convict", i.e. someone convicted of a felony crime. It's often used in an essentialist way (but of course selectively so) but the more obvious example would be "criminal" because it is often used in a way that suggests an intrinsic essence of "criminality" even in the absence of sufficient evidence to make a legal case that would result in a conviction - or even the presence of an arguable crime at all. "Criminal" is thus distinct from "convict" in that a conviction is neither necessary nor sufficient for that label to be applied.
Back when I was a libertarian they were pretty big on this argument, not progressives, as libertarians were the open borders people and progressives were off on some other cause.
As you acknowledge, the term embeds within it the premise that “the lack of enforcement of the law is also a kind of consent.” That is, illegal immigrants have America’s consent to be present in the country, because the government doesn’t try to hard to deport them. You can make that argument, but almost nobody would agree with your premise. So the term is smuggling an implicit premise that almost nobody would agree with if the premise were stated clearly (as you have done here).
In 90% of cases somebody did. Somebody at the border talked to them. Somebody checked their passport or their documentation (at the border). So many "undocumented immigrants" are people who overstayed their visas, like Elon did.
They literally were documented but then they didn't keep up with the paperwork and thus became undocumented.
"Doccumented" status *is* literally just a case of keeping up with the paperwork.
Some people do sneak in but the *vast majority* come through legal ports of entry
"The allegations are undocumented."
In the context of immigration, one could say "she claims to face persecution in her country of origin, but this is undocumented."
That doesn't really apply to "undocumented immigrants," because it's usually not in doubt someone is an immigrant.
If their place of birth is unknown, and might be in the United States, you could use the phrase "undocumented immigrant."
I agree it's a propaganda phrase, and does not conform to clear English usage.
But "undocumented" does not mean something is sanctioned, it means it must be proven and has not been proven.
They were then detained for days rather then be allowed to exit the country.
Assuming they're not in a biometric database and from a non cooperative country like Venezuela.
Source?
> How do we know it was the US government
We don't but its 100000x easier for the US government to disappear someone on US soil than it is for China to disappear someone on US soil.
I've heard of CCP affiliated Chinese nationals who essentially act as CCP police on foreign soil and force nationals to return to China.
The "CCP Police on foreign soil" aren't extracting people from the West so they can avoid persecution from the West. They're pressuring Chinese citizens to go back to China to face punishment for crimes China thinks they committed.
By the way, before you get yourself all worked up, I think the much more likely possibility is that he has disappeared for a mundane reason, such as murder, or else he has deliberately disappeared himself for some reason.
Y'all read "CCP Police stations" and your imaginations started going wild. There is no evidence nor is there even an accusation that these "police" stations are used to kidnap US citizens.
> You added the part about exfiltration
.... bro how are they going to coerce someone to leave the country "willingly" if the FBI is looking for that person? His passport is obviously going to get flagged.
And if your answer is "get him a fake passport" then congratulations, you just described exfiltration.
Spies do flee countries. People do get disappeared. The idea that China has a presence on US soil helping criminals evade the FBI is a *conspiracy theory*.
A bureau spokesperson issued a statement: “I can confirm we conducted court-authorized activity at the address in Carmel today.
Believe everyone can put together the type of events that cause sudden behavior changes like that. (Hint: money offers or family threats)
I don't know what motivated this guy's disappearance but you don't get quietly fired, scrubbed from public association and have the FBI raid your apartment when you're a victim of abduction. We know some sort of federal crime took place to justify the raid so my guess is the guy is not an abductee but a fugitive.
I am not saying that definitely happened, but it's a narrative which more or less fits the facts.
This is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance and is also asking someone else to prove nonexistence of a situation. Both of these are inappropriate in a good faith discussion and I believe it would benefit you to consider how you reason about these situations if you want to come to well founded conclusions.
If you have evidence, or even plausible speculation as to the government "disappearing people" you should present it here so we can all understand and respond to this, as it is extremely important. If you are just assuming that the government 'must be' disappearing people, without any evidence or even a plausible theory which you can share then you are just being hysterical.
2) There are numerous cases of the current administration using its discretionary powers to enact its desired policies in ways that violate norms and are quite probably illegal.
3) The administration actively circumventing record-keeping requirements, likely in an attempt to avoid detection of illegal actions.
The federal government is unbelievably powerful. Because of the jobs it is expected to do, it must maintain capabilities to do many terrifying things. For that reason, the government does not get the presumption of innocence. It has to be able to prove exactly what it was up to, and where its resources are being spent.
The reason there are so many tedious and wasteful rule-making and record-keeping and due-process requirements is exactly because it would be trivial otherwise to do things like disappear law-abiding citizens off the street and cover it up.
So when someone says "I want do do crimes A, B, and C", and then you discover that they have in fact done crimes B and C, and taken steps to conceal the potential commission of crime A, it isn't a fallacy to infer that they may have committed crime A.
If we see more cases like this one of someone disappearing without a trace and their disappearance getting documented but not explained, I'll accept this one as evidence to fuel future speculation. Until then, speculation used to fuel speculation is a dangerous path.
EDIT: Apparently my reference to conspiracy theories is pushing buttons? Unfortunately this is literally true: the logic of the conspiracy theorist builds upon itself, with as minimal reference to exterior circumstances as possible. The lizard people did it. How do we know? Because they did it before!
If we want to be different from conspiracy theorists, we need to cultivate an insistence on reasoning from documented facts, rather than building elaborate towers out of theories alone.
Better said: We have no evidence that they have been disappearing people in this manner. We also, clearly, have a large body of people who are on guard for any such possible evidence, so I would reasonably expect that if it were happening with any kind of regularity we would have seen it by now. There's a possibility that this is instance #1 and we see repeats. If we do see repeats, I will happily engage in speculation that this is a pattern and the government may in fact be disappearing people.
Until then, the known facts don't match a government disappearing program as well as they match other possible explanations.
Isn't it evidence of "disappearings" that we know many people were transported to a prison in El Salvador but nobody knows who those people in fact are?
As far as I've seen from the press the government hasn't released any documentation about who they flew to El Salvador. Or have they?
If that is true then isn't it also true that this scientist in question might as well be in that Salvadorean prison, as far as we know?
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69741724/1/jgg-v-trump/
It was only in retrospect that we learned the true horror of the Holocaust.
Given that period of history, and how it brought the world to the brink, any patterning closely similar to that (which we are seeing today) these things should be considered happening until it can be proven otherwise.
Complacency and a lack of accountability in the moment is how these things happen, and turn good people to sloth.
Saying "Trust us", just isn't going to cut it given the existing state of no credibility that is a consequence of over a half century of bad acting and abuse of authority, and the trusted news initiative (which is not trustable).
There are plenty of things that they're doing that are documented that are evil. There's no need to waste energy and credibility speculating about things that aren't yet understood or documented, unless you personally have the means to investigate Wang's disappearance and shed light on what happened.
I can think of plenty of examples of shady things various official bodies in the US have done within the past century, but regular occurrences of "extrajudicial kidnapping without a paper trail" isn't one of them.
If you go through proper channels and leave a paper trail then regardless of whether or not you agree with what's been done it can't reasonably said to be "disappearing" someone.
Or, threatening to annex Canada and parts of Europe. Or, opening damm because there is fire in a place where water does not go.
Something not happening in the past is not a reason for it to not happen again.
Decision-making, and its related presumptions change when the threat becomes existential.
Deceivers with resources who abuse the public trust and its presumptions towards individuals, take advantage of societies understanding, towards destructive ends, and continue doing so regardless. They corrupt the systems meant to protect and keep destructive outcome dynamics in check usually for personal or political benefit.
The entities are not entitled to the same benefit of the doubt when they have a history of malfeasance, and lack of credibility.
This is true of anti-trust, government corruption, and government in general when you consider the many other things like Tuskegee, or what happened to the Inuit women who were involuntarily sterilized following eugenics programs in the late 60s early 70s, along with other indigenous peoples under the guise of beneficial programs promoting public health.
You can see just how well fines do in curbing corruption like JPM's silver manipulation over a decade, or Egg price fixing over the past 10 years, or medical equipment providers who have defects that kill patients, and then claim they fix them falsely (in bad faith).
There is a point where you cannot presume innocence, especially with regards to non-person entities (like corporations), who will pay the fine and continue business as usual passing the cost on.
Eventually you hit a critical saturation point where the presumption and benefit of the doubt must necessarily flip.
When related systems break enough, there is a point where people realize the rule of law has failed, and consider alternatives like the brass verdict, and act on it.
These are not good things, but they happen when the dynamics to correct fail as a whole. When people start objectively finding foundational violations, it becomes and is a societal existential threat and should be treated as such.
Failure to react from that point forward then becomes opting out of continued survival, which is well beyond any considered point of absurdity.
Evil is blind to the natural destructive consequences it creates, and sometimes evil needs killing just as it did with the Nazi's.
When the rule of law can no longer fulfill the obligations under social contract, and act as a non-violent conflict resolution, the alternative is natural law and chaos, and it is something that no good person would wish on anyone.
It's one thing to not trust some entity and say they do bad things a lot, or to assume they're being evil in certain areas where they have established motives and patterns.
It's quite another to be so general about it that if a single person flippantly accuses them of basically anything you start off believing it. That's going too far and leads to some ridiculous early conclusions.
There is no issue of people projecting bad intention into conservatives or Trump. There is opposite issue - people excusing them forever with increasingly implausible explanations.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guant%C3%A1namo_Bay_files_leak
There is this design process called the separation of objectionable concerns, where the task roles are designed to promote complacency through information control, the Stasi perfected it, and its used everywhere today in sensitive positions.
The most objectionable and risk related roles and tasks will be assigned to the fewest number of people with no one else being the wiser.
All other roles involved are narrowly tailored towards specific parts supporting the whole without any knowledge of doing so.
A murky transfer to a foreign prison makes for a very plausible disappearance. This is how these things are done historically, and social media is heavily controlled.
It could easily happen given what happened with regards to China and the Uyghur population.
I doubt it. The original Holocaust denier was FDR. He didn't want Nazi attrocities to distract from the war effort.
If your main enemy is willing to participate in the coverup, that's a problem.
We regularly forget about the horrific prison camps and racial policies of North Korean, because we're more worried about them having nuclear weapons.
Same with religious persecution in Iran. If we can make a deal that keeps Iran and North Korea out of the nuclear club, and confined to their borders, it's best not to let their purely domestic attrocities get in the way.
If Hitler hadn't invaded Poland, what would have happened to German/Austrian Jews?
Why are we talking in hypotheticals when it literally is happening today?
All the saber rattling doesn't mean you were correct in implying there is no holocaust going on
I said the opposite, there are literally multiple genocides going on. They make a fair bit of noise. There is lots of evidence of them if you care to look. They all have well sourced Wikipedia pages.
It isn't possible to wipe out a people and not have others quickly notice what is going on.
"Berlin Radio broadcast the mass-execution of Jews in Bialystok and the burning of synagogues in July 1941"
> It was only in retrospect that we learned the true horror of the Holocaust.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/how-the-world-discovered-the-n...
The full scale wasn't known but there was enough evidence something was going on.
I'm really not seeing much similarity between that period of history and this period. Godwin's law is probably more applicable.
Unemployment ~30%, inflation/stagflation, and German industry being co-opted by multinational corporations laying people off. > Then US Unemployment 1 in 4 out of work, co-opted by corporations, laying people off and price fixing basic goods and services.
Reichstag Fire Attack blamed on the Communists. > January 6th followed by Assassination Attempt at a Rally; blamed on the left/communist/marxist and calling out Harris as being Marxist in the debates.
Hitler extolling the virtues of Hitler Youth for hours publicly. > US State of the Union address covering the Honorary SS agent, DJ Daniel, doing the same.
Propaganda Ministry by Reich Press Chamber. > Trusted News Initiative. "The sharing of bias and false news has become all too common on social media...." [Sinclair/Deadspin, 200 channels verbatim]
People disappearing, detained, moved, or killed residents (SS) > Unidentified Agents detaining people with video coverage (Tufts Student), Prisoners being flown elsewhere (El Salvador), residents being killed by police, etc (George Floyd + too many others).
Channeling Popular Anxieties and stoking fear of a communist uprising to eradicate civil liberties, and democracy. > Same
These are just a few. Its quite concerning how it looks like a failed subversion/communist takeover leads to the dynamics allowing fascism. People can't seem to agree on a set objective measure of when have they crossed the line too far, when they cross the line continually.
Its greatly concerning.
And some of the things you're listing are similar in scale while others are orders of magnitude different. A giant list like that is a mess.
SGS, Shadow Government Stats.
Their estimates include the "long-term discouraged worker" which was officially defined out of existence in 1994, which was coupled with the short-term discouraged worker (U6) from BLS to get a real unemployment rate.
https://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-char...
Its followed reality far closer than the watered down stats and methodology the politician's have been using over the last two decades. Especially during 2008, and they don't break it down by industry. Tech right now and going back two years is being displaced massively with no metrics for optics.
I agree, lists are horrible on HN.
Overall labor force participation seems fine. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/US_Labor...
And labor force participation is only down, what, 4% from 2000? Why does that correspond to a 14% increase in unemployment?
The alternative to no work is starving, and there are people where they have been starving and unable to find any gainful employment for years. The most common excuse is being overqualified.
I've a friend who was laid off about a year ago, more experienced than I in SRE, and has had no job offers and he's applied to everything available in and outside Tech.
You got signs everywhere saying "We're hiring", and force you to do a 1-2 hour LeetCode Interview or some other BS, and then within 20 minutes after completing it he'll get an automated reply through the portal saying they've gone with another candidate; they won't take the sign down though, and when he went in person they say "You're just too overqualified", or better yet "Not a good culture fit [pre-interview smacking of ageism]. There are also tax subsidies for businesses to hire discouraged workers, still it seems like no ones doing it.
You've got most places that say they need help when in fact they aren't hiring at all. If anything there are far more people who are not counted than those on just the U6. I wouldn't agree 1:1 shouldn't count.
> It was only in retrospect that we learned the true horror of the Holocaust.
If you think the Holocaust was just what happened in the gas chambers, I'm afraid you haven't learned the true horror of the Holocaust either.
Approximately 2.7 million Jews[0] were killed in the death camps as part of the so-called Final Solution between 1941 and 1945.
This was preceded by the so-called Euthanasia[1] campaign, which killed approximately 300,000 people deemed "life undignified for life" (mostly people with disabilities) - although the exact numbers weren't known to the public at the time, the program became so widely known following a proclamation against it by the Holy See (after Catholic authorities in Germany generally supported it) that there were actual protests agianst it in Germany.
The total number of people killed by the Nazis between 1933 and 1945 in what were later considered crimes against humanity - excluding those who died from conflict, disease, etc (i.e. from WW2 or its circumstances/effects) - is approximately 17 million[2] - more than six times the number of Jews killed in the death camps alone. Of those, 6 million were Jews: 2.7 million in the death camps, about half that many additionally included among the Soviet Citizens and POWs and another 2 million non-Soviet Jews killed outside the death camps.
Note that this number doesn't include civilian victims of the war - the Nazis specifically went out of their way to carry out mass executions in Poland and elsewhere. Many of these were carried out by the Reserve Police[3], often voluntarily with no threat or punishment for refusal other than mild disciplinary action (e.g. latrine duty) and social ostracization by their colleagues for "letting them down". Many more were carried out by the Wehrmacht on their way through the Soviet Union in case you're wondering how the myth of the "innocent German soldiers" is holding up to scrutiny.
> Complacency and a lack of accountability in the moment is how these things happen, and turn good people to sloth.
True, the full extent of the Nazi mass murders was hardly fully transparent at the time. But none of this happened out of the blue and there very much was a clear and obvious escalation visible to those who cared to see it - an escalation also easily predictable at several points throughout its course, by the way, except people (including foreign governments and foreign news organizations) very much did not want to acknowledge it for a number of reason from wanting to avoid being seen as alarmist or leftist to actively supporting parts of it and just hoping that the escalation will stop at the point where the outcomes are most personally beneficial to themselves.
The problem wasn't a lack of accountability. The problem was people rationalizing their own actions by wanting to be the good guy in their personal narrative. The Reserve Police didn't volunteer to execute civilians because of a lack of oversight, it did so because not doing so when asked seemed unconscionable when the alternative would have meant reevaluating all the horrors they had participated in up to that point.
We literally have testimonies of Reserve Police officers who participated in the killings saying they did nothing wrong and actually were the real victims for being put in such an uncomfortable position of having to carry out these killings - or in one case an officer stating that he had asked his colleagues to specifically let him kill the children as long as their mothers are killed first because then he could see it as an act of mercy to kill the orphaned children.
Hierarchical institutions are designed to create a culture of obedience. Obedience is how these things happen, not complacence or lack of accountability.
[0]: https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/at-the-kil...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_T4
[2]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1071011/holocaust-nazi-p...
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_Police_Battalion_101
If the "unhinged conspiracy theories" turn out to be at least partially true, I'm sure we'll find out it's happening regularly, but only started within the last few weeks. This could easily be the first of the "we would have seen it" cases, not some unexplainable solitary incident.
> the known facts don't match a government disappearing program as well as they match other possible explanations.
Maybe? The known facts about the way he was removed from his university job and web presence with absolutely no explanation and being referred to the FBI when asked for reasons arguably matches better with a government disappearing program then any of the other possible explanations offered around.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43528036
As with everything, this is pure speculation, merely put forward as a possible explanation that accounts for all known facts. I've yet to see any other explanation account for the sequence and timeline.
https://www.dailydot.com/debug/furry-hackers-fbi-raided/
Once is happenstance, Twice is a coincidence. But I'm way more suspicious of coincidences than I was even just a few months back.
* The target was committing crimes which were documented prior to the raid.
* The target was able to and chose to reach friends and tell them what happened.
* The target went nonresponsive after informing their friends of what happened.
* The friends allege that the location was raided but don't even imply that the leader is in federal custody.
* The leader is pseudonymous, so we fully expect that if they decide to go offline and stop using that handle that they will disappear. That's not the same thing as a person with a stable real-world identity vanishing.
Three times is enemy action
Can you name any cases in recent history where someone was "disappeared" or similar by the government (the only part of this we can objectively prove afaik) and then no evidence or other proof of the person's wrongdoing ever came about, and people just forgot about it?
I could be mistaken (and please correct me if I'm wrong) but I really don't think this is a thing that happens in modern times.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/most-guantanamo-detainees-are-...
Anyone taken prisoner must be given an opportunity to be heard, to be able to give evidence that they aren't the right guy.
(To be clear, there's no indication the subjects of this story have been so detained)
I am not saying there is a conspiracy going on, simply pointing out a case that appears to have been forgotten and perpetrated by the 1.0 version of the current administration.
https://www.npr.org/2020/07/17/892277592/federal-officers-us...
Of course there are people that nobody looks for
But everyone that has inquired so far has been able to figure out location
Given the ambiguous chronology here, it seems like this professor dipped out in advance and the FBI freaked out later. So he wouldn’t be in a system if that were the case
But of course it could be FISA court related
I find this kind of offensive and dismissive.
1, I don't see why stay calm is so appropriate. It's always more effective to persue any aim thoughtfully rather than thoughtlessly of course, but that's just "all else being equal" and not all else is equal. Another truth is the the greater the injury the greater the reaction is still valid, defensible, appropriate, etc.
2, calmness is pretty orthogonal to assessment. You can be perfectly calm while judging extrajudicial actions of ICE and others as utterly outlandish and intolerable.
3, How calm are the ICE agents when they show up and you try to decline their offer? Why aren't they required to "let's just calm down and talk this out and see if we can resolve this with civility..."?
And as long as we're presuming to correct each others reading comprehension, this comment was in fact in response to a comment about staying calm in the face of ICE actions.
From what I've seen, it mainly comes to public attention through family, or in a few cases, bystanders recording videos of the incident. It seems like families ask the authorities where their loved ones have gone and they don't get answers. There have been reports of people only knowing based on press photos of people sent to Guantanamo or El Salvador.
If someone doesn't have a lot of local family it seems easy for it not to be reported anywhere.
If this was simply a missing person case, wouldn't the local police be involved instead of the FBI? If it's still in the FBI's jurisdiction (odd), wouldn't they have something to say instead of nothing?
In this case, this was a professor working on cryptography stuff, which if you will recall was infamously treated as munitions by the US govt for a long time. And he is likely either a naturalized citizen or greencard holder who was originally from China, so there's both an international and potentially geopolitical aspect to it. I suspect that if the local police were involved, they very quickly handed that off to the FBI. There aren't many police forces in the US equipped to deal with that nexus of factors.
They used to have a Github.[3] But now it says "No public repositories".
Here's their NSF funding.[4][5] About US$3 million. Xiaogang (Cliff) Wang is listed as the principal investigator.
[1] http://nsf-cdcc.org/principle-investigators/
[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20250120221302/https://nsf-cdcc....
[3] https://github.com/CDCC-Project
[4] https://www.nsf.gov/news/nsf-announces-awards-advance-cybers...
[5] https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=2207231&His...
No, you are misreading the award abstract. Cliff Wang is the program manager at NSF who is the point of contact for the investigators.
Was NSF funding for the project cancelled?
(*) Albeit with full legal work authorization.
We don't know the identities of, or even how many people have been extrajudicially rendered to the Salvadoran prison. The administration claims they're not citizens, but how would we know?
To be clear, ICE does not require “judicial action” to remove aliens so using the phrase “extrajudicial action” makes no sense. See: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/expedite...
Note that even when expedited removal does not apply, deportation is handled by immigration courts which aren’t really courts at all, but instead Article I tribunals within the executive branch. And many decisions of these immigration “courts” aren’t appealable to the real judicial branch.
…
> when expedited removal does not apply, deportation is handled by immigration courts
And how many of these recent cases have gone before an immigration court?
Are immigrants entitled to any form of due process?
Should they be, based on your personal principles?
Immigrants are entitled to “due process”—but “due process” doesn’t mean “judicial process.” Due process is a flexible concept that depends on the nature of the legal right being asserted. Non-citizens have no constitutional right to be in the U.S. So in my view the only constitutionally required “process” is to verify whether someone is a citizen or not. And I think that can be done adequately within the executive branch.
Why were immigration courts created in the first place?
You know only about cases that journalists follow. If there is a case journalists do not follow, there is no way for you to know about it.
The government is blowing off judicial orders. Thats a crime. One you start down that path, you tend to keep going.
So whether or not it does matter if the facts don't line up with the speculation, it should matter.
Notably, "observed fact" is an oxymoron. You mean observation of something you then produce a statement to lossily refer to. Especially if the "fact" is bound to floating signifiers.
Most of the terms of the alleged "facts" are floating signifiers. Good luck.
You'll find a lot more success appealing directly to peoples' emotions surrounding materially clear situations. Eg it's obvious ripping contributing members of society out of their homes and expelling them from the country is bad for us. But it's the validation of peoples' immaterial fantasies of being raped by immigrants that sustains this material violence. Leaning into analysis of floating signifiers just enables this societal dysfunction.
Facts are useful, but only if they're actually factual. You haven't grounded any of your factual assertions in material analysis. Any factual analysis of "disappearing" is impossible as this inherently relies on your expectations of the potential behavior of the government when the government never attempted to provide a material basis for the justification of violence to begin with.
That is, whether or not you consider "disappearing" to be a valid concept very much relies on whether or not you thought the government attempted to treat people in good faith to begin with. I personally think you're a moron if you trust the state to do anything but look after itself.
Not that we know about yet. Someone's got to be the first of that sort of government action to be discovered and come to the notice of more than just their friends and family, and it's highly unlikely to be discovered the very first time it happened.
I'm reasonably confident that if this news manages to get covered widely enough. there's going to be a bunch of "me too" reports of coworkers or family that have disappeared under similar circumstances in the last 3 or 4 weeks. I'll be curious to see what other nationalities and professions show up in those reports.
If you know where someone is being held (like Louisiana, for example) they weren't 'disappeared'.
> For the purposes of this Convention, "enforced disappearance" is considered to be the arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person, which place such a person outside the protection of the law.
Arresting Mahmoud Khalil and Rümeysa Öztürk is a violation of their first amendment rights, no one in the government has acknowledged this. In addition, moving people to another state in opposition to a judges orders because the judge in Louisiana is favorable to your cause is an attempt to place someone outside of the protection of the law.
Khalil was also denied his right to a phone call or legal council for (as far as I can tell) 4 days.
But also, the government is unambiguously disappearing people
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-administration-ignored-or...
And can I add, trusting the government to tell you where the person they just kidnapped is, is a pretty naive way of looking at things. They're violating our first amendment rights and kidnapping people off the street while disguising their identities and refusing to identify themselves when asked directly. What happens if they also refused to tell you where they disappeared people to?
> without a doubt
With HEAVY doubt, lol. At some point redefining buzzwords to engage in political hyperbole goes further than being intellectually dishonest and presses against the rules of this site.
From recent CNN publication on the matter. At this stage I have to assume you are arguing in bad faith / shilling for a fascist government. I can only hope you're being paid to do something this debased.
There are multiple news stories of them deporting US citizens and legal residents. Here's one[0].
If citizens don't have due process, then nobody does. All it takes is the government to declare you a non-citizen; there will be no due process for you to prove otherwise.
[0]: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/deported-family-us-citiz...
Their lawyer isn't claiming citizenship or residency, but poor treatment and asking for humanitarian release back into the US to get medical care of their citizen children.
I agree it is a pretty fucked up situation, but it doesn't support what you quoted